468 
yon get in the sedimentary strata,, merely because that is where they lived. 
Dr. McCausland says, — 
“ Well-established truths of this nature ought not to be discredited/ 7 
I agree with him that no well-established truth should be discredited ; but 
the question is, What is a well-established truth 1 There is an assumption 
here that Dr. McCauslancl’s own views are true, and that we must not dis- 
credit what he has arrived at. But we are bound to examine these things, 
and not to take them for granted. In the next page he says that as regards 
physical science the Scriptures teach us nothing ; but he himself seems 
to think they do teach us something as to the creation of man ; and if that 
is not part of physical science I do not know what is. Then I must protest 
against his saying this : — 
“ The first chapter of Genesis puts an end to the doctrine that Caucasian 
man, the great civilizer of himself and others, is the result of a process of 
elevation from the savage to civilized man.” 
I will not accept that argument, although the conclusion agrees with my 
own opinion, because I think it would damage this Institute if we put ifc 
forward that we argued merely from the teaching of the first chapter of 
Genesis. I am only sorry I have not yet been able to redeem a pledge I 
made to Sir John Lubbock in the Ethnological Society to take the strong 
points in his paper on the savage origin of man and answer them, or else 
confess that he has made out his case. There are one or two occasions where 
Dr. McCausland uses this language : — “ We prefer to retain the Scripture 
chronology,” and so on. Those passages should have been expressed in the 
first person singular : the author of a paper can only speak for himself. 
When Dr. McCausland speaks of the Scripture chronology as that of 6,000 
years, that is by no means granted ; and 8,000 years is about as near as 6,000, 
according to some chronological interpretations. I know some people who 
would not think much of the extra 2,000 years which that gives you ; but I 
am certain that the arguments as to man’s deterioration and the alteration of 
languages will be considerably affected if you have another 2,000 years to 
deal with. (Hear, hear.) 
Mr. Row. — It seems to me that you think you must not take the method 
of advancing from an imperfect language and go upwards to the highest 
point, but you assume an original perfect language and come downwards. 
Mr. Reddie. — Yes ; because we have the old perfect Sanscrit and Greek — 
both of them extremely artificial. You have to account for these languages 
being found in their oldest condition in this perfect form. You have already 
had explained by Mr. White the rapid change which may take place in a 
language in 500 years. And Mr. White might have spoken not merely of 
the Italian language, but of the Italian people ; for the Italians of to-day are 
no more like the “ noble Romans ” of Julius Caesar’s day, than they were like 
the barbarians that invaded them. So you have the same phenomenon in 
the people that you have in the language. 
The Chairman. — It now becomes my duty to sum up, as it were, the 
