348 On the Cosmogony of Moses. 
endeavour to atone for the omission by remarking, that if he 
rest the metaphorical sense of the word day on their authority, 
he must also on the same authority admit a figurative sense of 
the whole first chapter of Genesis; for he says that Josephus and 
Philo “expressly affirm that the account of the six days work 
is metaphorical.” Now, that the simple relation of the ereation 
given by Moses, or what Dr. Prichard terms the “ Exordium of 
the Hebrew Scriptures,” would be rendered more “ capable of a 
rational and philosophical interpretation,” by being converted 
into an allegory, may perhaps not be quite obvious to ordinary 
understandings. | 
I shall occupy but little more of your time. Dr. Prichard 
informs us that Moses did not write the ** Cosmogony with the 
Systema Nature before him,’”—that ‘the Hebrew language 
being very poor in terms of classification, a few leading objects 
in each class are mentioned; and we are left to understand that 
the analogous kinds were conjoined with those named.” On 
this account he very properly retains forest trees, shrubs, and li- 
chens in the third day’s creation, although in strictness none of 
them come under the description of * grass, seed-beuring herbs, 
or fruit-bearing trees.”” On the same principle, were there no 
particular end to answer’by the exclusion, it may be thought 
that zodphytes might be permitted to remain in the fifth day’s 
creation, being moving creatures that have life, although their 
motion does not precisely accord with the idea which, in opposi- 
tion to the received translation, Dr. Prichard thinks the Sep- 
tuagint and the original convey. Be this as it may, that the 
coincidences which he called upon us to admire were perfected 
by his placing orders of leings where Moses never placed them, 
remains incontrovertible. This liberty he seems to consider 
trifling: he has however gone still further. Even his own ver- 
sion of the 20th verse of the first chapter of Genesis does not 
exclude testacea from the fifth day’s creation; a considerable 
portion of the order being indisputably e1dued with the power 
of loco-motion. It follows, that what he calls the coincidences 
* between the Cosmogony and the epochs of nature” were ef- 
fected not simply by placing orders of animated beings where 
Moses had not placed them, but by Ais placing, at least, one or+ 
der in direct contradiction to the express authority of Moses. 
I am, sir, 
Your very obedient servant, 
Bath, May 9, 1816. F. E——s. 
LXX. Account 
