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 sense in which 

 we use the terra ? 



The result of our inquiry is, that the geology 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 borrowed from, 

 or possessed by any other 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 and 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 sntne order as that which has 

 been deduced from geological consideration." 



Before we proceed to that detail and comparison of particulars 

 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 Cahnet may be maintained by very extensive 

 and highly satisfactory internal evidence, that Moses, in the book of Genesis, has 

 transmitted to us the successive writings of the earlier Patriarchs just as the Prophets, 

 who succeeded him, have transmitted to us that book and his own writings. We 

 believe, likewise, with Bishop Gleig, that the opinion generally 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 Noah. 



Sir William Jones when he hazarded the conjecture, or rather opinion, that the 

 language of Noah is probably entirely lost, must have quite overlooked the internal 

 evidences, that the original language of Genesis can be no other than the language 

 of both Noah and Adam. But these questions are too important and extensive to be 

 more than thus briefly alluded to in a note. 



