361 
raised, as to whether matter was eternal and whether it could come of 
nothing. This is the point to which St. Paul referred when he said that the 
world was made by the word of God, and not out of the things which now 
appear. What the six days may mean I will not go into now. I am 
willing to take them either as six days or a more lengthened period if you 
like ; but I say that the narrative is so worded that it may be taken either 
way. When, however, men come to us with their own interpretations and 
tell us they are men of large and expanded opinions, I think we have a 
right to ask them, “ Where are your facts ? Is it not the mark of science 
that you should take your stand upon your facts ; like Newton, when he 
refused to believe certain things about the satellites of Jupiter, because he 
had never seen satellites having the characteristics described ? ” 
Captain Fishbourne. — I may state in reference to Mr. Eeddie, as he is 
unable to be present, that he specially asked Professor Huxley to come 
forward, and therefore 'the absence of Professor Huxley was his own fault. 
Dr. Gladstone. — Mr. Wainwright seems to think he differs from what I 
have said. I feel it incumbent on me to say that I go entirely with him as 
far as the chronology of the Scriptures is concerned. No doubt there is an 
apparent chronology, but .it appears to me, if we look more minutely into 
that chronology, we find that there are important omissions, and we do not 
know, especially in the more ancient records, to what extent those omissions 
may have gone. We find in the account of the dispersion of the tribes of 
man after the Deluge, that some nations are said to beget other nations. 
Now, when that is the case, it is open to us to think that the antediluvians 
alluded to as having lived for 900 years may have been nations or dynasties 
instead of individuals. This would show that we are not able to form any 
definite opinion, within a few thousand years, as to what the antiquity of 
Adam might be. That we must draw on the Bank of Time for a much 
longer period than 6,000 years is evident to me from the convergence of a 
number of arguments. There is the geological argument — the argument of 
finding the works of man in comparatively ancient drifts ; for instance, in the 
valley of the Somme — an argument which, I think, obliges us to give a greater 
antiquity than 6,000 years. Then there are other discoveries made in Switzer- 
land and Denmark ; and beyond this, there is evidence that man coexisted 
along with, not one species only, but many species of animals which are now 
totally extinct in this part of the world. Again, if we are to suppose the 
languages of the earth to spring from one stock, we must require a 
much longer period than 6,000 years for that. Then we have the ethno- 
logical argument. If we believe, as the Scriptures require us, that man 
sprang from one single pair, then apparently we require a much longer 
period than 6,000 years to account for the large divergence of race which 
now exists. I think, also, various histories of ancient nations, with their 
civilization and religion, require an extension of that period. I do not say 
that any one of these arguments is conclusive in itself, but I contend that, 
combined, they afford a very strong proof that man has been upon the face of 
the earth for a longer period than we have generally attributed to him ; but 
2 c 2 
