PROFESSOR HUXLEY'S LECTURES. . 51 



We now come to what I may call Milton's hypothesis the hypoth- 

 esis that the present condition of things has endured for a compara- 

 tively moderate time, and at the commencement of that time came 

 into existence within the course of six days. I doubt not that it may 

 have excited some surprise in your minds that I should have spoken 

 of this as Milton's hypothesis, rather than that I should choose the 

 terms which are much more familiar to you, such as "the doctrine of 

 creation," or " the Biblical doctrine," or " the doctrine of Moses," all 

 of which denominations, as applied to the hypothesis to which I have 

 just referred, are certainly much more familiar to you than the title 

 of the Miltonic hypothesis. But I have had what I cannot but think 

 are very weighty reasons for taking the course which I have pursued. 

 For example, I have discarded the title of the hypothesis of creation, 

 because my present business is not with the question as to how Nature 

 has originated, as to the causes which have led to her origination, 

 but as to the manner and order of the appearance of natural objects. 

 Our present inquiry is not why the objects which constitute Nature 

 came into existence, but when they came into existence, and in what 

 order. This is a strictly historical question, a question as completely 

 historical as that about the date at which the Angles and the Jutes 

 invaded England. But the other question about creation is a philo- 

 sophical question, and one which cannot be solved or even approached 

 by the historical method. What we want to know is, whether the 

 facts, so far as they are known, afford evidence that things arose in the 

 way described by Milton, or not ; and, when that question is settled, 

 it will be time enough to inquire as to the causes of their origination. 



In the second place, I have not spoken of this doctrine as the 

 Biblical hypothesis. It is quite true that persons as diverse in their 

 general views as Milton the Protestant and the celebrated Jesuit 

 Father Suarez, each read in the first chapter of Genesis the interpre- 

 tation adopted by Milton. It is quite true that that interpretation, 

 unless I mistake, is that which has been instilled into every one of us 

 in our childhood ; but I do not for one moment venture to say that it 

 can properly be called the Biblical doctrine. In the first place, it is 

 not my business to say what the Hebrew text contains, and what it 

 does not ; in the second place, were I to say that this is the Biblical 

 hypothesis, I should be met by the authority of many eminent schol- 

 ars, to say nothing of men of science, who in recent times have abso- 

 lutely denied that this doctrine is to be found in Genesis at all. If 

 we are to listen to them, we must believe what seems so clearly defined 

 in Genesis as if very great pains had been taken so that there should 

 be no possibility of mistake is not the meaning of the text at all. 

 The account is divided into periods that we may make just as long as 

 convenience requires. We are also to understand that it is consistent 

 with that phraseology to believe that plants and animals may have 

 been evolved by natural processes, lasting for millions of years, out 



