211 
iirSiwW 0 "/ Adam a , Dd EVe? N0W ’ 1 W0UH ask < «» *e 
Andt Lt t°T 1S ’ * We ^ itS advocates “ «P®nmto ? 
And since the theory I advocate is not merely a monogenous theory, but is 
ounded upon what Professor Huxley so completely despises-the Scriptural 
account whrch begins mankind with the special creation of Adam and Eve- 
t^We it J n P, a ^ Cal1 “ * he reUgi0US the01 7 1 1 ahouM be glad 
other to* h 1 ° r Mr ' Warington wiU su PP ! y me with some 
erm y which I could better or more intelligibly designate it. With 
regard to the polygenous theory, I not only do not think it is necessarily 
sionfthT’ 1 1 k p° W S ° me PerS0DS fomid tkeir views u P° n the expres- 
mmthey find m Genesis as to “the sons of God” and “ the daughters of 
, m support of a polygenous theory, which they may therefore regard as 
stjd that Hu Whll< ; admittin g this, I think eyeiybody will under- 
and that what I have called the religious theory is what the Scriptures 
mos o viously teach. And what is the main feature of that theory ? Why 
ia man was created perfect, and in the same way that God created all 
i mma S ’ for mstanc e, do not acquire their instincts gradually : they 
ave em, and, so far as we know, always had them complete, and each its 
own distinctive characteristics. The dog has its bark, the cow its low, the 
mg i mga e its song, and every inferior creature its distinctive instincts, by 
nature, and all m perfection. But we do not suppose that the bee, in forming 
i s exagonal cells, knows anything of geometry or understands the nature 
° ang es. nd when the Chairman was speaking of those wonderful powers 
ex ibited by the insect creation, he was, in fact, really speaking of the 
greatness and power of the Deity who formed them, and gave them all those 
it er u instincts which they possess, but which they exercise without 
mu eis an mg. the skill which they exhibit being rather — like an instrument 
that is played upon by a skilful hand-an exhibition of the skill of the Great 
nvisible performer who gave them all their instincts. (Hear, hear.; When 
, G T T repr0Ved me ( Wlth a mild cen «^e, I admit,) for calling names, 
as he termed it he himself did the very thing for which he was blaming me ; 
’ WM \ he thou g ht P r °Per to defend the Darwinian theory as possibly 
religious, he distinctly charged the polygenous theory with being irreligious. 
I iear near.) Now my argument against that theory was chiefly this, that 
i mvo ves an inconsistency in its theory of creation, if it assumes that some 
len were originally mfenor to others, as if God would contradict himself by 
nu ving tl eing which was not perfect. And surely there is nothing more 
ioc mg not mg more revolting to one’s ideas of what a human being 
lg 1 ° be ’ tban a low ’ degraded savage ; there is nothing so utterly abject 
■7 1 n am ° ng 7 16 bPUte creatlon - But tllen 5 although I frankly acknowledged 
the source whence we derive the theory I have advocated, and gave a state- 
nu nt in a geneial way of the facts relating to man’s origin contained in the 
i e ; s ill I have not supported it by a single argument to be derived from 
Scnpture : I have taken the Bible merely as a historical book ; I have referred 
to it, as it were, merely as containing a part of our knowledge of the historv 
ol our race ; and my arguments have been rational appeals to nature through- 
