331 
ON THE PAST AND PRESENT RELA TIONS OF GEOLO- 
GICAL SCIENCE TO THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 
By the Bev. John Kirk, Professor of Practical Theology 
in the Evangelical Union Academy , Glasgow ; Author of 
The Age of JSIan Geologically considered in its hearing on 
the Truths of the Bible ,” fyc., 8fc. ; Memb. Viet. Inst. 
FT seems too like presumption for an “ outsider ” in 
1 . Geology to undertake such a subject as this. We are 
reminded of a young man who had been trained in the 
country as a Cartwright, and came to town seeking employ- 
ment as a joiner. He was asked if he had ever made a 
window, and replied that he had not, but that he had made a 
harrow, which he said “was very like it.” We fear that 
the present paper will be only too like the writers former 
iiairow, to pass well for the window which is required. It 
will lack symmetry, and its joints will admit, all too freely, 
the “cold winds of criticism.” And yet the glorious sun' 
whose radiance is truth, may condescend to shine through it. ' 
Geology is literally the “ word of the earth.” Not a word 
which the earth speaks, but the word which is spoken or 
written concerning the earth. 
A word is a symbol of thought. It is only in so far as 
geology expresses thought regarding the earth, that it is any- 
thing. It is not the structure of the globe itself— nor is it 
the absolute truth regarding that structure — neither is it the 
expression of that truth. It is only the expression of that 
imperfect thought by which the structure of the earth is re- 
presented in the minds _ of men. He who is aware of this, 
will guard against the idea that Geology is any part of that 
supreme knowledge to which all other thought must ultimately 
. When we take up Geological Science in this view, it lays 
itself out to us in three great divisions. There is that 
thought m which what are called the facts of the science are 
represented, then that representing the true inferences drawn 
from the comparison of these facts, and, last, the conjectural 
ideas that are allowed to represent themselves, but do not 
r ®P I ' eseu * , a y otlier reality. If we wish to illustrate the first 
ol these divisions of thought by an example, we may take up 
2 c 2 
