83 
that geological time is capable of sustaining such a comparison, and when 
we consequently begin to speak of millions of ages as a mere atom in the- 
ocean of geological time we find ourselves confronted with another class of 
men, of equal authority with those to whom I have alluded, who say that 
such a way of putting the matter is open to question, and that a hundred 
thousand, or at most a couple of hundred thousand years afford ample time 
‘to account for all the phenomena we see around us, or which the geologist 
finds presented to him, when he digs, tunnels, or mines into what, as a 
conventional term, is called “the crust of the earth.” But we are also 
brought face to face with another class of authorities who tell us that 
hundreds of thousands of years are altogether out of the question, and that 
the time necessary for the production of all these phenomena can be 
comprised in a period of some thirty, forty, or fifty thousand years. There 
are also a few men of unquestionably high standing and whose ability is 
deserving of the highest appreciation—among whom I may mention Dr. 
Dawson, whose book on geolovy no one can read without acknowledging that 
it is written in a thorough spirit of geological research, and is based on a 
great amount of good reasoning—who say the Scriptural record will account 
for everything, so far as we have yet known it. Well, then, amid all these 
conflicting opinions how is it possible for us to arrive at anything like a 
generalisation with regard to this matter, such as we can unhesitatingly 
accept? The only answer I can give is that the case is hopeless. But 
do not let me convey to the minds of those present the impression that, 
therefore, geology is one of those studies which can be taken up without a 
feeling that there are grand truths, and grand generalisations, to be deduced 
from it, as to which we are all agreed. I feel that Mr. Mackintosh has 
given us a most interesting paper. One of what I think he considers 
his strong points is this: Referring to the case of a boulder found 
in a certain position—it might be supposed that that boulder had 
been taken up by one of those huge masses of floating ice, of which he 
speaks, and that, when the temperature was heightened and the seas melted, 
the boulder fell to the bed of the ocean. There, of course, the boulder 
remained, and then came a period of elevation, during which the bed of 
the sea was thrown up, and the boulder, being on the surface, became 
exposed to the action of rain—Mr. Mackintosh says the rain beats down 
on the boulder, and drops of water are driven off in a shower of spray, 
which cuts a channel round the boulder; and he is inclined to think 
hat the time these channels take to form is represented by one inch of 
depth to a. period of one thousand years. This is a very ingenious idea 3. 
but, to my mind, it simply amounts to this—that the next observer may say 
he thinks that an inch of excavation represents ten thousand years, while 
another may say that an inch represents twenty thousand years, and another 
may assign a longer period. I think Mr. Mackintosh has overlooked one 
thing, namely: Supposing the channel which is found surrounding the 
boulder has been cut out by the spray that has fallen from the boulder, when 
the first gutter begins to be formed the water falling from the boulder 
