312 
I do contend^ that in bringing these matters before the public 
in popular lectures, the real state of the question should be 
made known. Professor Huxley spoke in the name of science 
and of men of science ; and he left it to be inferred that there 
were not two opinions as regards the doctrines he put before 
the clergy in Sion College. Now, I am obliged to ask; whether 
that is true ? And I venture to say — though I trust that truth 
in science is not to be settled by majorities-— that not even a 
majority of those who are reputed to be men of science hold 
the same opinions as Professor Huxley, as to man’s origin or 
his advancement to civilization. At the British Association, 
in 1865— 
“ Professor Rawlinson publicly protested against the assumption that 
human, beings were originally in that poor and destitute condition which had 
been described, and that they all rose from a state of barbarism. He held 
the very opposite opinion, viz. that they were created in a state of consider- 
able civilization, and that while most of the races had declined into absolute 
barbarism, some races had never done so. The Egyptians, Babylonians, and 
Jews had never so declined. 55 
You will observe I am not asking your assent to Professor 
Rawlinson’ s views, any more than to Professor Huxley’s ; but 
only endeavouring to show that you ought not to accept 
as “ Scientific Doctrine ” all that has been professedly put 
forth as such at Sion College. I do not know whether you will 
consider that the doctrines there professed, so far as we have 
yet examined them, were supported by cogent arguments or 
not. But at any rate you must reject, as not a fact, that fanci- 
ful “ huge arm of the sea ” 1,200 miles in length ; as being a 
stretch far up the river Nile, nearly three times beyond the 
whole length of Egypt ; and as a notion not imagined by the 
acute Greek “ Father of history,” or dreamt of in the days of 
the Hebrew, Joseph, 
You must remember also that the argument, that a long time 
must have elapsed after Memphis was built before its founders 
advanced to build chariots, is entirely based upon a mere 
assumption, which is not yet accepted by the most credulous, 
as a “ scientific doctrine,” and which indeed is self- destructive 
of their faith in the fact they argue from, namely, the existence 
of Memphis itself. — And now let us go on to the Professor’s 
second position. 
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE MUD DEPOSITS IN THE 
YALLEY OF THE NILE. 
It was perhaps because it was here that Professor Huxley 
intended to found one of his strongest points against the 
