248 
important point which is assumed in the paper, in the course of the argument 
in favour ot divine action, does not depend upon that. I i have undemto d 
Mr Pattison rightly, he rather holds to the old and exploded fused gramte 
S He quoted Cotta, who talks of “the first solidification of the ear hs 
crust ” and with regard to the quotation from Professor Huxley as to Kants, 
or what is more commonly called Laplace’s, nebular theory, 
patently received, or to some extent adopted, by Mr. PatLson we all 
that there is no proof whatever of that theory. It is given up by Lyell, who 
l”test authority, and you will all remember that Professor KrA read 
a valuable paper on “The Past and Present Relations of Geolo §“ a ^ ' 
to the Sacred Scriptures ” before this Institute, in which he quoted from * . 
Geikie and the Geological Magazine for 1866- one well known i • 
tison-and conclusively showed that the crystalline rocks, 
been formed by the cooling of the nebular world, are themselves sediment, y 
rocks. Here is one passage from Mr. Kirk’s paper 
„ < * f w . „ avs Mr Geikie, ‘ I am therefore forced to conclude that the 
elusion as to sandstone passing _ P „ ^ p. ye u ga y S : ‘ It would 
solidated from a state of fusion. ( p ’ , ^ granite must be 
granite must be given up. 5 
Recollect that Professor Kirk in his paper gives us a very fair resumi of 
thf subject without committing himself or us to anything like a new theory 
I do not believe we have a new theory, for I have not yet got 
the subiect although we have with us an eminent geologist like Mr. Pattison, 
“fwittn a very able pamphlet in reply to Sir Charles Lyell, and with 
a great deal of which I agree. But still, in the present state of geology, it 
would be a great pity for any one to suppose that any argument in favour of 
divine action rests ^ on the theory that Mr. Pattison holds to, he ^bemg mom 
steadfast in his devotion to it than Huxley and Hamilton and other p 
sidents of the Geological Society, who have recen ly given i t up. But 
want to say one or two words with reference to certain parts of this paper 
which have not been quite plainly expressed. I have had some difficul y 
finding Mr. Pattison’s exact view as to the umformitanan theory , 
tain that the uniform action of certain forces, once created, coul go 
steadily from the first without supposing that it took the very long p ° 
time which Mr. Pattison and Mr. Geikie seem to think it did learn* 
the fact would be precisely that which would reconcile the theory o 
cataclysms and the theory of uniformitanamsm together. We kn J 
well that if you bend a bow or any elastic substance, you may g 
