322 
nummulitic rock. He omitted, however, to prove anything as to 
the rate of its formation. He assumed it to he a mere deposit, 
and that its accumulation was so slow as to take 30,000 years ; 
hut the whole of that is mere assertion and conjecture. He 
may be right or he may he wrong ; hut he advanced no argu- 
ment whatever in support of this Scientific Doctrine. Well, 
how can we examine whether an argument is cogent or not, 
when we have no argument to examine ? Might not that 
reply be now sufficient ? Whenever he “ brings forth his 
strong reasons/* would it not he time enough then to consider 
them ? When he dealt with the length of Egypt, with the 
Nile valley, with Scripture, with Herodotus, and with the time 
required for the mud- deposits, and gave us something tangible 
to examine, I think I did not shrink from the task. But what 
can I reply to this mere ipse dixit that more than 30,000 years 
were required for the formation of the nummulitic strata? 
Had he been nearly right on the simpler problems of geo- 
graphy and history he began with, and somewhat fuller in his 
statements of the facts bearing, for instance, upon the deep- 
ness of the scientific borings in the Nile valley, we might have 
been inclined to trust him more easily here. But, if he has 
been both reticent and wrong, and has signally failed, as I 
do think he has, to help us to discover anything like the pro- 
bable time required for a mere surface deposit of mud, we 
cannot be predisposed now to accept his mere off-hand estimate 
for solving this deeper problem. 
But do not think I am saying this in order to escape the 
necessity of saying more. I only wish to show, that I must 
now take another line in my reply, when there are no real 
facts to dispute, and no arguments of any kind to answer. At 
the same time I do not think it would be profitable to meet 
assertions merely with assertions ; while still less could I 
presume to offer any mere assertions of mine against those of 
so distinguished a professor. I have indeed an advantage in 
knowing that it would be useless for me to attempt to palm 
off upon your understandings here, any mere vague and extra- 
vagant doctrines, without the least proof, and expect you to give 
them credit. Not being a “ scientific authority,” I can only 
expect your assent to what I may prove or disprove, or can 
show to be probably true. 
Well, I think there is something to be advanced in reply to 
Prof. Huxley, which must lead you to reject the Geological 
Chronology which he chiefly relied on for discrediting the 
chronology of Genesis. He thinks nothing of 6,000 years. 
Even the 30,000 assigned to the nummulite formations alone, 
he considered as not worth regarding, when compared with the 
