[ 346 ..] 
LXIX. On the Cosmogony of Moses; in answer to Dr. 
Pricuarp. By F. E——s. 
To Mr. Tilloch. * 
Sir, — Ix your last number Dr. Prichard candidly acknow- 
ledges an immiaterial inadvertence, attempts to reconcile his 
contradictory statements, and makes some show of maintaining 
his former positions; but finally, under pretence of generously 
extricating his opponent from an imaginary difficulty, retreats 
by the dubious light of Geddes’s* critical torch, to a new cha-- 
teau en Espagne. As he intimates that this castle will be re- 
spected by ‘‘ unprejudiced persons,” 1 of course do not mean 
to ** attack” it. Onthe other parts of his communication I shall 
presume to offer a few obvious remarks. 
It is incidentally shown in my last paper, that his statements 
at different times do not: always accord with each other. To 
this something in the way of reply has been said: not however 
perceiving how it invalidates my stricture, I shall leave it un- 
touched, and content myself with pointing out more distinctly 
than before the contradictory passages. After noticing in his first 
letter the alleged extraordinary coincidence between the series 
of facts announced in the six days creation, and those inferred 
from geological phenomena, he remarks, that ‘¢ if this coinci- 
dence is surprising in itself, it appears the more so when we 
compare the Cosmogony of the Hebrews with the notions on 
this subject that prevailed among other nations of antiquity.” 
“* We find,” says he, ‘¢ invariably that all other speculations on 
this subject are founded on some fanciful analogy with natural 
processes that are daily observedy.” Could the most deter- 
mined adversary urge any thing more in direct contradiction to 
this than what is contained jn his succeeding letter? It is there 
either affirmed or shown that “ scarcely any thing is contained 
in the antediluvian history of Moses which may not also be found, 
though more or less embellished, i the records of other nations, 
particularly in those of the Hindoos”— that the Institutes of 
Menu begin with an account of the creation which bears a strong 
resemblance to that of Moses, though embellished or deformed 
with many wild conceits }”—and that, according to the informa- 
tion preserved in Suidas, the Etruscan Cosmogony bore a yet 
more striking analogy with that of the Hebrews §. 
This notice of the Etruscan Cosmogony will, I hope, atone 
* Whiston as a guide would have served equally well. 
t+ Phil. Mag, No. 210, p. 289. } Ibid. No, 214, p. 118. 
§ Ibid. No. 214, p. 114. 
for 
