303 
though to speak with all due courtesy ; and while I shall 
keep nothing’ back essential to my argument, I shall make 
no insinuations either that I might have said more, or 
that others mean more than they have said. I shall try to 
meet the issues fairly; and I shall now begin by saying what 
those issues are. In the first place it must not be supposed 
that I am about to attempt to establish the truth of the 
Bible chronology, or even to state what the Bible chronology 
is. What I have written is “ in reply to Professor Huxley/'’ 
The subject is strictly an inquiry into the cogency of the 
arguments he adduced in support of some doctrines of geo- 
logical chronology which he considers to be scientific, and 
which he said are contrary to the Bible chronology. I shall 
simply follow his line of argument, with the view of showing 
chiefly, without implying intentional unfairness, that he did 
not place the issues, nor even the facts that bear upon those 
issues, fully or fairly before his audience ; also that his argu- 
ments were loose instead of being cogent, and that sometimes 
they were self- contradictory ; and that, therefore, he did 
not succeed in upsetting the chronology of Genesis as inter- 
preted by himself. If besides this I happen to make out a 
jprimd facie case in favour of the particular Scriptural chrono- 
logy which Professor Huxley denied to be true ; and if the 
doctrines of geological chronology which he professed to believe 
are shown to be utterly disentitled to the term “ scientific ” in 
any sense ; or if men of science are proved to be at issue 
about those doctrines; — all that will be more than might be 
demanded in a repty that will not go unnecessarily beyond the 
line of the arguments which had been advanced to establish 
the very opposite conclusions. For a fuller consideration of 
the various arguments, pro and con , relating to this great 
subject, I must refer you to some former papers in our Journal 
of Transactions , but especially to the comprehensive discourse 
upon “ The Past and Present Eelations of Geological Science 
to the Sacred Scriptures,”* by Professor Kirk. It could not 
be expected — as I ventured to tell Professor Huxley in Sion 
College — that the large issues involved could be satisfactorily 
disposed of in a single unreported discussion arising upon an 
extempore address. Nor, of course, can they be disposed of 
in this reply. Fortunately for my line of argument, I do not 
think that much, if anything, will depend upon nice verbal 
accuracy as regards Professor Huxley’s statements ; but, for- 
tunately also, in case that might be thought of importance, a 
gentleman who took down the principal parts of Professor 
* Journal of Transactions , vol. i. p. 331 , et scq. 
