REV. PATON J. GLOAG,

AUTHOR OF A "TREATISE ON THE ASSURANCE OF SALVATION,"

T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON.
PHILADELPHIA: SMITH, ENGLISH, & CO.

MDCCCLIX.

"Let no man, upon a weak conceit, of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word or the book of God's works-divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficiency in both; only let them beware that they apply both to charity and not to arrogance,-to use and not to ostentation; and again that they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together."-BACON.

PREFACE.

LATE investigations in Geology, have, as is well known, been hastily imagined by some to lead to conclusions at variance with certain portions of the Biblical Narrative. Those who have endeavoured to establish the discrepancy between them, have, for the most part, been adequately informed neither in Geology nor in Theology, and have been equally rash in taking for granted their own conclusions in Geology, and their own interpretations of Scripture. Their arguments, on the other hand, have been very frequently met by many authors, some of whom have indeed displayed more zeal for religion than capacity for scientific study, but others have treated the subject with consummate knowledge alike of Geology and Religion. It seems only necessary to mention the late eloquent work of Hugh Miller, and more especially the "Geology and Scripture" of Dr. J. Pye Smith, to show how much genius and learning have been devoted to the cause of religion in reference to this subject. And indeed so many books have been written on the connexion between Geology and revealed Religion, that some apology seems necessary for

the work which the author now ventures to intrude on the public. All the works alluded to have been almost entirely confined to the consideration of the facts of Geology in their bearing on the Mosaic accounts of the creation and the deluge. But whilst the author has ventured to express his views on these subjects, he has thought that there are important bearings of Geology upon other branches of Theology, not yet sufficiently discussed, and that therefore there may be room for a work treating more generally of the relation of Geology to Theology His first design was to have written a series of 'Geological Lectures' on the plan of Dr. Chalmers' 'Astronomical Lectures;' but as the principles and fundamental facts of Geology are not so well known as those of Astronomy, and as many details and technical terms were unavoidable, he was induced to prefer the form of a treatise.

It will be seen from a perusal of the chapter on the 'Mosaic days' that the author has been unable to think the period arrived, when a satisfactory theory reconciling the Mosaic cosmogony with the facts of Geology, can be very confidently advanced. He believes that our knowledge of Geology, and particularly of what is called the drift period, is not sufficiently complete to admit of the enunciation of any such theory, except as an hypothesis not inconsistent with our present knowledge, but liable to be modified by subsequent observations and discoveries. He has found reason to dissent from several of the opinions advanced by Hugh Miller in his 'Testimony of the Rocks,' perhaps the

most eloquent, but by no means the most valuable work of that great man.

It was only after a very careful examination of the arguments on both sides of the question, that the author came to the conclusion that the deluge of Noah was limited in extent. That it was universal, as regards the human race, he firmly believes, as this is a fact asserted in Scripture, and supported by general tradition; but he sees no evidence for supposing that it extended to those portions of the earth uninhabited by man. The arguments, however, which go to prove that the deluge could only have been local, are not derived chiefly from the science of Geology; and at one time the author thought that in a work dealing with geological topics, this difficult question might with perfect propriety have been omitted; but as it has always been discussed in connexion with Geology, although in truth the connexion is slight, and not at all obvious, such an omission might have been regarded as a serious defect.