380 
fallacies lie mig ht, have exposed. We have heard much about the difficulties 
of Revelation in regard to the progress of physical science, and particularly 
that of Geology. Professor Kirk has given us a very fair exposition of the 
difficulties of Geology itself, in its claim to be even an approximation to an 
exact science. When I have been pressed to reconcile Geology with Reve- 
lation I have always said, Let us wait till Geology becomes established as a 
sound science ; then, and not till then, need the theologian care to seek to 
reconcile the Bible with Geology. While the Professor was reading his paper, 
I felt what a vast field of facts he had also left untouched, simply because he 
had so recently brought them before the world in his admirable little book, 
Th e Age of Man , geologically considered in its bearing on the Truths of the 
Bible * The theory of man’s great antiquity as an inhabitant of the earth, 
so well received in high geological quarters, and already crumbling so rapidly 
before the accumulation of new facts, has been so completely refuted in that 
work, that the Professor seems altogether to have passed the subject by in his 
paper. In saying all this, I cast no reflection on the pursuit of the real science 
of Geology. What we do protest most earnestly against is the present habit o 
neglecting the sound method of Baconian induction,— not only m the science of 
Geology, but in so many other sciences,— and attempting, by vague hypotheses, 
hastily budt on a few facts, to get a short cut to truth, instead of pursuing the 
toilsome wearying work of collating and arranging facts irrespective of 
theory. When men had few facts to reason upon, such a process was 
excusable — now it is utterly inexcusable. Great as may be the mass of facts 
known to modern geologists, it sinks into insignificance, compared with what 
must be accumulated before we can pretend to say we have gathered together 
the materials necessary to construct a true science of Geology. Not only, 
as Professor Kirk has pointed out, do we only know a mere superficial 
scraping as it were of the structure of the globe, but how little do we know 
even of that ! How small a portion of the earth’s surface has been geologi- 
cally mapped, -and even of that how little has been accurately done, -is 
admitted by our best geologists, who consider the geological map of our 
own country as falling far behind the present requirements of the science. 
When we reflect upon the grand and bold theories founded on knowledge 
so very superficial in respect to that which is necessary to found the science, 
we cannot be surprised that they should so rapidly fall into oblivion. Not 
only are the data wanting to construct Geology as a science, but we have 
to contend also with the difficulties of the problems it presents for solu- 
tion Its requirements are almost superhuman. To measure the chronology 
of given strata demands the skill of a profound mineralogist, and^how 
many of these can we find among the ranks of the geologists ? But to be 
a good mineralogist, implies also a considerable knowledge of chemistry and 
crystallography. You must have all this knowledge before you can interpret 
the nature of the material whose age you wish to determine. And even this 
will not carry you far. You must add to it a knowledge of the whole range o 
* Jackson, Walford, and Hodder, 27, Paternoster Row, London. 
