37 
Institate , A not numbers of the Victoria 
* e P° !ltl011 ° f Woaching every scientific subject 
in Ee«W S ' ' y 7 , ty the C0, " Uen ‘ H ° n of whether they believe 
L t w T ” ? PP0S6 ' Ve ““ h « e in Revelation, but 
o! nT Je 3 ” a P^oaopMoal point of view, we cannot 
at the y n C “ °,“ r ° Wn mmda of “'' ,:rr P re J ll ' ,ic '- if 'TO Wish to arrive 
the i™ r‘-w ” ° bjeCt 13 110t t0 gefc U P an odium theologicum acainst 
hose who differ from us ; but to discuss our subjects dispassion.tei;, and 
to invite our opponents to come here and to make the most they can of 
view T,r n f ’ S ° , “ '!” ;rC m “ y be fair pl “. y from OTOry possible point of 
vi ». I therefore think that the holding of any particular opinion as to the 
erpretution of Scripture by a man of science, even if he be a member of 
tins Institute, is not to be a matter of obloquy. (Hear bear ) 
wm fi'ilf; H, 1 PIC T S 7 LL -~ I think thafc every caudid and ’^partial mind 
! i n IT-, StnCtUreS that W been P assed U P°» Mr. Masterman, 
o US at if we accept the theory of the greater antiquity of man we 
must reject he theory of the Fall ; though he gave us no reason for that view 
we are asked how are we to reconcile the two records, Mr. Pattison tells us 
in his second page, where he says : “ The written record to which some of us’ 
appeal does not, and does not profess to, bear full testimony on this head • 
the unwritten one is wholly made up of materials that have been placed and 
disordered in a succession extremely difficult to unravel. The one has no 
chronological beginning, is obviously incomplete, and permits, in its text, a 
variation of ,200 years ; the other allows of variations in chronology abso- 
lutely unlimited. With regard to the question of the formation of stalag- 
mitic matter in caves, such as that at Torquay, considering what an import- 
ant part some have endeavoured to make it play in the argument in favour 
of the great antiquity of the human remains found under it, I am glad to 
nd Mr. Pattison telling us, that the mere existence of these layers of stalag- 
nnte does not necessarily prove any great antiquity. Mr. Pattison, quoting 
from Mr. Dawkins, says It may fairly be concluded that the layers of 
stalagmite cannot be used as an argument in support of the remote a^e of 
the strata below.” I think this paper is very likely to be prejudiced by the 
consideration that it is a distinct challenge of the theory upon which must 
rest I suppose, at least to a very great extent, the posthumous fame of 
that venerable philosopher whose mortal part England lay at rest in her 
national mausoleum only a few hours ago (Sir C. Lyell). But there is 
another and a weightier consideration ; namely, that disregarding other 
questions, we should follow the truth, and follow it whithersoever it leads 
With regard to the gravels which have been introduced into the discussion 
to-night I would bring forward an argument which tells very stronffiy 
against the Lyellian theory. You have these high-level gravels, and also 
the low-level gravels ; and Sir Charles Lyell tells us that, according to his 
theory a vast interval of time must have intervened between the formation 
of the high gravels and the formation of the low gravels. Now, let us accept 
