461 
must add the time required for the development of the great bulk of modern 
languages which flow from the same source. By following the Greek lan- 
guage we get carried back to a much earlier period, when the language which 
preceded both the Greek and the Sanskrit flourished, and that earlier language 
must have been considerably developed before the people who used it came 
from Asia, and formed the Greek, Latin, Spanish, German, and the whole 
batch of modern languages. There must unquestionably have been a con- 
siderable period of time for the growth of the Greek language before the 
period of the Homeric poems, and there must have been a considerable time 
required for the development of the language out of which Greek and Sanskrit 
originated before those languages came to be formed. And then the question 
arises in what relation did that earlier language, which was not monosyllabic, 
stand to the monosyllabic languages ? Altogether I think there is good 
reason to show that the development of language must have taken a very 
considerable time. 
Rev. S. Wainwright. — I am very much interested in the topic which 
Mr. Row has spoken upon, but, no doubt owing to my dulness, I do not 
quite understand that Mr. Row has given us any opinion as to the relation- 
ship of the monosyllabic languages — the Chinese, for instance, with the Semitic 
and inflexional languages mentioned in Dr. McCausland’s paper. That rela- 
tionship has much to do with the considerations as to the period of time 
necessitated — 
Mr. Row. — I admitted that point. 
Mr. Wainwright. — Then I will quit that part of the subject. I take the 
whole paper to be au attempt to defend a theory that Dr. McCausland has 
already maintained with much ability, but which I submit must have a 
great deal more of substantial evidence in its favour before it can make its 
way in the world. If you will allow me to say it, with all due deference, I 
most fully concur in an expression which fell from Dr. Thornton at the 
opening of this session. He told us that this Society must beware of being 
theological, but keep to science, and not get into theological disquisitions. 
Now I endorse that most fully; and though in the discussions of these 
matters we are at liberty to introduce the Scriptures if we please, we should 
introduce them as the Scriptures, and as nothing else. Unless the Scriptures 
are introduced as an authority from which there is no appeal, we had better 
keep them out altogether, otherwise we only complicate matters ; but as we do 
not come here to discuss the Scriptures, nor to decide other questions by the 
standard of the Scriptures, we should discuss scientific questions by scientific 
standards, and not appeal to the Scriptures at all, or else take care that our 
appeal is fully borne out by the Scriptures. I think that canon of reference 
is violated in this essay over and over again. For instance, there is a quiet 
assumption by Dr. McCausland that his doctrine of the plurality of race — 
“ is in accordance with the great doctrines of the atonement, redemp- 
tion, and justification by and through the second Adam, and with all that 
has been written by the prophets and apostles of things that were, and are, 
and are to be.” 
