458 
error be corrected by restoring the Adam of G-enesis to his 
proper place in the procession of humanity, the parent of his 
own race, and of no other, and our ancient and precious 
Biblical record of primeval events will be allowed by many 
who now despise it, to speak with authority, and perhaps to 
decide some of the conflicting theories which are engaging 
the attention of the scientific world. Under such influence, 
the relics of antiquity, now scattered abroad, will come 
together like the dry bones in the valley, and stand up an 
exceeding great army of facts, to attest the power and wisdom 
of the Almighty in His works, and the truth and inspiration 
of His written Word. 
The Chairman.— I now ask you to give your thanks to Dr. McCausland 
for his paper, and I shall be glad to hear what any gentleman has to say on 
the subject. 
Mr. Poyer. — Dr. McCausland raises the question of the unity or diversity 
of the origin of race. He inclines to the theory of diversity ; and supposes that, 
if it be accepted, certain chronological difficulties in the Scriptures will be 
discharged. Now there may certainly be chronological difficulties in the 
Bible, but it seems to me a matter of still greater difficulty to accept his 
solution of the diversity of origin. I cannot conceive that the degenerate 
type of the negro — to take the strongest instance — can possibly have 
emanated aboriginally from the Godhead. By way of illustration I will 
put an artistic case. Let it be conceived, if possible, that some daub 
of a third or fourth-rate artist should be assigned to Raphael or some 
other great master of art : would not such a suggestion be received with 
indignation, almost with scorn ? Is there not a relation of necessary 
congruity between every artist and his creation ? I can conceive it 
just possible that in the case of Raphael, through some defect of power, 
or originating from whatever reason, he may at a certain moment have 
failed in his art, and have produced something irrelative to his intrinsic 
capacity, but such a suggestion cannot be referred to the Godhead at 
all, for God’s powers are perfect and always perfect. I therefore incline 
most emphatically to the theory of the aboriginal unity of the origin of 
man. Dr. McCausland has referred to the Scriptures in elucidation of 
his position, but I think the Scriptures are rather more antagonistic than 
favourable to his theory. We have clearly at the very opening of the 
record the fact that God created man — or the Adam — in His own image. 
No doubt we are not restricted to apprehend that statement in relation to 
an individual Adam, but rather to take it generally : — “ Male and female 
created He them, and called their name Adam.” But the fact stated is that 
He created Adam in His own image ; and I am at a loss to conceive in what 
other image he could have been created. But still there is the fact of 
declension and degeneration, and we have to account for it. Dr. McCausland 
refers to Scripture, and I think the Scriptures do throw' some light upon it. 
