32 
POSTSCRIPT. 
(Pp. 10, 11, 12, 14.) 
1 Since this pamphlet was originally written and published, Dr. Colenso 
has returned to Natal, and he has there repeated the same statements he 
made in England “ as to the science of geology flatly contradictmg Scripture. 
In doing so (if the newspaper reports are to be relied on), he referred to Dr. 
Temple as having publicly declared the same thing while preaching m St. 
Paul’s cathedral. I am almost certain that I am correct m saying (p.10) that 
he also said this when preaching in Whitehall Chapel ; so that it would 
appear to be his habit to go about preaching what is only calculated to dis- 
credit the Scriptures among the ill-informed and those who, apparently like 
himself, have learnt nothing as to the changes that have taken place m the 
conclusions of the most eminent geologists since the Essays and Reviews 
were published. . 
2 In addition, therefore, to the citations already given m the text, Irom 
Sir Charles Lyell’s Address as President of the British Association at Bath 
in 1864, 1 now cite the following passages from the Anniversary Address of 
Mr Hamilton, the President of the Geological Society of London, delivered 
in February, 1865, which ought, as a matter of common literary decency, to 
stop this constant “preaching” that anything worthy of the name of 
geological “ science ” has contradicted or upset the Scriptures. He said 
« Recent investigations have upset the ancient theories, that all the highest 
points consisted of crystalline rocks, and that no sedimentary rocks formed 
high mountains. Again it was formerly supposed ” [and relied on as “ certain 
science” in the “Essays and Beviews”] “that the crystalline rocks, particularly 
granite, owed their origin to igneous action. Now it is well known that these 
Granites are chiefly arranged in layers. The granite passes into gneiss, and 
the o-neiss into mica-schist and talc-schist ; and this is again closely connected 
with the green and grey slates ; and it is well known that many of these rocks, 
formerly considered as plutonic, are really metamorphosed rocks.” 
3. Now, in making this citation, I am not saying whether Mr. Hamilton’s 
views are right or wrong, or whether I agree with him or not.^ I quote hnn 
as an “ authority,” like Sir Charles Lyell, speaking ex eatheird snentue to a 
scientific body, and declaring that what was called geological science as to 
granite, for instance, when the “ Essays and Reviews ’’were written, is no longer 
regarded as science in the Geological Society of London, whatever it may be 
in the pulpits where Dr. Temple preaches, or among the Zulus at Natal ; but, 
on the contrary, is itself now “upset.” If Mr. Hamilton is wrong m his 
views as to the granites being “ chiefly arrranged in layers,” and strahjied — it 
