30 
I say you are using an argument of the most dangerous character, and one 
of a kind which I think this, above all other societies, is bound to cry out 
against, and to disown. The principle of this Society is to reconcile science 
with Christianity, and to find out, as far as we can, how far the truths of 
Christianity may be harmonized with the discoveries of modern science ; 
and we find a number of scientific men, including nearly all of the greatest 
eminence, holding the view that man’s age upon the earth is considerably 
longer than 7,000 years. We must not, even though they may be wrong in 
their opinions, turn round and tell them that they are infidels, that they are 
abandoning the principles of Christianity, and that they cannot possibly hold 
the doctrine of redemption. Our purpose in this Society is, as I have just said, 
to endeavour to find out how far we can reconcile science and Christianity, and 
not to place them directly in opposition, as it certainly seems to me that this 
paper does, from the statements which it makes at its commencement. That 
is the reason why I cannot help speaking perhaps rather strongly in reference 
to these propositions. As to the arguments and theories, I am by no means 
competent to enter upon them, even if I desired to do so ; but I do not think 
they affect the question. But do not let ns lay down principles of the kind 
involved in saying that those who do not agree with you do not hold the 
doctrines of Christianity. It is the fact that many clergymen do hold views 
of the kind which Professor Birks condemns, and he seems to condemn them for 
doing so ; but I must say that this is not the manner in which I like to see 
scientific questions dealt with, holding it out as matter of reproach to any one 
who dares to hold a contrary opinion. This question of the antiquity of man is 
an open one, and may be held as an open one by clergymen as well as by other 
people ; and often those clergymen who examine it will find themselves forced 
to come to conclusions to which Professor Birks is opposed. I am not pre- 
tending to discuss this question scientifically, but, like other men, I have read 
the ordinary works on the subject. Look at this matter historically, look at 
the monuments to be found in Egypt. Some of those monuments certainly 
go as far back as the time of Abraham ; and you will find that even 
those old monuments represent the different races of man as existing at pre- 
sent ; the negro with all his peculiar characteristics, and various other 
peoples also. All these variations arising in the few hundred years that 
elapsed between the date of the Flood and the time of Abraham ; is not this 
a most striking proof that you must carry your date farther back ? (A 
voice : “ No,” and laughter.) Well, I do not sny that my opinion is to 
be taken dogmatically. I only state it as it presents itself to my own mind. 
In maintaining my own view's I bring forward strong arguments, as they appear 
to me, for the great antiquity of man ; I will not say how great, but certainly 
much greater than those dates which are said to be deduced from the Bible. 
We must not forget, however, that the Bible has no chronology, that what 
v r e accept as the chronology of the Bible was formed by the ingenious cal- 
culations of Archbishop Ussher ; and we know that many people, quite 
independent of the scientific question, hold views of Biblical chronology 
