224 
views. That, I think, is a fair and legitimate mode of dealing with the subject ; 
but I cannot say that Professor Macdonald has dealt with it in that way. He 
has stated various things as probabilities, but he has not given the slightest 
direct scientific evidence in support of them. He has given no geological 
evidence, and no evidence from history. He has stated what were the 
antagonistic views of Sir John Lubbock, on the one hand, and of Dr. 
Whately, on the other ; but he has not combated the views either of one or 
the other in the slightest degree. And now, perhaps, I shall be unable to 
avoid repeating to some extent matters which have already been made the 
subject of discussion in this Institute. A few years ago it was supposed that 
there was direct physical evidence that the whole human race could not have 
sprung from a single pair. That view was held for many years by those who 
were antagonistic to the Bible ; but what do we find is the case now ? We 
find that those scientific theories have disappeared ; that they have been 
supplanted by other theories which are now more popular ; and those who 
still say that the human race did not spring from a single pair, are forced to 
admit that there is no scientific objection to offer against the whole human 
race having sprung from a single pair. I think, therefore, that we may now 
get rid of the physiological objection. The physiological testimony is now 
admitted by all the most distinguished physiologists, even if you take Mr. 
Darwin or Professor Huxley, to be, if not in our favour, at all events, not 
antagonistic to us. The majority of physiologists tell us that there is no 
reason in the science of physiology for attempting to maintain that the whole 
human race could not have sprung from a single pair. Professor Macdonald tells 
us that that is negative testimony, and that, if we are to meet this question 
scientifically, we must have positive testimony. I maintain that science gives 
us not negative testimony, but strong scientific, positive evidence in our favour. 
The perfect hybridization, if we may so call it, of the whole human race stands 
as a great positive fact, and not a negative fact, to assure us that the 
whole human race could have sprung from a single pair. Let us turn to 
another branch of science — history, the history of civilization, and all history, 
give us one [testimony which is antagonistic to the idea of man having risen 
from an original state of barbarism, or from any improved animal or irrational 
creature. The whole of history, as a science, is antagonistic to that idea, and 
history goes further back than the time of the Greek writers. I think that 
old saying which calls Herodotus the father of history should be set aside, for 
surely the Bible has every right to the title, if only as an authentic historical 
record. It brings truths of direct and positive human history which can be 
proved far anterior to the Homeric poems, or to anything that can be found 
anywhere else 
Mr. Reddie. — I always understood that Herodotus was merely considered 
the father of profane history ; and I do not think that the Bible should be 
included with profane history, as if it were nothing more. 
The Chairman. — But we must take history as history, whether profane or 
sacred. I am leaving out of consideration the inspiration of the sacred 
record ; and I say that, looking upon it merely as a historical record, it is 
the most ancient history -which we can find anywhere, and it always leads us 
