211 
and still asked, Was man a savage? ‘He must have been if he came 
from an ape. He could not have been educated, nor tutored, and in- 
structed, and therefore he must have been a savage. Putting together 
all the records of antiquity,—Babylonian, Assyrian, Chinese, Grecian, Roman, 
—they got only a limited period ; a period, too, which in a remarkable 
manner corresponded to that of the Bible: whereas, according to the 
assumptions of the evolutionists, the period must be of immense length, as 
had been noticed in the early part of the paper. He maintained that the 
conclusions drawn respecting man’s age were erroneous, because the premises 
laid. down were false. As to what had been said respecting his remark, that 
man, as hefirst appeared on the earth, might perhaps be regarded as a child in 
his development, he would reply that the evolutionists do not admit that 
man came on the scene as a manatall, but as a man-like ape, then an ape-like 
man, and hence in no sense a human child. He had endeavoured in his 
paper to show that such an assertion of man’s origin was a mere assumption, 
unsupported by proof. As for himself, he was not ashamed to say that he 
believed the Bible as a revelation from God to man, and that revelation 
declared that man was a separate creation; and he saw no reason why he 
should give up his faith in that revelation. He felt that, if he gave up his 
belief in the Bible account of man’s creation, he must give up the New 
Testament, with its doctrine of the Atonement and Regeneration, for there 
could be no necessity for the Atonement if man had never offended, nor 
of Regeneration if he had never fallen, which he never could if he commenced 
his career as an improved ape. 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
