343 
received by theologians. Now, I maintain that there is no such thing. I 
think a truer view of the question is to be found in Mr. Reddie’s address, 
that we are not dealing with theories which have been drawn from ascertained 
facts. I need scarcely remind you that there are very great discrepancies 
between the different versions of the Biblical chronology — discrepancies 
amounting to 1,250 years, or thereabouts. The chronology of the Bible rests 
upon one genealogical table, to be found in Genesis, and referred to in 1st 
Chronicles and the Gospel of St. Luke. But we find it was the habit of 
the Scriptural writers to make large gaps in their genealogical tables. The first 
verse in the New Testament is an instance of this, for we find two generations 
mentioned stretching over a period of nineteen centuries. We know, also, 
that in the continuation of that chapter various gaps are designedly made in 
the genealogical table ; and we can so trace the habit of those sacred writers 
in such cases that we are led to conclude, where we cannot apply a test at all, 
that the genealogical tables are incomplete. Very few who have looked into 
the subject will place such reliance on the common Biblical chronology as 
Professor Huxley seems to suppose, and I think the issue which he has raised 
fails on that point. It has been stated to-night that geology is not a science. 
I cannot accept that at all. Certainly it is not a science of the same kind 
as mathematics or chemistry ; but I believe it is nevertheless a science, and 
one which may lead us to very decided conclusions. (Hear, hear.) I believe 
myself that man has existed upon the earth for a great deal longer than 6,000 
years ; but I believe, at the same time, that that is in no way opposed to any 
statement which I am called upon to believe in revelation. (Hear, hear.) I 
trust this discussion will be marked throughout with courtesy, so that we 
may not seem to be endeavouring to pit one class against another — to pit 
geologists against the clergy, for instance ; and I hope we shall all consider 
that though we may differ from Professsor Huxley’s opinions, we ought to 
treat him courteously, and to consider his arguments and the whole question 
in all its bearings as becomes gentlemen and Christians. (Hear, hear.) 
Dr. Haughton. — As one of the foundation members of this Institution, I 
may perhaps be excused for making a remark as to the position we occupy 
and with regard to the resumption of this debate. We claim to be a scien- 
tific Institution, and I trust that whatever remarks may be made, the 
speakers will distinctly keep that in view, especially when we remember the 
tone which has been adopted towards us by certain public journals of no 
small reputation, and among others, by the Saturday Review. It should be 
distinctly borne in mind that we claim to be a scientific Institution, and 
therefore, that the speakers should confine their remarks to the points of 
the discussion. (Hear, hear.) 
The Chairman. — Perhaps I may be allowed to make one or two remarks 
of a rather apologetic character for the subject which has been discussed this 
evening. It may not be generally known, even among the clergy, that the 
various meetings of Sion College, of which I am a fellow, were not express 
meetings of the fellows, nor are they convened by the Court of Sion 
College. They are convened entirely by the President of that body. The 
2 B 
