[9] 
II. On the Cosmogony of Moses. By A CorresponpDENT. 
To Mr. Tilloch. 
Sir,—Like your correspondent Homo*, I have been unable 
to discover, among the merits of Cuvier’s Essay on the Theory’ 
of the Earth, that accordance with the Mosaic cosmogony which 
the preface of Professor Jameson had taught me to anticipate. 
I confess, too, that this accordauce has not been rendered much 
more perceptible to my understanding, either by Homo’s pro- 
posed reading of the beginning of Genesis, or by the subsequent 
observations of Dr. Prichard+, in support of the term day be- 
ing, in the Mosaic account, equivalent to an indefinite period. 
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth: 
and .the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was 
upon the face of the deep.” _ If it be supposed, with Homo, that 
this act of divine energy was an indefinite period. antecedent 
to what is called the six days’ creation, there will, as he ob- 
serves, be no scriptural objection to the adoption of the belief, 
that the earth may have “ thus existed’ the ‘ thousands of 
years that preceded the history of man.” Homo’s reading thus 
affords time for the deposition of the primitive rocks, as well as 
for whatever else may have taken place previous to the gathering 
together of the waters, and the appearance of the dry land on 
the third day; but there its explanatory power expires, leaving 
Cuvier’st “‘ thousands of animals that never .were contempo- 
raneous with man,” together with his various deluges, to be re- 
conciled to the Mosaic account by some other hypothesis. 
As what Homo calls Bishop Horsley’s hypothesis of a slower- 
revolution may by some be deemed sufficient for this purpose, 
I must beg leave to offer a few observations relative to it. In 
the preface already spoken of, Professor Jameson says, that 
“ there are indeed many physical considerations which render it 
probable that the motions cf the earth may have been slower 
during the time of its formation than after it was formed||, and 
consequently that the day, or period between morning and 
evening, may have then been indefinitely longer than it is at 
present.” From this passage there is the reference I have given 
in the margin, to Bishop Horsley’s Sermons, To them I turned, 
naturally expecting to find a development of the aunounced 
hypothesis; but_instead of the “‘ many physical considerations 
* Phil. Mag. No, 209. + Ib. No. 210. 
{ Cavier’s lssay, concluding period. || Vide Bishop Horsley’s Ser- 
mons, 2d vol. pages 245 and following. In the preface the reference is 
to “ p, 445 second edition,” uwing, I suppose, to a mistake, 
which 
