471 
“ The authenticity of the Bible ought not to be permitted to rest on the 
untenable proposition that Africa became peopled with negro descendants of 
Caucasian Adam in the brief space of time that elapsed between the disper- 
sion and the exodus ; nor on the assumption that when the Israelite encoun- 
tered the negro in Egypt in the days of Joseph, or when the sons of Japhet, 
carrying out their destiny of multiplying and replenishing the earth, encoun- 
tered the aboriginal savage in Europe, or, at a later period, in America and 
Australia, they came face to face with members of their own family, whose 
forefathers had emigrated to those regions at an early period, and had for- 
gotten their lineage, discarded their language, and had become transformed, 
not only in features and complexion, but in moral capacity and anatomical 
configuration.” 
That is the only sentence in which there is any semblance of an argument 
for the plurality of race, and all it amounts to is this, that in various races 
there is a difference between them and the Caucasian race in moral capacity 
and anatomical configuration. Professor Huxley told us in the Fortnightly 
Review, though he spoke contemptuously of the “ Adamite ” theory, that he 
had no difficulty, as an anatomist and physiologist, in admitting the unity of 
race. All the difficulties in his mind were difficulties attaching to the plurality 
rather than to the unity of race, and there were no arguments which would 
stand in the way of admitting the unity of race. When we have such admis- 
sions from those who are not favourable to anything like a Scriptural view 
of the subject — when they are obliged to confess that there are no good 
scientific reasons which can be urged against the unity of the human race, I 
think those who would impugn that doctrine, and who attempt to establish 
their opposing theory upon Scripture, are bound to do two things. They are 
bound to give us good scientific reasons for their theory ; and if they say their 
theory is consistent with Scripture, they are bound to give us good Scriptural 
reasons also. 
Mr. Reddie. — I forgot to make one remark I had intended when I spoke 
before. It is with regard to what Mr. Poyer said as to Noah and Ham. I 
agreed with his general remarks ; but he spoke of Noah in a way which I 
do not like. Mr. Poyer spoke of Noah’s having “disgraced himself.” Now 
I think the context is rather in favour of his having taken the wine for the 
first time, not knowing its effect ; and no disgrace would attach to him for 
having thus once drunk wine and been thereby overcome, although, of course, 
I think there was nothing to excuse the gracelessness of Ham. 
Mr. Poyer. — I certainly did not intend to impute anything disgraceful in 
the conduct of Noah ; my object was rather to show the disgraceful conduct • 
of the son, by way of accounting for the degeneracy of the lower types. 
The Chairman. — I have just had pointed out to me that in the very first 
page of the last number of the Anthropological Review there is an answer to 
Dr. McCausland. The passage runs thus : — 
“ In the opinion of most of the anthropologists of the present day, it is as 
yet premature to pronounce, or even to form an absolute decision, upon the 
question whether man’s origin was unique in its occurrence, or accomplished 
at several points of time or place.” 
The meeting then adjourned. 
