375 
instance, Sir Roderick Murchison and Sir Charles Lyell-as regards successive 
creataons. Professor Morris is mistaken in supposing that “ Professor Huxley 
alluded to twenty-nine or thirty distinct formations” marked by “ distinct 
organic remains.” (p. 356.) I alluded to there having been “ once no less 
than twenty-nine supposed successions of life on this earth,” which was a 
view advanced by M. d’Orbigny, and entertained for some time by many as 
geological science. Professor Huxley said nothing about it, or of any modi- 
fications of it subsequently, but mentioned only “ three successions-three 
rei lva s. And why he spoke even of these, unless to suggest to his hearers 
the idea of three special creations, I do not understand ; and yet it is noto- 
rious he does not believe in any new creations, or in such “ revivals” or 
successions of distinct genera and species. He has distinctly said that 
those appearances ” of new genera “may he the simple results of migration.’' 
(p. 6AI.) U then, as would appear, Professor Morris does believe'in “ special 
creations, he is at issue with Professor Huxley ; and their diverse opinions 
cannot both be science.” If the clergy unfortunately preach either view, 
ley will be liable to be arraigned as “ clearly unscientific” by the adverse 
party ; just as they have been by Dr. Gladstone in this discussion, without 
his telling us however, what scientific theories they had propounded from 
the pulpit to his dissatisfaction. Professor Morris introduces some of the 
stock arguments of geology bearing upon man’s antiquity, which appear to 
me anything but cogent. For instance :-There are no evidences of man’s 
remains no fragment of a canoe wrecked among the coral reefs of the 
Carboniferous period and therefore (it is argued) man did not then exist ! 
a f °i W *? P 7 \ It -Atlantic chalk ooze. Before Columbus crossed the 
lantic (and if other unknown navigators did not precede him) there could, 
urse, e no coins, copper kettles, or anchor-stocks, or any other specimens 
of mans handiwork, dropt into the Atlantic and embedded in the ooze. 
And therefore (with equal want of cogency) it might be argued, that no men 
existed on the earth before Columbus, if the “evidence” depended upon the 
an ice alk up to that date ! And so there are no evidences of man’s 
remains among the Saurian bones of the Has.” (p.356.) Therefore (because 
Saurians Hved in water and man on land,) man is proved not to be in 
istence anywhere, his remains not being found among Saurian bones ! 
Then as regards Professor Morris’s argument as to the antiquity of man’s 
to . hey , hOTe been found “ the valley of the Somme, I must refer 
ZLl i 1 ™ T 0f 0ur Joumal °f transactions, and what is there 
said as to these and the cognate “ finds ” in Auverome 
the Rev “ asten T °”’ ^notice the remaining a°dvei*e criticisms-those of 
sive wf t • I’ Sha11 “° St effectuaI >y ans wer him, by submis- 
r~r p 7 p r ion ° f ° ne ° f his ^ wh ° m ^ a * ^ of 
ported f °f ’ had T de t0 Write 0Ut the whole book the b °y had P”- 
Professor Huxiev° m ’i a w “ aCCUratel y <P- 3B0 -) I purported to quote 
Mr ® , HuxIey ’ not Herodotus, in the passage which I regret called forth 
ProfelsoTV T r?, nt remarks ‘ 1 a PPend the complete epitome of 
VOL ii UX ^ S address > 35 it was taken down and sent to me by a 
2 D 
