CONSISTENCY OF GEOLOGY WITH SACRED HISTORY. 44 f 



and sublime theology. This latter he did not learn in Egypt, for it 

 was in the possession of his ancestors while they were yet inhabitants 

 of Canaan. 



Shall we, then, conjecture that Moses borrowed theology from the 

 Hebrews on the one hand, and geological science from the Egyptians 

 on the other, to compound out of them that brief, but unique and per- 

 fect system of both, which is presented to us in the first chapter 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 Egyp- 

 tians possessed any knowledge of geology in the sense in which we 

 use the term ? 



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 hu- 

 man science arose ; for, to suppose that it was borrowed from, or pos- 

 sessed by any other people than the remarkable race to which Moses 

 himself belonged, involves us on all hands in the most inextricable dif- 

 ficulties and palpable absurdities.* Of that race, it has been long 

 since justly remarked, that while in religion they were men, in hu- 

 man 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 observa- 

 tion and induction, which, in the hands of European philosophers, 

 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 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, 



* We believe that the opinion of Calmet 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 wri- 

 tings. We believe, likewise, with Bishop Gleig, that the opinion generally enter- 

 tained 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 inter- 

 nal evidences, that the original language of Genesis can be no ether than the lan- 

 guage of both Noah and Adam. But these questions are too important and .exten- 

 I sive to be more than thus briefly alluded to in a note. 



56 



