CONSISTENCY OF GEOLOGY WITH SACRED HISTORY. 463 



But if he discover proofs, and those too, generally admitted by well 

 instructed geologists, of both the stupendous events named above, or 

 of a succession and diversity of such events, sufficient, on the whole, 

 to mark the entire earth, by their appropriate effects ; if then he finds 

 a history of high antiquity, and generally revered wherever it is known, 

 describing such a state of things as the condition of the planet reveals, 

 what rule of science or of philosophy can debar him from bringing 

 the two into comparison, for mutual illustration, as is always done in 

 the case of other antiquities. Why should any one object to his apply- 

 ing the terms of the history, as he understands them, and then meas- 

 uring the phenomena by them, and them by the phenomena. If they 

 agree, surely, it is reasonable that conviction should receive augment- 

 ed strength in his mind. Should they, however, disagree, the phe- 

 nomena, if correctly observed and correctly reported, will still be true, 

 and the credit of the history will, of course, be impaired. Should, 

 moreover, the genuineness or authenticity of the history be disproved, 

 from other sources than the phenomena, the latter will still remain in 

 all the obstinacy of fact, which history may indeed illustrate, but can- 

 not, on the contrary, disprove. If the history, on the other hand, be 

 confirmed by the natural phenomena, it has then received the greatest 

 confirmation possible, and may well exult in so powerful an ally. 



Should it, in the case of the pentateuch, be proved even, that there 

 was never any such person as Moses, or that the books that pass 

 under his name were written by others, or that they are compila- 

 tions of ancient and vague traditions, or even of reputed or real fables, 

 this would not, in the least, affect the system of geological truth that 

 has been erected by an ample course of investigation and induction. 

 But, as long as the Mosaic history is admitted to be both genuine and 

 true, any geologist who receives the history in that character, may^ 

 with strict historical and philosophical propriety, illustrate the history 

 by geology, and compare geology with the history. 



This he will do merely on the ground of historical and geological 

 coincidence, and without drawing for the support of his scientific 

 views upon any portion of his moral feeling, towards a work which, 

 as an individual, he may revere as a communication from his Maker 

 for purposes far more important than the establishment of physical 

 truth. 



To personal imputations on his motives, his science or his skill, or on 

 those of eminent philosophers with whom he has the honor to think and 

 to act, while he leaves the case, with the grand inquest of the learned, 

 the candid and the wise, he will reply in no other manner than by ex- 



