CONSISTENCY OF GEOLOGY WITH SACRED HISTORY. 465 



learned them in the most effectual way, not only in the cabinet, but 

 abroad on the face of nature, and in her deep recesses. They will 

 then be convinced that geology is not an enemy, but an ally of reveal- 

 ed religion ; that the subject is not to be mastered by mere criticism ; 

 that criticism must be applied to facts, as well as to words, and that 

 there is, at most, only an apparent incongruity — an incongruity which 

 vanishes before investigation. 



The mode in which the subject is now treated, or neglected, by 

 many theologians and critics, (not by all, for there are honorable ex- 

 ceptions,) is not safe, as regards its bearing on the minds of youth. 

 If they go forth into the world in the stiffness of the letter, and 

 without the knowledge or proper application of the facts, it is im- 

 possible that they should sustain themselves against those who, with 

 great knowledge, and no reverence, may too powerfully assail what 

 they cannot defend. In the pulpit, however, geology can be but 

 very imperfectly explained, even by him who understands it ; for it 

 is impossible that he should there, intelligibly and adequately ex- 

 hibit his proofs ; they rest on a multitude of facts unknown to a 

 common audience ; and they are too dependent on specimens, sec- 

 tions and other graphical illustrations, to be understood in such 

 circumstances, especially by those who have enjoyed no mental prep- 

 aration in kindred sciences, and in courses of inductive reasoning. 

 As the subject has no other connexion with our faith as Christians, 

 than so far as it affects the credibility of the early scripture history, it 

 is therefore wise, as to the literal sense of the days, not to disturb the 

 early and habitual impressions of the common people, or even of the 

 enlightened, who are ignorant of geology. Any discussions before 

 such audiences, and in such circumstances, will be misunderstood, or 

 not understood at all, and will only prejudice the reputation of the 

 speaker, without benefitting the hearer. 



This, however, does not excuse the theologian from being fully 

 prepared to meet the subject, in other places, and in situations, where 

 it will be forced upon his attention. It is a part of the panoply of 

 truths in which he should he fully clad, although he may rarely draw 

 his bow, and perhaps never let fly an arrow from his appropriate 

 watch tower. 



As the case now stands, with respect to most theologians in this 

 country, the geological arguments in support of the Mosaic history, 

 although powerful and convincing, are unknown and neglected, or 

 they are avoided ; and of course they can be, and they actually are, 

 by some few geologists, turned, with too much success, against the 



59 



