177 
monogenist, and has urged its probability upon physiological 
grounds. Mr. Alfred It. Wallace, who (upon Mr. Darwiffis frank 
acknowledgment) may be regarded as the joint author of the 
theory, and ought therefore to understand it, pleads for it 
exclusively on monogenist grounds. The Darwinian is, there- 
fore, so far in agreement with the Religious Theory ; but only 
so far. 
Still it is useful to have an eminent physiologist and anato- 
mist, like Professor Huxley, strenuously declaring upon scien- 
tific grounds that he has no difficulty in understanding how 
all the varieties of the human race may originally have sprung 
from a single pair. His scientific dicta and arguments coun- 
terbalance what may be put forward, also as scientific dicta 
and arguments, on the other side. It is of great consequence 
also to have Mr. Wallace, as a distinguished naturalist, traveller 
and ethnologist, upon the monogenist side ; even although 
other travellers and ethnologists, also eminent, have come to 
totally opposite conclusions. This being so, the holders of the 
religious theory may fairly say, that at least nothing is scien- 
tifically determined by physiology, comparative anatomy or 
ethnology, on the one side or the other. And this leaves us 
free to study the matter with regard to other considerations, 
if it does not indeed compel us to do so, in order to 
understand on what side is the weight of evidence and pro- 
bability. It is to these other considerations I now wish 
especially to call attention. 
But there may be also monogenists, who, while rejecting 
Darwinism, do not hold the religious theory. They may 
believe that all mankind are of one species, and have sprung 
from a single pair, but yet they may consider the primitive man 
to have been a savage. If there be such a theory, it prac- 
tically differs little from the Darwinian, after (but only aftei ■) 
we have arrived at man upon the theory of transmutation. 
The difficulties of Darwinism begin, however, long before we 
have got to man. 
The classification adopted may, therefore, suffice for a 
tolerably complete review of the leading theories opposed to 
that of Scripture, which differs essentially from the others, in 
this, that it not only holds the special creation of man, but 
also that man was created not a low-caste, speechless savage, 
but a man in perfection. All the theories recognize the 
fact that there has been some kind of development or change 
in the human family ; the chief differences between them all 
relate to the origin and character of the primitive man. 
While acknowledging in what respect the religious theory 
differs from all the others, it must also be pointed out in what 
