467 
Bow’s argument as to the time it would take to make Sanscrit and Greek 
perfect languages out of barbarous ones wants a rational beginning 
Mr. Eow. — I cannnot see how my argument wants a beginning, because I 
assume the original form of Sanscrit, which belongs to it, and which also 
belongs to the twin language, Greek. 
Mr. Eeddie. — Yes, but they are both perfect languages, and your argu- 
ment wants a beginning to prove their lower origin 
Mr. Eow. — I apprehend we have proof that they have both of them 
originated out of a previous language. 
Mr. Eeddie. — But even if they have, unless they originated out of a 
language in a low condition, and were raised up from that, my argument 
clearly stands good. Whatever periods of time were required for the modi- 
fication of languages, you must have a rational beginning, and tell us whether 
they began in a low or in a high condition, just as we must know the same 
with regard to the origin of savages. Now, with regard to savage races there 
is no instance of a savage race having civilized itself ; but we have constant 
instances, even under our own eyes, around us, of civilized people degenerating 
and growing degraded. The onus probandi, therefore, lies on the other side. 
Give me one instance of a savage race that has civilized itself, and then I will 
admit that we may have risen from a low condition, although we have still 
greater proof that civilization is the older of the two conditions of man ; and 
that subject has not been exhausted. While referring to Essays and Reviews , 
I do not think it is fair of Dr. McCausland to say that a reply put forward 
under the editorship of the Bishop of Oxford was put forward “ by the clergy 
of the Church of England.” Half a dozen men were asked to write a book, 
and the Bishop of Oxford edited it ; but he never previously even read it, and 
I think that was rather unfortunate for his own credit. Mr. Eorison was one of 
the gentlemen who contributed to that volume, and he had a notion that the 
verses of Genesis which narrate the six days’ creation were like stanzas of 
poetry, and that, in point of fact, the six days’ account was a sort of poetical 
mode of division, like stanzas in common poetry ; and I consider that view 
objectionable. It was no reply at all to Mr. Goodwin. But the clergy were not 
responsible for that. Mr. Eorison himself was the responsible person, and I 
suppose the Bishop of Oxford avoided reading the papers, in order that he 
might not be responsible for what they contained ; but I do not think that 
a satisfactory way of conducting polemical discussions. Then Dr. McCausland, 
appealing to the succession of sedimentary strata in the earth’s crust, asks 
us what geology says as to the progress of life or the progress of time. Well, 
we agree to a certain extent that there was the creation of fishes of the sea 
before the land animals ; but the question arises, How long did it take to 
accomplish the whole of creation ? I have yet seen nothing to shake my 
faith in the six days’ creation. It is satisfactory to find that the geologists 
do hold that the oldest animals they have discovered are of an aquatic 
character, but that explains nothing, — and I say this, although their view 
would rather confirm my own, for the fact is that the reason the lower grades 
of animal life are found in the bottom of the ocean is that it is those which 
