191 
torted, “ You have proved that you do not believe the Bible ; 
for have you not just denied the fall of man ? " The Darwinian 
then was silent. 
1 would earnestly commend such considerations as this to 
any who, looking only at a part of the large issues involved, 
are inclined to attempt to reconcile the Darwinian theory 
applied to man with the Scriptural account of the creation. 
Take its whole scope, or, if I may say so reverently, the 
theory of man's creation (made “ a little lower than the 
angels,") and of his present condition, as revealed in the Bible ; 
and even if ingenuity may be able to reconcile the brief record 
of his mere cc creation 33 with some process of gradual develop- 
ment, yet surely what the Scriptures teach us as a whole 
respecting man is plainly and utterly at issue with the notion 
of man having risen from being an inferior and unintelligent 
or irrational creature to his present condition. 
If we believe the Scriptures as a whole, it will not do 
merely to take the letter of some few verses in Genesis, when 
wc discuss the question whether Darwinism is reconcileable 
with Scripture. "We are bound as Christians, and as believers 
in Revelation, to consider the whole scope of the Christian 
faith as well as the full scope of what else is put before us by 
our fellow men as claiming our assent. But I am not in the 
least asserting that we may not also take lower grounds and 
join issue with Darwinism and all other human theories by 
arguments based upon our knowledge of nature. To do this, 
in fact, is one of the objects for which this Society has been 
especially established j and it is thus, it will be seen by reference 
to our Journal of Transactions, we have striven generally to 
discuss the subjects we have had under consideration. But 
ve must not be debarred from also reasoning upon higher 
considerations, nor frightened from the conception of faith, 
especially where positive knowledge and human science fail! 
e must remember, also, there are questions which human 
science only leaves in doubt, and as it were nearly balanced, 
as regards the evidence or arguments for this or that, or as 
regards the authorities for one opinion or another. It would 
be hard to say, for instance, whether the greater number of 
the most eminent Ethnologists or Anthropologists have come 
o the conclusion that man is descended from one or many 
Adams. In proof of this, I may quote from the last address of 
Dr Hunt s 6Sldent ° f ^ Anthro P olo & ical Society of London. 
A French anthropologist not long since asked the question, whether the 
majority of the Society were in favour of the monogenist or the polygenist 
t leones of the origin of mankind ? The reply I gave him was, that the 
