ia) 
On the Cosmogony of Moses. 259 
that those nations who preserved the tradition of the Cosmogony, 
the Hindoos for example, added so many fictitious cireum- 
stances to it, that in the character which it assumes in their 
hands it may well be contrasted with that simple narrative of 
events which we find in the beginning of Genesis. 
Neither is the hypothesis, that the early parts of this book are 
a compilation—incompatible with the opinion that Moses was 
an inspired writer ; unless it be proved that all inspired persons 
have possessed the attribute of omniscience, which I am not 
disposed to concede asa self-evident truth, If, as Mr. F, E——s 
maintains, the supposition that Moses had recourse to previously 
existing documents implies the want of inspiration, | would beg 
to ask whether St. Matthew and St. Luke were in want of in- 
spiration when they had recourse to previously existing docu- 
ments in compiling their genealogies? Or, if they wrote from 
immediate revelation, how happened it that one of them fol- 
lowed the Hebrew text, and the other theSeptuagint translation ? 
It is absurd to hold any argument on the extent of endowments 
concerning the nature and limitations of which we are wholly 
ignorant; but the example above cited is sufficient to prove that 
it is not beneath the dignity of an inspired writer to avail him- 
self of historical documents where any such exist. Michaelis 
has fully proved that Moses framed his code of laws by combi- 
ning the ancient usages of the nomadic Hebrews with the insti- 
tutions of the agricultural Egyptians. Surely then we may ven- 
ture to conjecture that he adupted into his annals the most au- 
thentic documents that existed concerning the history of the 
world. But the account of the Cosmogony must have heen at_ 
first derived from a particular revelation, and therefore it is just 
as easy to suppose that it was revealed to Moses as to Enoch 
or Noah. I allow the force of this argument, and should ac- 
quiesce in the conclusion drawn from it, if there were not facts 
which appear to prove that the document in question is really’ 
more ancient than the age of Moses. 
Notwithstanding Mr. F. E s’s objections, it is still manifest 
that the Cosmogony of Menu bears a remarkable analogy to that 
of Moses. In the former it is said that at the close or termi- 
nation of each night a-reiterated act of creation took place. 
How does this differ essentially from the force of the phrases 
“<The evening had come and the morning had come-—one day— 
when God said, Let there be a firmament,” &c.? This is nota 
day included by its natural limits, otherwise it would have been 
_ said the morning and evening. he expressions are equivalent 
to these: After the close of one day, and when the dawning of 
another had appeared, the act of creation was renewed. Twi- 
light is the word that occurs in the translation of Menu. We 
R 2 are 
