358 
flinch from stating what they believe. We are quite ready— I am at this 
moment — to say what we think and what theologians are allowed to think, 
because theologians are liberal to one another and to scientific men, although 
they themselves are not treated with liberality. I am prepared now to say 
what I think as to the demand made upon our faith by the Bible m this 
question of man’s antiquity, and I wholly deny that there is any fixed chro- 
nology laid down for us in the Scriptures. There is no reason in the 
world why every statement of Professor Huxley on this head— so far, of 
course, as it was an accurate statement— should not be admitted by us ; there 
is nothing that I know of in Holy Scripture to prevent us giving the 
geologists” if they please, the first verse of the first chapter of Genesis to 
build” their millions and millions of ages upon. I am not saying that I 
concede, or that I deny, in this matter. I am quite prepared to admit the 
great ignorance of scientific men at the present day as to the antiquity of the 
world, ”and I am sure that Professor Morris will not refuse to admit this also. 
What I regret is, that we are constantly assailing each other, as if each sus- 
pected the” other of dishonesty. It is this that I protest against. Why 
cannot scientific men honestly advance their cause to us, exploring facts and 
shrinking from nothing which comes before them, without imputing to us 
any reluctance ? Why cannot they believe that theology does not consist in 
a blind narrowness ; that there is something more in the theological world 
at the present day, and has been in God’s Church from the days of St. 
Augustine : that there is, and has been, a high tone of penetrating rational 
theology pervading the Church in all ages, and that we are not afraid of 
it now ? I should be glad if there were this issue to our discussion, that 
scientific men would understand what they were about, and that the clergy 
would separate themselves more and more from the narrowness of secta- 
rianism on this question. I do not think that any question has been raised 
in our time of more vital concern to the progress of Christianity than that 
which has been incidentally started in consequence of Professor Huxley’s 
attack upon us. It is very easy to say, as Professor Morris has said, that 
Mr Reddie has misunderstood Professor Huxley ; but in answer to that, I 
must say that Professor Huxley is one of the clearest speakers I ever heard 
a man n ot easily misunderstood — a man not carried away by any hasty 
enthusiasm -a cool-headed, prudent, and thoughtful man. I wished to do 
him all the justice in the world ; but I stood up at Sion College and said, 
althouoh it was rather late, I desired to ask the President whether he would 
permit” me to ask Professor Huxley if he meant to say that the clergy he 
was addressing were rogues or fools. I did not impute to him the use of 
such rough words, but I said I liked to translate platitudes into the simple 
English of common sense, and what Professor Huxley had said left on my 
mind and I believed had left on the mind of every person in the room, the 
impression either that the clergy shut their eyes to the facts of science, or 
that they were so densely stupid that they did not comprehend those facts ; 
in fact, Professor Huxley had made it out that they were either fools or 
knaves. Professor Huxley immediately rose, and said, “ I beg your pardon ; 
