IIt 
(more recent) period. He says that yet he thinks “‘it is 
quite possible that further research will show that ‘Homo 
Sapiens’ existed, not only before ‘Equus Caballus,’ but 
before many of the other existing forms of animal life. 
A single relic of Man, found in an earlier Geologic 
epoch than had furnished trace of the Horse, would cer- 
tainly be put to the account that Man receded the horse 
in date, (as opposed to the Mosaic sequence) by some 
Scientists (but is it not the fact that trace of the horse, 
though not furnished, might well exist ina still earlier 
formation), the Professor, indeed, seems to imply that 
the above would be his own conclusion, for he says that 
in the event of ‘Homo’ being traced, as existent before 
‘Equus,’ then, “zf all the species of animals have been 
separately created, man, in this case, would, by no means, 
be the consummation (the crown ) of the ‘land-population.’ 
The deduction is no more convincing than many another. 
Mr. Darwin said once that he admitted, to his cost, a 
constant tendency to fill up the wide gaps of knowledge 
by inaccurate and superficial hypothesis. 
In the controversy which lately appeared in the 
‘Nineteenth Century,’ Mr. Huxley makes something of 
Mr. Gladstone’s natural admission that he is no Scientist. 
Others will care little for that fact, we are content to 
have here a ‘master mind’ capable of comprehending all 
that Scientific men have adduced in favour of Evolution, 
and against Revelation, which mind, after careful study, 
has not been seduced from the “ faith once delivered.” 
The doctrine of Evolution, moreover as it appears to 
me, strikes a fatal blow tothe theory that the various races 
of men do not spring from a single pair; as men are 
declared to do in the Bible. 
For if they do not spring from a single pair, and 
Evolution is true, it must be that a considerable number 
