298 
that question now, so I must content myself with adducing 
the testimony of an acknowledged authority, the celebrated 
Dr. Pritchard, who had investigated the subject as deeply, 
perhaps, as any man who ever lived, and whose conclusions are 
set forth in the following words : — “ On the whole, it appears 
that the information deduced from this method of inquiry is 
as satisfactory as we could expect, and is sufficient to confirm, 
and, indeed, by itself to establish, the inference that the human 
kind contains but one species, and, therefore, by a second 
inference, but one race. It will, I apprehend, be allowed by 
those who have attentively followed the investigation of par- 
• ticulars, that the diversities in physical character belonging 
to different races present no material obstacle to the opinion 
that all nations sprang from one original, a result which plainly 
follows from the foregoing consideration.”* To which I would 
add, that “ one original ” must have been a separate act of crea- 
tion on the part of the Divine Creator, and not the outcome, in 
the process of development, of an ascidian tadpole, according to 
the favourite hypothesis of certain savans in the present day. + 
99. In summing up a review of those heathen cosmogonies 
at which we have slightly glanced, rather than considered at 
any length, and comparing them with the Hebrew, we cannot 
help noticing the vast gulf between the twoj. The only 
* Researches into the Physical History of Mankind, by James C. 
Pritchard, M.D., vol. ii. p. 589. The great question between Mr. Darwin and 
those who oppose his views may be said to consist in this : — “ Is man a sepa- 
rate act of Creative Power ? ” The Bible teaches that he is — Mr. Darwin, 
the contrary. It is satisfactory to know that the results of a large number 
of experiments made by Dr. Parker, President of the Microscopical Society, 
and Professor Huxley, tend to prove that man must have been a separate 
creation. (See Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. vii. p. 282.) On the 
question, however, of mankind being descended “ from one original,” as 
Scripture teaches, and Dr. Pritchard considers that he has proved, Professor 
Huxley observes, in an article in the Fortnightly Review, “ On the Methods 
and Results of Ethnology,” that the idea of our descent from Adam and Eve 
is quite a mistake. “ Five-sixths of the public,” he says, “are taught this 
Adamitic monogenism, as if it were an established truth, and believe it. I 
do not ; and I am not acquainted with any man of science or duly instructed 
person who does.” 
f It was a profound saying of William Humboldt that man is man only by 
means of speech, but that in order to invent speech he must be man already. 
— Lyell’s Antiquity of Man, p. 468. 
I, Even Mr. Goodwin, with all his apparent prejudice against the Mosaic 
cosmogony, is obliged to admit that in the Biblical record “ things are called 
by their right names with a certain scientific exactness widely different from 
the imaginative cosmogonies of the Greeks” (Essays and Reviews, p. 223). 
Justin Martyr was justified in asking, “ Who can believe in the drivelling 
theogony of Hesiod?” (Discourse to the Greeks, ch. ii.). And a member of 
