On the Cosmogony of Moses. 347 
for what Dr. Prichard seems to consider a former neglect of it. 
He speaks, too, of my objections against the remarkable analogy 
that the Cosmogony of Menu bears to that of Moses*.” I am 
unconscious of having given any opinion respecting this ana- 
logy, though I indicated the legitimate consequence of sup- 
posing the Mosaic account not an immediate revelation to Moses, 
but a tradition adopted by hin. Dr. Prichard does not deem 
it expedient directly to attack the position from which that con- 
sequence flowed, but asks ‘‘ whether St. Matthew and St, Luke 
were in want of inspiration when they had recourse to pre- 
viously existing documents in compiling their genealogies ?”” 
It might have occurred to him, that inspiration would in that 
ease be superfluous. The knowledge of the genealogies was 
within the reach of uninspired persons, their. materials being 
recorded in sacred writ, while the successive events of the crea- 
tion could with certainty be known to no human being unless 
by immediate mspiration. The ingenious imagination of a sort 
of circuitous inspiration enabling its possessor to discriminate 
what had been already revealed, will scarcely bear a philosophic 
scrutiny: but were it even admissible, it would at least be ne- 
cessary to prove the previous existence of the supposed original 
revelation, somewhat less vaguely than by conjectures insufficient 
to ascertain the person favoured with it, or even to determine 
the period in which it was made. 
Dr. Prichard does not combat my application of his critical 
canon to the assumed metaphorical sense of day; but with re- 
ference to the disputed meaning of that.word asks, whether se- 
-veral expressions relating to God, such as ** God rested on the 
seventh day,” are to be understood literally or figuratively. It 
is obvious that such expressions may without incongruity of lan~ 
guage bear either a figurative or literal sense; and in fact the 
| one or the other has been given them, according to the more or 
less just notions entertained of the divinity. The case of the 
word day as employed in the six days creation is conspicuously 
different: if understood literally, the evening and morning con- 
nected with it have an assignable meaning ; if figuratively, they 
become, at least to me, unintelligible. It therefore does not 
follow, though the Hebrew people may be suspected of having 
understood some expressions literally which we are accustomed 
to understand figuratively, that Dr. Prichard is at liberty to run 
counter to their acceptation of all Hebrew expressions, in viola- 
tion of sense and congruity of language. As he expresses some 
surprise at my having left Philo and Josephus unnoticed, I shall 
* Phil. Mag. No. 216, p. 259. 
endeavour 
