29 
but it considers different theories of great antiquity assigned by philosophers, 
not to man, but to the surface of the earth and its formation. But, even 
supposing that to be unsound, and suppose the conclusion is that the earth 
is not by any means so old as it has been represented to be, and that there- 
fore man, whose remains have been found in it, is not so ancient as has 
been represented — suppose all that to be established, surely that does 
not show that there is not still an immense antiquity to fall back upon. 
Suppose you reduce the past ages of the world’s existence from 120,000,000 
years to 50,000,000 years, you will still find 50,000,000 years quite enough 
to deal with. (Laughter.) From the alluvial deposits of the Mississippi the 
ages assigned by Lyell may have been reduced to not more than 94,000 
years ; but though Lyell’s first calculation may not be maintained, still a 
period of 94,000 years would carry the antiquity of man back to a time far 
more remote than any one has as yet asserted. Suppose, then, that all these 
statements of the antiquity of the earth are greatly exaggerated and over- 
drawn, docs Professor Birks deny that the Glacial period is removed from 
the present time by a very large number of years — perhaps hundreds of 
thousands ? It seems to me to have been indubitably established and 
maintained by every geologist of repute, that the period during which the 
earth’s surface has existed is sufficient for us to trace a number of years 
immensely greater than those periods which we have been accustomed to 
consider as belonging to the duration of man ; and, if that be so, I do not 
see that we gain anything except a reduction from 250,000,000 to 
50,000,000 years ; and even though the strata in which the remains of 
man are found may have their age reduced to tens or hundreds of thousands 
of years, instead of to millions, still that gives us an antiquity far beyond 
anything we have been accustomed to assign to the existence of man upon 
the earth. Therefore I do not see that this very elaborate, scientific, and 
learned paper helps us much with regard to the antiquity of man in relation 
to the date here assigned to it. We must remember that the paper sets 
out by determining very absolutely the number of years to which we must 
limit the existence of man, which we are not permitted to set down at 
more than 7,000 or 8,000 years. That is laid down as an absolute pro- 
position ; and, more than that, we are told that if we should assume or 
arrive at a conclusion which places it 10,000 years back, we are not only 
scientifically wrong, but we have abandoned the very foundation of faith, 
and we can maintain neither the Bible nor the truths of Christianity. That, I 
must say, surprised me beyond measure. To be told that if we venture to 
assume that man has been upon the earth longer than 7,000 or 8,000 
years, we are not only wrong, but we contradict the statements of the Bible, 
and at least implicitly deny the doctrine of the redemption of mankind ; — that, 
I think, is a most dangerous argument. If you lay down certain proposi- 
tions with regard to facts which are greatly in dispute, or which, at all 
events, are not generally accepted, and say that any man who differs from 
you in regard to them is abandoning the doctrines of Christianity, then 
