THE ORIGIN OF MAN AND OF HIS

CIVILIZATION.

Human beings exist now upon the earth- they have not always existed here. These two propositions are assented to by all persons. But besides these there are a great many concerning which thinkers differ widely, perhaps I should say wildly. With regard to man's origin, the time when, the place where, the condition, and the agency by which, he came into existence as one of the inhabiters of this earth, scarcely any two are agreed; and these subjects are all matters of dispute and speculation. In some cases we see a manifest disposition to adhere to the old theory; the one, namely, that was supposed to be taught in the Bible. Other writers, who seem to think that that doctrine can no longer be held, show nevertheless a desire to take some view that is reconcilable with a belief in the inspiration of the Book of Genesis, and the faith of Christendom, which is to some extent based upon it. But many there are that engage in speculations and discussions on these subjects, who show a manifest hostility to the Christian faith and to the recognition of any Moral Governor of the universe. Men seem ready to believe anything but the Bible; to accept any speculation, however wild and monstrous, rather than acknowledge the existence of a Being Who is the Creator of man and Who will bring us into judgment.

After thirty years of study in this field and after what I am disposed to regard as a pretty thorough and impartial exploration of the field and all its parts, I desire to put on record my belief that while some changes may have been made necessary in the details and unessential particulars of our faith, nothing has been discovered in any department of research that ought in the slightest degree to shake our faith in the doctrines of the creed or

the practices of religion that have grown up under it and can be fairly justified by an appeal to the Holy Scriptures. Nothing has been ascertained or so much as rendered probable on purely scientific grounds, that need cause a doubt or hesitation even; nothing has been ascertained that will cause hesitation in the mind of any one who wishes to believe that he may obey, and enjoy the hopes that come of faith and submission to the Gospel and the Church. All that has been ascertained or even so much as plausibly conjectured, is merely enough to serve as a pretext for unbelief to those, who, for one cause or another, are not willing to submit themselves to the restraints of a positive religion and to govern their views by the precepts of the Gospel.

Still, however, the faith, or rather the belief of Christendom, can never again be what it was in regard to some of the points that have been discussed. We all now admit that the pre-Copernican theory of the heavenly bodies-which was supposed to be taught in the Scriptures—will never again be regarded as a part of the Revealed Truth. So, too, the creation of the earth and its existence not for five days only, but for many millions of years before man was created, is not now disputed and probably will never be brought into serious question again. Precisely how far changes of this kind may be effected in our notions, and what modifications of old opinions, the progress of scientific discovery and historic research may compel us to make, no one can surely foretell.

But the questions that most nearly concern us just now are those that relate to the origin of man and his primitive condition. It is now something more than thirty years since the great geologist, Sir Charles Lyell, visited this country. The suggestion had been made before that time that there were geological indications of a greater antiquity of man on the globe than was assigned to him by the popular belief, or the prevailing systems of chronology. But at that time he thought these indications of so little importance that he did not take the trouble to investigate certain phenomena on the lower Mississippi, which were supposed to point in that direction. Some fifteen years later, however, he made a trip of exploration and investigation into France and other parts of central and southern Europe, which were claimed as affording indisputable proofs of man's great antiquity. He

came back thoroughly satisfied; and since he published his work on "the Antiquity of Man," there have been but very few who, after carefully considering the subject, have doubted that there exists a necessity for reconsidering our old opinions on this subject.

The lines of investigation, leading to the same result are threefold.

I. Geological human remains, as bones, parts of the human skeleton and, in a few places, as at Mentone, whole skeletons, have been found, which, when we consider the geological changes that have taken place since they formed parts of living men, call for more than six thousand years. Human implements, such as stone hatchets, arrow-heads, pottery, etc., etc., have also been found, which are no less sure proofs of man's existence than human bones would have been. It would take more than one volume to give a full and adequate idea of the nature and the extent of the proofs of man's antiquity, which come under this head.

But if we ask how long ago did these early inhabitants of the earth live, we are entirely at a loss for an answer. Some of the later writers, as Geike, in his "Great Ice Age," and Boyd-Dawkins, in his "Cave Explorations," think that man must have lived here before the close of the glacial epoch. They make three ages or stages of man, paleolithic, neolithic, and modern or historic. Boyd-Dawkins thinks that the paleolithic men were probably of the same race as the present Laplanders of Europe, and the Esquimaux of North America. And he regards the Albanians of Greece, and the Basques of the Pyrenees, and possibly the Finlanders, as descendants of the neolithic mėn.

Advocates of this theory suppose that there were intervals of a milder climate during the glacial period; "January thaws" in the long winter of the earth's history. But no one can tell yet what caused this period of cold-or whence it came. Hence this view of man's existence-even if it were conceded, would hardly help us to any satisfactory view of the time when he began to inhabit Europe. Mr. Croll has thought that he can account for the great cold of the Ice Age by reference to certain astronomical phenomena which we have not time here to describe. He thinks the last one of these periods began about 240,000 years ago, and

terminated about 80,000 years ago. So that paleolithic man, on this theory, must have been living in Europe somewhere from 100,000 to 150,000 years ago. But this is all uncertain. And names as great as those we have mentioned, as Dawson, Quatrefages, etc., think that there is no reason to suppose that man has been here more than twelve or fifteen thousand years at most.

II. In the second place, investigations into the origin and development of language have led to a similar result with regard to the antiquity of man.

The argument may be stated thus: We have to-day such languages as the French, the Spanish, the Portugese, the Italian, etc., which, on a comparison of them, suggest an earlier or parent language from which they sprang. Historically we know of such a language-the Latin. And we know too, historically, how they grew out of it, and came to be what they are. But if we compare the Latin, the Greek, the Celtic, the German, the Slavonic, the old Persian, and the Sanscrit, we find that they point to a language which sustains about the same relation to them that the Latin does to the French, Italian, etc., a language which was spoken by the progenitors of the Aryan or Indo-European races, in an early home, before they had separated and become different nations. Max Müller by a process of reasoning, which we cannot here repeat, has reached the conclusion that the Sanscrit must have been spoken in upper India as long as ten thousand years before our time.

But if, as Bunsen thinks, there was a time before this when there was a primitive language, which is to the Aryan, the Semitic, and the other great families of the agglutinate dialects, as the Roman was to the French, Italian, etc., we must extend our thoughts still further back in the order of time, and come to a still earlier period when man was in existence. And if we hold to the unity of the human race at all-that is, historic unity, or the unity of origin from one pair-we must allow for a long period, within which and during which these diversities of language have been forming. We certainly find them in existence at more than four, or even as I think, more than six thousand years ago, and so different from each other at that time as to imply

that they had been in the process of diversification for a long time, many centuries, even then.

But here again we must remark that the facts which sustain this conclusion are such that they could not be fairly and adequately presented in any one volume. Nor do I think they can be so explained as to leave us in possession of the old chronology with regard to man's creation.

III. But finally we have still another field of inquiry open and still opening before us. In Egypt, in Mesopotamia, and at Hissarlik--supposed to be the site of old Troy--in Cyprus, and elsewhere, we are beginning to unearth the remains of man and his works, and to decipher his old inscriptions and to interpret his thoughts in a way that points to an earlier civilization than had been generally supposed to exist. These remains point to a time. long before Moses, and indicate a state of things among "the Gentile nations" that a study of his writings had not led us to suspect.

It is certainly too early to concede to the geologists all that they claim in this respect. But I do not see how we can resist the conclusion to which the philological and the historical arguments lead us, namely, that there is a background of human history lying far back of the time of Moses and of Abraham, some knowledge of which we are in the way to possess, and which, when we get it, will shed new light upon the earlier chapters of the Pentateuch, if it does not require some important modifications of our interpretation of what is therein taught. And I think we shall come to esteem Moses and the Mosaic Religion not the less but rather the more highly on account of what we shall come to know concerning the days and the peoples that were before him.

It is especially worth while to notice that while the two latter named methods point to one view of the early condition of man, the other the geological, is thought to point to a very different view. But the two former follow back the line and track of man's career by the works of his intelligence, his language, the words that express his thoughts and the institutions that disclose to us what were his beliefs, his hopes and his aspirations. Hence this line of inquiry leads us to a much higher estimate of what