1

of), that they ever pretended to dispute with Thales the honour of having first calculated an Eclipse of the Sun. From this fact it appears to me, that what science the Egyptians had in the days of Pythagoras, they inherited as traditional maxims, handed down from their remote ancestors, of which they neither questioned the truth, nor enquired into the reasons. This

seems to be farther evident, from the mode of teaching adopted by Pythagoras himself, which was dogmatical, and not systematical; and of this we need no better proof, than that his doctrine of the Solar system was totally neglected by the Greeks, as soon as they began to frame hypotheses, and to speculate in philosophy. But the question returns:-By whom were the Egyp tians taught the Astronomical maxim of the planets revolving round the sun? It must have been some person of the highest authority, since he gave credit to a maxim apparently contrary to the evidence of sense, and yet, as far as we know, assigned no mathematical or philosophical reason for his opinion. I need not tell

you, that the Egyptians attributed the

invention of all

< arts and sciences to their first Thoth. But who was he? They tell us that he was the minister of Osiris. But of Osiris we know as little as of Thoth; and it seems altogether inconceivable that any Minister of State, not inspired with heavenly wisdom, should have been able to make the learned of a whole nation adopt such a < theory as that of the diurnal and annual motions of the Earth, without assigning any reasons for that theory. Yet if I could see any good evidence in scripture, that the solar system was understood by the ancient Hebrews, the story of Thoth being the minister of Osiris would • lead

.

lead me very forcibly to attribute the origin of Egyptian science to Joseph, who was certainly able, without the parade of analogical reasoning, to give credit to any thing which he might advance as truth. This hypothesis, which would make Joseph the first Thoth, seems to receive some countenance from what Manetho tells

us of the loss and revival of Egyptian learning. According to him, the written monuments of the first • Thoth were lost or neglected in certain civil revolutions, ⚫ or natural calamities which befell the kingdom of Egypt;-that after many ages, part of them were recovered by an ingenious interpretation of the symbols which he had inscribed upon ancient columns, and that the man who made this interpretation was the second Thoth, or Hermes Trismegistus. But thrice illustrious' as this interpreter must be, it is at least possible, that he was much inferior to the former Hermes or Thoth, and that he was able to read his writings, and ⚫ transcribe his conclusions, without knowing any thing of the principles that led to these conclusions. If there be evidence in scripture, which, I confess, I do not see, that the revolution of the planets round the sun was known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, &c. nothing can be more natural, than to suppose that this knowledge would be communicated by them to the Egyptian priesthood, that Moses might learn this from the Egyptian priest whose daughter he married, and that, though the doctrine might be retained, the evidence which he gave of its truth, would be lost among an idolatrous and corrupted people, long before the æra of Pythagoras, or even of Manetho's Hermes Trismegistus. Now, my dear Sir, what I beg of you,

' is, to tell me what view the beginning of the Book of • Genesis gives of the solar system to a real critic in the • Hebrew language? I am by no means such a critic,

6

• will

go to the

nor have I read any criticism, which, upon this subject, gives me sufficient evidence that the ancient He brews had any notion of the motions of the earth. But my knowledge of the sacred language is scanty, and . yours is the reverse; and from you I hope for that satisfaction in a few sentences, which hitherto I have not found in many volumes. As the article Philosophy press in the course of four or five weeks, I shall expect a return to this letter as soon as you can conveniently give it me. I had mentioned to Dr Doig the objections which you urge against Cadmus' Egyptian origin, but was satisfied that in a short article like' ours, we could not easily give him another origin. My learned friend does not think that he was an Egyptian; but as Strabo and Diodorus Siculus both affirm that he was, and that he travelled first from Egypt into Phonicia, and then into Greece, we could not call in question such authorities, without assigning reasons for so C doing; and these would have introduced much etymological disquisition, which would have rendered the article dry and prolix. As it is of little importance in what country Cadmus was born, the Doctor, though he delights in etymology, was disposed to admit the testimony of the two ancients, rather than introduce such a discussion. His own opinion is a very singular one, which however he supports with great ingenuity; but the limits of my paper tell me, that I must delay my account of it to a future letter. In the article Philology, you will find an able account of the priority of the He• brew

.

M

<

brew to all other languages, and a no less able proof of the novelty of the Masoretic points. The most ingenious section, however, is that which treats of the Greek language, which he traces up to a Hebrew original.’

To what is stated in the foregoing letter, Dr Gleig received from Mr Skinner the following answer, dated April 16th, 1794:- Your last came to hand in course, and I am obliged to you for starting some new amusement to me, at the same time that I would wish you not to entertain too sanguine hopes of satisfaction, from C any assistance I can give in the way of an answer to your present question. Your compliment is too high, in supposing me such an adept in the sacred language, as might be inferred from your applying to me on this 'occasion. I have indeed been poring into it almost fifty years, but I am far from thinking that my attainments in it, however satisfying to myself, should or will be satisfying to others. The point, which you now propose, is no doubt, as you call it, a puzzling one." But whether that be owing to intrinsic difficulty, or extrinsic prepossession, is a question. You know, there has long prevailed an opinion that the sacred scriptures were not designed to teach philosophy, and what a handle has been made of this popular conceit to disparage Revelation. Under the weight therefore of this prejudice, it will not be easy to produce evidence' of such clear and convincing force, as modern philosophy requires, although from analogical reasoning' it might be supposed, if not concluded, that the original construction and disposition of the mundane system' was above the reach of human discovery, and could be no• tified

.

.

i

tified only by the great Constructor and Disposer of it: It may therefore be justly inferred, that, if the Pythagorean or Copernican hypothesis be the true one, it must have been early known, and known too by means of Revelation, whether by, or prior to Moses. You ask, "What view the beginning of the Book of Genesis gives "of the solar system to a real critic in the Hebrew language ?' I do not pretend to be such a critic, but I ⚫ cannot help thinking, that your way of stating the question is rather partial and limited. The first chapter of Genesis is certainly a system of philosophy, intended, ' as I take it, to settle the great fundamental point, which began early to be perverted, and continued to suffer under that perversion, as far down as the famed æra of philosophic illumination among the Grecians, if what ' is said be true, that Anaxagoras, the third in succession from Thales, was the first of the Ionic school who brought a creating, or at least a disposing ves into the system. It appears from the writings of Moses, that in his time, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, the host of heaven, as he calls them, were the prevailing objects of worship among the idolatrous nations; not as substitutes only, but as principals, especially the sun, who, as universal Lord, is generally thought to have been pointed to under the subsequent titles of Baal, Chemosh, Moloch, &c. so current in the sacred Books. To combat this fatal error, so hurtful both to theology and philosophy, would seem to have been the design of the first chapter of Genesis, where that most ancient of all writers, divines, philosophers, or historians, clearly, and of set purpose, decides this essential point, by attributing the origin of these heathen deities, whom he

6