365 
and that Professor Huxley, in a paper in the Fortnightly Review, with his 
own name attached to it, had said, “ Now, I do not believe this, and I 
know no scientific person or well-instructed person who does.” When I 
ventured to call Professor Huxley’s attention to this, Mr. Rogers, the 
President, told me that I had no right to import into the discussion — opened, 
let it be remembered, by Professor Huxley, and the subject of which, mind 
you, was the discrepancy existing between scientific and theological opinion — 
anything that Professor Huxley might have said or written elsewhere. I 
wished to know whether that was a really scientific opinion or not, and I was 
told that I had no right to import into the discussion anything that had been 
previously said or written by Professor Huxley. I wanted to fix Professor 
Huxley to the point where there was a real difference of opinion ; for I 
think that this will be held to be a real divergence of opinion, if such an 
opinion be held by scientific men. But I hold very strongly — and I believe 
that here Dr. Gladstone will agree with me — that Professor Huxley has 
libelled the scientific men of this country in saying that no scientific or well- 
instructed person with whom he was acquainted believed in the Divine 
creation of Adam and Eve. I ventured to point out how far that divergence 
went — that it went further than denying the creation of Adam and Eve ; and 
from the paper I have just referred to, I took a quotation which Professor 
Huxley did not deny was his writing. He' told us — and I regard the manner 
in which he answered me as an insult to the clergy, the way in which he 
refused to answer me — that he should have thought it insulting to have 
imported anything which might be annoying to the clergy into remarks 
made by him as their invited guest. That would seem to imply that he did 
not consider us capable of entering upon the subject. I have said thus much 
because I wished to explain what it was that gave rise to what has been 
alluded to as the personal feeling shown in Mr. Reddie’s paper. But, I ask, 
why does Professor Huxley deny the special creation of Adam and Eve ? 
From the same paper, in which he talks of “ what men hold to be a holy and 
divine truth,” and in which he libels the clergy under the name of the 
“ Adamitic genus, pure and simple,” I get from Professor Huxley an admis- 
sion that there is no scientific objection to the unity of the human race. In 
his own science, that of comparative anatomy, I should be very willing to 
accept Professor Huxley as an authority ; but when he goes beyond that, I 
want to know the grounds upon which he makes his assertions, in order that 
I may get at what he means. As I have just said, I get from him an admis- 
sion. It was held a few years ago by Lord Karnes, and after him the dogma 
may be said to have been adopted by all the infidel schools, that you could 
not maintain the unity of the human race, because it was impossible 
to get a black man out of a white man. Professor Huxley, however, 
seems to have no such difficulty. In fact, it would seem that he would 
find little difficulty in believing it possible to get a black man out of a 
monkey ! He holds that from comparative anatomy you have overwhelming 
evidence of the unity of the human race. But he objects to the proposi- 
tion that the human race must have come from several centres, because that 
