238 
the channels of subterranean rivers, such as are found in the Morea and other 
parts of Greece ; but there is no proof of there having been any outlets for 
such rivers, and nothing to disprove the theory of Bucldand and Cuvier 
that the deposits are diluvial. We have also found, — at least, there have 
been found, — remains of the mammoth in icebergs and vast formations of 
ice at the mouth of the Lena ; but it is affirmed by Croll and others, whose 
theory has been well noticed by Professor Birks in a recent contribution to 
this Society, that the Glacial age is to be attributed to an alteration of the 
eccentricity of the earth’s orbit and a change in the relations of the pole to 
the line of the apsides, — two of the slowest processes in nature, in which 
10,000 years would make probably very little difference in the degree of 
cold. Now, the mammoth that was frozen up in the mouth of the Lena 
must have stood waiting a long time for his being frozen up in the 
ice in which he was afterwards found, if the freezing was attributable to either 
of these causes, or to both combined. It seems to me that Cuvier’s affirma- 
tion— that the catastrophe by which the animals were frozen up in the 
ice, or their remains deposited in the caverns in which they are found, must 
have been sudden— is the more reasonable, and that no change requiring the 
lapse of ages, would account for the phenomena at present exhibited in the 
things we are discussing. In the remarks I am making I earnestly desire to 
draw the attention of those who are strictly engaged in geological studies, to 
the question, — Whether they have done wisely in accepting this theory of 
one enormous glacier spread over the world, in preference to the Scriptural 
doctrine of a universal deluge ? (Hear, hear.) If we revert to that, then 
the contemporaneity of man with these fossil animals is beyond a doubt. 
The event by which these animals were swept from the face of the earth is 
then attributable only to the period of the Deluge. With regard to the 
Pakeolithic implements, I must say, referring to an exhibition of them which 
was made by the Royal Society of Antiquaries in Somerset House a few 
years ago, it struck me that if evidence as weak as that furnished by these 
implements were produced for the purpose of shaking the oath of any man 
in a court of justice it would be treated as a subject for laughter. (Hear, 
hear.) How, then, should we consider such evidence as these implements 
afford, where we find that men of equal judgment with those who regard 
them as the work of man have concluded that they were the work of acci- 
dental fracture, simulating the work of man ? How are we to say that these 
implements should be accepted as of sufficient weight to reverse the state- 
ments of those who wrote in the fear of God, even if they should not be 
admitted to have written by divine inspiration ? (Hear, hear.) They, at 
least, wrote with all the solemnity attaching to an oath, and I think it is 
unfair that the records of Scripture should be considered as in the least degree 
liable to be shaken by any of the Palaeolithic evidence that has been pro- 
duced. The occasional forms of the roots of trees may simulate the shape 
and appearance of the head of an animal, and there are many occurrences in 
nature, in which the similitudes are such that we may be liable to make 
mistakes about them. In one of the best shaped of the Palaeolithic imple* 
