consistent with the Mosaic History. 29 
ter of Genesis; or, is it possible that we could adopt any conjecture 
more absurd, and this, too, in utter destitution of all proof that the 
Egyptians possessed any knowledge of geology in the s sense in which 
we use the term? 
The result of our inquiry is, that the poole of Moses has come 
down to us out of a period of remote antiquity before the light of 
human science arose; for, to suppose that it was borrow 
or possessed by any oiler people than the remarkable race to which 
Moses himself belonged, involves us on all hands in the most inex- 
tricable difficulties and palpable absurdities.* Of that race, it has 
been long” since justly remarked, that while in religion they .were 
men, in human learning and science they were children; and if we 
find in their records any perfect system of an extensive nnd difficult 
science, we know they have not obtained it by the regular processes of 
observation and induction, which, in the hands of European philoso- 
phers, have led to a high degree of perfection in many sciences. 
Let us now, then inquire into the true value and necessary result 
of Baron Cuvier’s statement, “ that the cosmogony of Moses assigns 
to the epochs of creation precisely the same order as that which has 
been deduced from geological consideration.” 
Before we proceed to that detail and comparison of dhicsdtt 
which are necessary in the due prosecution of the inquiry, we purpose 
to shew that a right understanding of the terms employed by Moses 
will lead us to several more agreements between his statements and 
the results of the modern geology, than are indicated by our common 
English translation. This will lead us into a critical examination of 
several of these terms. We do not mean to hinge much of these 
criticisms on grammatical niceties, but to rest them chiefly on an ex- 
amination of other passages of Hebrew Scriptures, where the terms 
* We believe that the opinion of Calmet may be maintained by very extensive 
and highly aagatneatn ¥ toternal evidence, t that more in the of Genesis, has 
Patriarchs rats as the Prophets, 
who succeeded him, have transmitted to us that book and his own writi We 
believe, likewise, with Bishop Gleig, that the opinion ee entertained of the 
late invention of alphabetical writing, is no other than a vulgar error, and that such 
writing must have been practised before the flood of Ne oah 
Sir William Jones when he hazarded the conjecture, or renee opinion, that the 
language of Noah is probably entirely lost, must have quite overlooked the internal 
evidences, that the original language of Gencda eae be no other than @ the language 
of both Noah and Adam. Bat these se questions ar sive to be 
more thus briefly all a note - 
