512 
Mr. Row is not able to tell us what is now the orthodox geological theory of 
the creation or constitution of this world, nor is he able even to tell us that 
there is any extant theory that even professes to account for the creation or 
constitution of the world, since the recent geological theories were literally 
pulled to pieces. The great geological theory boasted of in Goodwin’s essay 
on the Mosaic cosmogony in Essays and Reviews , was the nebular theory of 
Laplace. According to that theory, the nebular gas was cooled down into 
granite, which was the solid foundation on which all the sedimentary strata 
were deposited. That theory was wretched enough as it stood, for they never 
told us where the matter for such deposits came from ; but it has now been 
discovered that the granite itself is a transformed sedimentary rock; and (as I 
stated in my reply to Professor Huxley) the geologists have as yet invented 
no new foundation, even as a theory, on which they could lay down their 
sedimentary deposits. They want a beginning. Perhaps Mr. Row can give 
us some theory which will supply one 
Mr. Row. — I did not lay down any theory whatever. 
Mr. Reddie. — Of course not ; and all these vague arguments from geology,- — 
all these “ bogie ” theories of a gaseous world, must go for nothing. If 
Mr. Row wants us to give up the definite account of creation which we have 
in Genesis, on account of geology, he must surely say what theory geology 
has to supply us with in its place, and whether it is true or not. I put out 
this challenge in Scientia Scientiarum at the starting of this Institute, and 
not a single geologist has ever answered it. Mr. Row will not answer it : — 
he does not really know what to say. (Laughter.) It would therefore be 
much better to get rid of these general assertions that geology and theology 
contradict each other. — I also find' that Mr. Row has several times in his 
paper read to-night contradicted himself — on the question of the infinite 
especially ; but the most able and clear remarks of Dr. Rigg must have 
satisfied you all on that subject. One point in the paper which I should 
like to notice has not been touched upon at all previously, and that is with 
reference to the origin of evil. Mr. Row says : — 
“ If we assume that God could have prevented it, and has not, we assign 
imperfection to His moral attributes ; if, that He was unable to prevent it, 
we limit either His power or His wisdom.” 
I am glad to find a kind of contradiction to this in another passage of the 
paper, where he says that these deductions must only be the result of our 
own ignorance. But suppose we say that God could have prevented evil, 
and would not, because there was some higher reason for permitting it ; and 
you get rid of the difficulty altogether. It is to be regretted that this and 
one or two other points have been introduced into the paper unnecessarily, 
and not reasoned out ; for vague remarks on such subjects are to be depre- 
cated. We have plenty of opportunity to discuss such questions ; and if 
Mr. Row will give us a paper on the origin of evil, and take either side, 
and reason it out, I shall be very glad. But I object to things of great 
importance being dealt with, as by a side wind, in this way. It is not satis- 
