114 Remarks on Prof. Stuart^ s examination of Gen. 1. 



Art. XII. — Itemarhs on a " Critical examination of some passages 

 in Gen. i. ; with remarks on dijiculties that attend some of the 

 present modes of Geological reasoning. By M. Stuart, Prof 

 Sacred I^it. Theol. Sem. Andover." Biblical Repository and 

 Quarterly Observer for January, 1836. 



The subject of geology, in its relation to the Mosaic cosmogony, 

 has, within a few years, occasioned considerable discussion ; and the 

 geologists have been thought by some theologians, and by Prof. 

 Stuart, as it appears, am6ng others, to have advanced in their spec- 

 ulations quite beyond the limits of their own province. In the num- 

 ber of- the Biblical Repository and Quarterly Observer for January 

 of the present year, Prof. Stuart has in due form warned the geolo- 

 gists to abstain from their encroachments ; and given them very clear- 

 ly to understand, that he considers them mere intruders on Hebrew 

 ground. He announces the important truth, that " the digging of 

 rocks and the digging of Hebrew roots are not yet precisely the 

 same operation, and are not likely soon to be ;" and to give, as it would 

 seem, a practical demonstration of this proposition, has dug up, for 

 the edification of all concerned, a quantity by no means inconsidera- 

 ble of the roots in question. It is the object of the following remarks 

 to ascertain, as far as possible, the present state of the controversy 

 between the professor and the geologists ; or, in other words, wheth- 

 er the geologists have lost or gained by this new assault on their po- 

 sitions. This inquiry will be conducted with all possible respect for 

 Prof. Stuart ; but that freedom will be used with his reasoning, which 

 the subject requires, and which he, no doubt, would be among the 

 first to grant. 



The writer of these remarks, if he had any claims to be ranked 

 among geologists, might well be alarmed at the warning given by 

 Prof. Stuart to certain philosophers of this class, " to keep a good 

 look out how they meddle with Hebrew philology ;" but he has no 

 such claims. It ought likewise to be added, that as to Hebrew phi- 

 lology, he makes no pretensions to those high attainments, which 

 are so generally and so justly ascribed to Prof. Stuart. The ques- 

 tion then occurs, — if the writer is armed with no weapons, either 

 geological or philological, how he dares enter a field, in which he 

 will be exposed to such fearful odds ? Prof. Stuart shall himself fur- 

 nish the answer. He observes (p. 103) " that the Zo^'-ic of men. 



