On the Cosmogony of Moses. 433 
Philo. Yet as it has been my endeavour to show that every 
part of the first chapter of Genesis is more or less metaphorical, 
I do not perceive how the figurative sense imputed to the whole 
of it by those writers can be represented as wholly foreign to 
my purpose. At any rate it is quite “ obvious to ordinary un- 
derstandings,” that the opinions of two such writers as Josephus 
and Philo should be taken into the account by a critic who pre- 
tends to estimate the notions entertained by the Hebrew people, 
and to rest on them the chief stress of his argument. 
I shall not enter further into the inquiry what place corals 
and bivalves hold in the scale of creation, whether they are, as 
FE s declares, locomotive animals, or approach to the cha- 
racter of vegetables. The question has been decided in my fa- 
vour by a third person unprejudiced in behalf of either party, 
who has shown himself to be perfectly well informed respecting 
the points in controversy. In fact, it is impossible that any 
thing can be said more clear and satisfactory than the remarks 
of Mr. Horn in the 341st page of your last number. 
I must now advert to the strictures of Mr. Horn upon some 
parts of my last paper; and I shall be brief, as I do not feel 
myself particularly interested in the question which they involve, 
Before Mr. Horn passes a peremptory sentence upon the opi- 
nions of Michaelis, I wish he would take the trouble to consider 
and refute the arguments of that profoundly learned writer, and 
to furnish some other explanation of the facts from which his 
conclusions seem to follow as fair inferences. I confess that I 
have been accustomed to consider the opinions of Michaelis as 
indisputable ; but if Mr. Horn can enable me to think otherwise, 
I shall become a willing convert to his doctrine. When Mr. H. 
has vanquished the German professor, he may find some amuse- 
ment in disposing of our obstinate countryman Dr. Middleton, 
who has displayed profound erudition and a most vigorous in- 
tellect in defence of similar opinions. For the present, I hope 
to be excused if I understand the texts which Mr. H. has cited, 
in a more limited sense than that which he has affixed to them. 
I beg however to assure him, that I have no design to insinuate 
that Moses borrowed his account of the creation from the Egyp- 
tians. [doubtnot that the primitive traditions were preserved 
in greater purity by the Hebrews than by any other nation of 
antiquity ;—neither do I intend to impute to the whole Hebrew 
nation so superstitious a notion as anthropomorpbism. The 
vulgar were anthropomorphites, as probably are many ignorant 
ersons in every country: but it cannot be doubted that well- 
informed and philosophical men interpreted the passages pointed 
out by Mr. Horn in a figurative manner; and it was for the sake 
of drawing this distinction, and availing myself of the example 
» Vol. 47. No. 218. June 1816. Ee afforded 
