A stone age, exclusive of metals, common to the whole world and to
all mankind, is therefore an untenable hypothesis according to the
testimony of history. If it existed anywhere it must have been only
partially, locally, and contemporaneously with this traditional
knowledge of metals, which seems to be historically proved.[242] I
may at least be permitted to believe in the accuracy of Professor
Rawlinson's conclusions, and to regard them as the verdict of
history: and if the historical arguments so pronounce, why should the
geological or palaeontological argument override it? Is not history
supreme on its own ground--and if Scripture is always found in perfect
consistency with history, is it not as much as in strictness we should
have a right to expect? "Tradidit mundum disputationi eorum" (Eccles.
iii. 11).