gentleman I have never seen in my life. I think the Professor has been admirably reported, though in brief; and I cannot see Mr. Row's difficulty in the passage referred to (p. 308), even as I quoted it, especially after the pains I took to show that Professor Huxley had not cited his author very accurately, and to give all the passages that I could myself find in the old Greek historian bearing on the point. I am rather amused that Mr. Row should seem a little put out because I did not set up distinctly a biblical chronology of "only 6,000 years," and so give him an opportunity to "beat me upon that issue"! I must say I prefer not to be beaten, and beg to refer him to p. 303 as to what I undertook to do ; but I may add that “only 6,000 years" may be perfectly true for anything that Professor Huxley proved to the contrary.

66

In conclusion, I have to thank the Chairman, Dr. Irons, and Capt. Fishbourne, who did hear Professor Huxley, for their kind defence of my paper and arguments. But I must say that I do not think Professor Huxley was guilty of reviling, nor that I (as Mr. Row expressed himself) did "revile again." (p. 363.) spoke plainly in answer to very plain speaking; but throughout the whole discussion, it appears to me that no one has used such strong language as Mr. Row himself. I had almost omitted to notice that, in alluding to Socrates, and to the Sophists as the professors of his day,” I did not mean 66 to connect them with all modern professors"! Besides "the Sophists," I do not know what other "professors" there were in the days of Socrates, "who went about teaching for profit their deleterious sophisms," as Plato tells us they did; and I don't know how "they could have existed unless they had taken money for their teaching." Nor, in fact, did they know themselves; and that is why they were so angry with Socrates, who denounced their teaching as both false and mercenary.

I must add, with reference to one part of our respected Chairman's remarks, that as I believe in neither the current planetary nor lunar theories, I am glad to hear that reasonable beings are about to leave "the computation of the constants" to Mr. Babbage's machine of the future, which he is "inventing for the purpose of doing what no human mind can accomplish!" (p. 370.) It may be my misfortune, but I confess I am quite unable to believe in this machine! Consequently, I am delighted to think that the planetary and lunar theories will most probably themselves be given up-I hope before Mr. Babbage's will is proved, since it seems now to be acknowledged by some of our mathematicians that the theory of gravitation itself "will have to be abandoned.” (p. 369.)

The following is the abstract of Professor Huxley's address, as it was published in the Record of 7th February, 1868, from the notes sent to me as stated on p. 304. Those who will carefully read it over, and then look back at my citations from it, will now be able to judge how very fully and fairly I quoted and represented the learned Professor's words and arguments :

ADDRESS BY PROFESSOR HUXLEY TO A BODY OF THE CLERGY AT SION COLLEGE.

Nov. 21, 1867.

IN coming here to-night at the request of your President, I beg it may be distinctly understood that for what I may say I alone am responsible. One of the things which strikes us in these times is the fact that there are two great leading sections of society, i. e., philosophers and clergy, which occupy positions towards each other which are neither pleasing nor wise. These two portions of society at one time taught but one doctrine, although they represented different sides of that doctrine; but now it is not so- -the views of each have become more and more divergent, although the fact remains that philosophy and theology are but different sides of one and the same thing.

You clergy, from a sort of conventional dishonesty of society, tend to widen that divergence. The mental atmosphere in which my friends, as scientific men, and the clergy live, are different-the two utterly distinct : the points of contact between the two very limited indeed. Intellectual communion there is none; each goes on, exists, and thinks in his own separate world.

This, to say the least of it, is lamentable; both are men of the same origin, the same interests, the same desire for truth. Why is it the divergence is so great? Your President has done me the honour of thinking that I, for the present at least, may be regarded as the representative of science and scientific research on this occasion, and I on this occasion accept that responsibility.

My business to-night is not to be the missionary, but the minister of science. I desire no converts, I seek to make no proselytes; I am not here to proselytize, and I desire most anxiously to abstain from anything that might jar upon the minds of those who hear me. The line which I purpose to take is simply this:-1st. What we men of science think; and 2nd. Why we think it. There are two ways by which the divergence between clerical and scientific opinion spoken of may be met. 1st. By the conversion of either side, which I fear I must pronounce to be hopeless. 2nd. By each side believing in the probity of the other, and trying to understand one another.

After this preface I shall make no further apology, but come direct to the point, and state clearly the conclusion we men of science arrive at by the deductions we are bound to make from existing facts. We cannot see our way out of these conclusions. Holding the principles we do, rationally and fairly, we cannot, in common sense and reason, draw back and give them up. We must go on to the legitimate consequence of those conclusions and of those principles.

You tell your congregations that the world was made six thousand years ago, in the period of six days-and further, that all living animals were made within that period, and on sundry of those days, and as made so have continued to the present time, making whatever deductions may be necessary for extinction of species and other changes since their original creation. Thus you hold and teach that men of science like myself are liable to pains and penalties, as men who are guilty of breaking or disputing great moral laws. I am bound to say I do not believe these statements you make and teach, and I am further bound to say that I do not, and I cannot call up to mind amongst men who are men of science and research, truthful men, one

who believes those things; but, on the other hand, who do not believe the exact contrary.

And now let me state why we have these strong convictions. I desire to start from some facts and some data familiar to us both, both to you and to me. I have addressed various and varied audiences in my time, but never before a body of clergy like that before me. I will therefore deal with the subject in your own familiar method. I will take a text, and give you a scientific exegesis drawn from the text.

No

I will select a passage from the 41st chapter of Genesis, connected with the touching story familiar to us all-the history of Joseph and his brethren. We read in it "that Pharaoh took off his ring and put it upon Joseph's hand, and put on him a gold chain, and made him to ride in the second chariot that he had."-Now, I ask you to depict to yourselves that marvellous valley of the Nile where these events took place 1800 B.C. doubt the passage is historical, that is to say, that the Pharaoh therein spoken of, who had at his disposition so great wealth, and who was master of the civilization of the world at that time, thought fit to elevate one of his slaves, invest him with symbols of authority, and made him to ride in the second chariot of the land-placed him in position, power, and authority next to himself. These things indicate great advances in civilization, and refinement, and luxury. Certain monuments of that era show horse-chariots sculptured upon them, as in Joseph's time, when there must have been a great civilization. Before that, there existed a people highly civilized, but with whom are no traces of chariots or domestic horses. Thus we suppose a great interval elapsed. Now, when we examine the records of the past era, more than two thousand years before the Christian epoch, we find at Memphis, in the oldest pyramids, records indicating the high cultivation which existed then, as now, by the overflow of the Nile, and the fertility and produce consequent upon that. These monuments, built on the site of the great valley of the Nile, fertilized then, as now, by the deposits left by that overflow of the mud which became the source and cause of the land's fertility and produce these monuments evidently existed after this great deposit of mud upon which they stand; and what is this Egyptian mud? Herodotus asked this question five centuries before the Christian era. He said, this Nile valley, lying between great ridges of rocks, and becoming a huge receptacle for never-ceasing deposits of fertilizing mud,-this Nile valley, says Herodotus, was once a great arm of the sea, filled up in the process of time by mud brought down by the Nile. This great Nile valley, 1,200 miles long, filled up by mud forced down the Nile. And unless you are prepared to deny this condition of things, that in the time of Joseph and long before this Nile valley must have been essentially what it is now, ask yourselves what period of time this process of filling up this huge arm of the sea must have taken.

Various estimates have been made as to the quantity of mud which is brought down year by year. I will rather understate than overstate the results. The general estimate of the process of filling gives five inches in a century. This, no doubt, is a correct estimate, but let us take the quantity to be twelve inches, or one foot every century, so that there may be no room for cavil. Borings were made in the Nile valley for this purpose, and it was found that in the valley of the Nile we could bore to seventy feet through Nile mud. Seventy feet, at one foot for every one hundred years, gives at once seven thousand years, a longer period than has elapsed, according to the received opinion, since the creation of the world.

I come to the next point. The valley of the Nile, as stated by Herodotus, is enclosed by high rocky mountains, a long narrow valley, with great cliffs on each side. Now, in these rocks or cliffs Herodotus and Strabo both noted organic bodies, called by them, from their resemblance to a piece of

coin, nummulites, and this name is retained by us. then, and are now, full of these nummulite formations. They can be traced from the land of Egypt as far as India and China, and westward as far as Now these rocks were the south of Britain, covering full 98° of longitude, east and west. When we examine the structure of these creatures, we find the shell very exquisitely chambered, and the organization very elaborate and complex. They were once, without the shadow of a doubt, living creatures. The diagrams here presented show their organization and formation under very powerful magnifying power. Under what condition were they alive, and under what are similar creatures alive now?-for though there is nothing now exactly identical with these nummulites, yet there are many species like them that exist now, no doubt under the same conditions as they did. There is no doubt they were sea-living things, and approach closely to all those organizations which live in the sea; therefore there must be more than a probability that they were once marine inhabitants; and if so, it is reasonable to suppose that other marine remains would be also found in the same rocks. What are the facts? Dacier has described four hundred; he gives four hundred descriptions all identical with marine creatures now existing.

Put the case to yourselves. Suppose in walking on the paths in St. James's and Regent's Park, you see on the ground certain little shells-such, for instance, as cockle shells. You would say at once the walks were gravelled with sea-gravel, because the marine remains you notice in the sand are the fossils of creatures that lived only in the sea, and therefore, beyond dispute, the gravel with which they are associated must have come from the sea. This is very simple, plain, and perfectly valid. Now apply this plain commonsense reasoning to the point in question: if these betray marine origin, so these four hundred descriptions of organizations of sea habitants afford evidence that this "nummulitic" limestone has been deposited from the bottom of the sea; therefore that this deposit was formed at the bottom of the sea; therefore before the Nile valley was formed, and raised by subterranean forces, the land of Egypt was down at the bottom of the sea, and existed not only seven thousand years, but all that epoch which by slow accumulation would have furnished such a mass of "nummulitic" rock, spreading as it does from Hampshire to China. How many years? Thirty thousand? More; the time which this process occupied was an enormous period. And even this is but as it were an incident in the history of this earth, than the shadow of a cloud passing over the history of the world. rocks, traceable in England at Bagshot and elsewhere, contain the same organizations as in the valley of the Nile. Now what is the simple deduction? Cut through this country towards the west, towards Swanage, and there you find vast chalk ridges, and these other beds [pointing to a diagram] all rest on huge masses of chalk. Resting on the bosom of that are these rocks, containing the "nummulites," and others, where we find great diversities of organizations-forms of crocodile life, nautila, &c., like those now found in tropical seas, the great majority different from those which now exist, but all of the same genus-sea-inhabiting creatures.

-no more

These

Now, what is this chalk, which lies below the "nummulitic" formation? Is it there without meaning,-is it nothing but a mere nondescript substance, of which we can give no account? Here is a piece,-I put it under a microscope, and what do I see? of separate organizations. Now, what is the origin of all this? We can That it is one mass of organisms, or fragments give a clear answer. for telegraphy, the sea-bottom of the great Atlantic Ocean was surveyed, Not many years ago, when the world became impatient and the result of that survey was very remarkable. Products from depths of 1,500 feet were sent to me; the stuff which was brought up resembled grey mud, or chalk when dry; and when inspected under the microscope, it

was found to be made up by 95 per cent. of the same organisms as chalk. Also in this deposit were curious things, which, when carefully examined. were found of the same organic structure.

Now to the point. The two organisms are not merely similar, but identical; both composed of animal organisms-the chalk and sea deposits; both existing under the same conditions. We might just as well say a man can live in oxygen gas, as that these low organisms, which left their exuvia at the bottom of the sea, could exist apart from the conditions under which they exist now. No man of science makes assertions like these without crossconfirmations. Chalk contains thousands of different organizations. There are the remains of four-footed animals, birds, reptiles, &c.-creatures which are not now living. This chalk extends over an immense area, far greater than the "nummulitic" deposit. Now the question is very simple. If those who have gone into these things find a flaw in each other's data or conclusions, they are exceedingly ready to do so. A million years could not have produced this deposit of 1,100 feet thick-whether less or more it makes no difference; but it is clear this world was not made six thousand years ago!

But we must also admit that all the animals now living were not created as narrated in the Mosaic history of the creation. The animals which lived in the nummulitic period were not the same as those which now live-they were not the beasts, nor the fowls, nor the creeping things we now find, which existed in the Chalk period. There is positive proof of three successions-three revivals of inhabitants-of this world. Do we not see then the unknown previous duration of this earth? Apply the same principles to matters connected with daily life, and you are convinced at once of the correctness of our deductions.

If you take the only line of argument open to you, to help you out of the difficulty-if you deny our right to reason thus legitimately, remember it is, and it must be, suicidal to the other side. These views, of which, as the minister of science, I am the exponent to-night, are held by men who are as Christian in motive and practice as you. These doctrines are held by men who think deeply, and who have children to come after them, whom they desire to instruct wisely. They are held by the best of men. They are held out of no wantonness, or irreverence, or eccentricity. They are held by men who seek to discover to themselves, and to present to others, scientific truth. I ask you to remember this, to consider this, and then I ask you to judge us.