115 
Professor Huxley also sees ¢#zs difficulty to the doctrine 
of ‘Special Creation,’ that it would necessitate the acceft- 
ance of a vast series of ‘ Special Creations,’ each series of 
species contemporaneous with its own geologic era (exactly 
as they are found within the bowels of the earth; series 
succeeding series ‘per saltum, itself a contradiction to 
the theory of Evolution); but why should there not have 
been a vast succession of serves ; is anything too hard for 
the Lord. Moreover He has Himself spoken of such 
succession ; he has given us a /ist of six series in Genesis 
I, a quite sufficiently long one for all but exacting science. 
And if the Series are, or ave stated io be, out of their 
order somewhat, it is beside the matter whether the 
upheaval, or subsidence has taken place among the earth’s 
strata, or among the verses of Genesis. The Professor, 
who professes himself familiar with the elastic capabilities 
of Hebrew Exegetes, should know that Divines who even 
hold Literal Inspiration of the sacred scriptures, do not 
therefor necessarily hold Literal Preservation of the same: 
the errors of Copyists; the introduction of Marginal notes 
into the text by ‘viva voce’ Amanuenses. The Variations 
found in the Septuagintal version; and other matters have 
been taken into account; yet enough remains to preserve 
this amongst other records, that the Series of Special 
Creations culminated in Man. 
But not Hebrew Exegetes alone shift their grounds. 
If my memory serves, I believe, within the twelvemonth 
re-arrangement or modification of the settled descent of 
Man himself has been rendered necessary through new 
discoveries concerning the reproduction of the Monotre- 
mes. I think it was so reported in ‘The Times.” 
Again has not the morphological conclusion, that 
the Ostrich is a degraded descendant of some Carinate 
bird, also been upset ? 
8A 
