PROEM TO GENESIS. 617 



missions of a possible value" (P. S. M. p. 454). Thus it is when 

 agreement is threatened, but far otherwise when differences are to 

 be blazoned. When I have spoken of the succession of orders in the 

 most general terms only, this is declared a sharply divided succession 

 in which the last species of one can not overla}) the first species of an- 

 other (p. 457). When I have pleaded on simple grounds of reasoning 

 for the supposition of a substantial correspondence between Genesis i. 

 and science {N. C. p. 69G), have waived all question of a verbal in- 

 spiration, all question whether the whole of the statements can now 

 be made good (i\T C. p. 694), I am treated as one of those who impose 

 " in the name of religion " as a divine requisition " an implicit belief 

 in the accuracy of the cosmogony of Genesis," and who deserve to 

 have their heads broken in consequence (P. S. M. p. 460). 



I have urged nothing " in the name of religion." I have sought 

 to adduce probable evidence that a guidance more than human lies 

 within the great Proem of the Book of Genesis {JV. C. p. 694), just as 

 I might adduce probable evidence to show that Francis did or did not 

 write Junius, that William the Third was or was not responsible for 

 the massacre of Glencoe ; I have expressly excepted detail (p. 696), 

 and have stated (i\\ C. p. 687) that in my inquiry " the authority of 

 Scripture can not be alleged in proof of a jDrimitive revelation " (iV[ 

 C p. 687). I object to all these exaggerations of charge, as savoring 

 of the spirit of the Inquisition, and as restraints on literary freedom. 



My next observation as to the Professor's method refers to his 

 treatment of authorities. 



In one passage (P. S. 31. p. 450) Mr. Huxley expresses his regret that 

 I have not named my authority for the statement made concerning 

 the fourfold succession, in order that he might have transferred his 

 attentions from myself to a new delinquent. Xow, published works 

 are (as I may show) a fair subject for reference. But as to pointing 

 out any person who might have favored me with his views in private 

 correspondence, I own that I should have some scruple in handing 

 him over to be pilloried as a Reconciler, and to be pelted with 

 charges of unwisdom and fanaticism, which I myself, from long use, 

 am perfectly content to bear. 



I did refer to three great and famous names : those of Cuvier, Sir 

 John Herschel, and Whewell (jV[ C. p. 697). Mr. Huxley speaks of 

 me as having quoted them in support of my case on the fourfold suc- 

 cession ; and at the same time notices that I admitted Cuvier not to 

 be a recent authority, which in geology proper is, I believe, nearly 

 equivalent to saying he is, for particulars, no authority at all. This 

 recital is singularly inaccurate. I cited them {J\\ C. p. 697), not with 

 reference to the fourfold succession, but generally for " the general 

 accordance of the Mosaic cosmogony with the results of modern in- 

 quiry " {ibid.), and particularly in connection with the nebular hy- 

 pothesis. It is the cosmogony (Gen. i. 1-19), not the fourfold succes- 



