which their predecessors in the faith have previously taught the world, and that not merely by precept and profession, but also in their persons by example, as confessors and martyrs for truth. Even if it be urged that there has sometimes been an unworthy exception, it may also be replied, there has been a glorious self-revenge,-as, for instance, in the case of Archbishop Cranmer, who thrust into the fire the hand that had signed a temporary recantation of what he had been persuaded was true. All men must admire such a spirit of self-immolation, whether holding Cranmer's opinions or not. On the scientific side, I must say, I neither know of such an "army of martyrs," nor of any such penitent heroism. Galileo, who is perhaps the most popular of the "martyrs of science," preferred "tolie" rather than to suffer or to die; and-unfortunately for his reputation-he preferred "to lie" most consciously, by profession and act and deed, for he did it the very moment before he meanly whispered to his friend, his notorious E pur si muove! On the other hand, Copernicus, who never thus disgraced himself, was an ecclesiastic; and his great work which propounded what he considered to be the truth relating to the universe, was, after he had suffered much on account of his opinions, and after he had been satirized upon the stage, actually given to the world at the instigation, and by the encouragement, of a cardinal of the Church of Rome.

But, in truth, to die for one's convictions, when that dire issue is forced upon men in the face of their fellow-men and before the world, is not the rarest of virtues; but whatever be its value, it is one of which "men of science" have had little or no experience. In this country absolutely none. There have been minor persecutions, no doubt, for the sake of science. I know those who have suffered them in England, even in these enlightened days; but they have not, so far as I remember, been encountered by the recognized professors of science. Davy, in his early days, and when opposing some scientific doctrines, was considered "a very troublesome fellow," and snubbed; not by the general public, however, or even by the clergy, but by a "professor" of chemistry.

I must not omit to notice here the once despised philosopher Socrates, a genuine martyr for truth and for freedom of thought. And who were his persecutors? The professors of his day, who pretended to know everything, and went about giving lectures and teaching for profit their deleterious sophisms. I trust such a state of things is not in store for us! Should it come, be assured we shall want our Socrates Redivivus!

Martyrs have often died for truth; but let us not forget there have also been martyrs of delusion all over the world. A higher and surer test of honour and of nobleness, a better proof of honesty in man, must be looked for, and can only be found, in his every-day, straightforward candour towards those from whom he differs, and in the patience with which he bears neglect, misrepresentation, or even contempt. It is also to be seen in the openness with which a man fights chivalrously under his true colours, and the frankness with which he makes admissions, when, instead of having always been right, he knows he has often been wrong. And, indeed, upon the whole, in England, men who honestly have acted thus, have generally been duly respected. In our own day we have seen two brothers, both highly distinguished in their university, one leaving the Church of England for the Church of Rome, the other renouncing Christianity altogether; and yet, though both have written bitterly against and ridiculed what they have repudiated, with all the earnestness of eager converts to new opinions, they are generally honoured and respected, and even sympathized with, by those who in controversy have been their uncompromising opponents. And this is what ever ought to be. If the names of others who have also changed their views, and denounced their former professions, have been held in less respect by their fellow-men, it is not because of their changes of opinion, or for the plainness with which they have spoken or written, but entirely upon other grounds, which I need not now particularize.

I am sure that Professor Huxley needed not, in order to satisfy the clergy or any other honourable and fairly-educated class of the community, to make the least apology for speaking fully and fairly his convictions. I am quite sure the clergy as a body are as free from what was styled a "sort of conventional dishonesty of society," as any other class amongst

us.

And I venture to think that it was an unfortunate error on Professor Huxley's part-though it was explained to have been done for courtesy, and in order not to offend prejudicethat he failed to speak all he thought bearing on the subjects to which he called attention. Where he spoke plainest I feel certain he gave least offence; while his hinted reticence of expression and assumed moderation-as if something dreadful were kept back-only served to give an almost intolerable air of patronage to his tone, and converted what every one could see were intended to be his arguments, into a sorites of insinuations.

After these remarks, I need scarcely add, that on the present occasion I intend to use all plainness of speech,

though to speak with all due courtesy; and while I shall keep nothing back essential to my argument, I shall make no insinuations either that I might have said more, or that others mean more than they have said. I shall try to meet the issues fairly; and I shall now begin by saying what those issues are. In the first place it must not be supposed that I am about to attempt to establish the truth of the Bible chronology, or even to state what the Bible chronology is. What I have written is "in reply to Professor Huxley." The subject is strictly an inquiry into the cogency of the arguments he adduced in support of some doctrines of geological chronology which he considers to be scientific, and which he said are contrary to the Bible chronology. I shall simply follow his line of argument, with the view of showing chiefly, without implying intentional unfairness, that he did not place the issues, nor even the facts that bear upon those issues, fully or fairly before his audience; also that his arguments were loose instead of being cogent, and that sometimes they were self-contradictory; and that, therefore, he did not succeed in upsetting the chronology of Genesis as interpreted by himself. If besides this I happen to make out a prima facie case in favour of the particular Scriptural chronology which Professor Huxley denied to be true; and if the doctrines of geological chronology which he professed to believe are shown to be utterly disentitled to the term "scientific" in any sense; or if men of science are proved to be at issue about those doctrines;-all that will be more than might be demanded in a reply that will not go unnecessarily beyond the line of the arguments which had been advanced to establish the very opposite conclusions. For a fuller consideration of the various arguments, pro and con, relating to this great subject, I must refer you to some former papers in our Journal of Transactions, but especially to the comprehensive discourse upon "The Past and Present Relations of Geological Science to the Sacred Scriptures,"* by Professor Kirk. It could not be expected-as I ventured to tell Professor Huxley in Sion College that the large issues involved could be satisfactorily disposed of in a single unreported discussion arising upon an extempore address. Nor, of course, can they be disposed of in this reply. Fortunately for my line of argument, I do not think that much, if anything, will depend upon nice verbal accuracy as regards Professor Huxley's statements; but, fortunately also, in case that might be thought of importance, a gentleman who took down the principal parts of Professor

* Journal of Transactions, vol. i. p. 331, et seq.

Huxley's discourse at the time, having seen in the Record newspaper a letter from me to the President of Sion College on this subject,* has kindly forwarded to me his notes, and of these I have gladly availed myself.

THE TEACHING OF THE CLERGY.

Professor Huxley, having finished his exordium, thus opened the issues of discussion:

"You [the clergy] tell your congregations that the world was made 6,000 years ago, in six days, and that all living animals were made within that period," &c.

Then he added:

"I am bound to say, I do not believe these statements you make and teach; and I am further bound to say that I cannot call up to mind amongst men of science and research, and truthful men, one who believes those things, but, on the other hand, who does not believe the exact contrary."

Now, even here, without going further, I must ask, Is the Professor's statement accurate? Is it true that there is, or ever has been, such a uniformity of opinion among the clergy or other students of Scripture as regards the chronology of Genesis? Surely he knows something of the literature of the other side. Discarding altogether the interpretation now held by very many (as was stated by the Rev. Simcox Lea, in Sion. College), namely, that the first verse of Genesis probably relates to a time at an immense chronological distance from the verses that follow; discarding also other modern interpretations, such as those of Mr. Rorison, Professor Challis, Dr. M'Cosh, and others, it is surely a well-known fact, that long before there were supposed to be any difficulties with science as regards this popular chronology of the Bible, the "days" of creation were by many interpreted as signifying lengthened periods, and not literal days of twenty-four hours. It is also a fact that the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint versions of Genesis all differ, as regards the chronologies of Chapters v. and XI.; and many chronologers would be found to give about 8,000 years, as more probably the age of the world as literally deducible from Genesis, than the 6,000 years of the Vulgate and Archbishop Usher. I am quite aware that 2,000 years is of little account in "geological chronology," as set forth by Professor Huxley; but then such a period might be of conse

* Vide Note A, p. 370.

quence to the other side. If we will only think soberly as to what is now being discovered by the Palestine explorations, to remind us how much may happen, in much less than 2,000 years, to change the face of a country and bury its massive structures deep under ground;-if we will think of the West Indian hurricane two months ago, and the earthquakes since, also of the recent East Indian cyclone and of Vesuvius as it is in eruption now; and if we will pay but the slightest attention to the innumerable historical records of still more destructive cataclysms, by water, wind and fire, during the present era, and even within a few generations, we shall be all the better prepared to think wisely as to the overwhelming power of nature to transform the face of the earth, and to estimate more truly the value of time in a non-uniformitarian world, subject to such marvellous changes as we know to have been accomplished within the historical period, and almost under our eyes.

But we have now to examine into the implied agreement among the clergy in holding to the 6,000 years of the vulgar era. So far is it from being true that there has been this agreement, that Mr. Goodwin, in the Essays and Reviews, actually pointed scornfully to the variety of conflicting opinions, and to the trenchant way in which the theological geologists" (as he called them) "overthrow one another's conclusions." So notorious is the difference of opinion that has prevailed as to this, not merely among the clergy, but among all who instinctively cling to the notion that the Bible is true, while still inclined to follow the teachings of human science, that in the valuable paper read by Mr. Warington* at the first ordinary meeting of this Institute, he pointed out that, not only was it not settled among theologians what was understood by the word "day," but, with an extreme impartiality, he described the defenders of Scripture-not as bigoted and serried in prejudice and all of one mind-but as "a motley and discordant set, at war among themselves as fiercely as with the enemy." I quote this strong language to show, that we are not afraid of plain speaking in this Society. We think the truth should be spoken-the whole truth, and nothing but the truth;-because truth alone will last. Mr. Warington also pointed out, that as the arguments of some of the defenders of Scripture are mutually destructive, "a proportion of them must be wrong, and that the defence they make is, therefore, a source of weakness, and not of strength." He goes on:

*Journal of Transactions, vol. i. p. 85, et seq.