CHAPTER IX.

WERE OUR FIRST PARENTS SAVAGES?-RECENT THEORIES AS TO THE ORIGIN OF CIVILIZATION CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY.

Even if we had not Revelation to guide us, it would be most unphilosophical to attempt to trace back the history of man, without taking into account the most remarkable facts of his nature-the facts of civilization, arts, governments, speech, his traditions, his internal wants, his intellectual, moral, and religious constitution. If we will attempt such a retrospect, we must look at all these things as evidence of the origin and end of man's being; and when we do thus comprehend in one view the whole of the argument, it is impossible for us to arrive at an origin homogeneous with the present order of things.-PROFESSOR whewell.

some

WHAT was man's primeval condition? Were our first parents savages? Are we descended from " creature not worthy to be called a man"? Is civilization the commencement of human history, or its close? Is it a natural evolution of savage life, or is it dependent for its origin and growth on influences external to man? Is it ever flowing and ebbing within definite and ascertainable limits? Does it reach a maximum only again to sink, or is it carrying with every apparently fitful advance the elements of expansion and of ultimate stability? These are questions which the eager thinking of the age is forcing upon us, and compelling us to answer. Repeated discussions in meetings of the British Association for the Promotion of Science; elaborate works, such as those by Darwin, Spencer, Wallace, Sir John Lubbock,

and Tylor; and powerful articles in our serial literature; show the importance that is attached to this subject, and represent facts and inferences which, be our belief what it may, ought not to be summarily rejected. They claim a sifting yet candid examination; and we should be able, on the basis of science and history, as well as on that of Scripture, to found reliable conclusions regarding the origin and progress of civilization.

The discussion has not been satisfactorily prosecuted, · because of the want of agreement as to the constituent elements of barbarism and civilization. Wherein lies the difference? What line separates the two? How low must a man sink to become a savage? How high must he rise to be ranked among the civilized? What kind and what amount of knowledge may be held sufficient to separate the civilized from the savage? Of what mechanical appliances must he be capable, what intellectual resources must he command, and what moral and religious sentiments must influence or control his life?—are questions which have not yet been definitely answered. No attempt has been made to give a scientific definition of either barbarism or civilization, and the consequence is a prevailing haziness in all the reasoning which we · have been constrained to follow. Sir John Lubbock has not made the attempt; nor did Archbishop Whately; nor has the Duke of Argyll, although in his "Primeval Man" he has specified this very defect. In his late work, Sir John Lubbock has distinctly refused to give any definition. "In truth," he says, "it would be impossible in a few words to define the complex organization which we

call civilization, or to state in a few words how a civilized differs from a barbarous people. Indeed, to define civilization as it should be, is surely as yet impossible, since we are far indeed from having solved the problem how we may best avail ourselves of our opportunities, and enjoy the beautiful world in which we live."* We are disappointed by this excuse. In a discussion of this kind, involving so much that is of vital interest, it is impossible to proceed in safety without some first principles as our guide, and some end or object as our goal. Without these, we grope through mists, and are distracted by different standards. M. Guizot, in his well-known "History of Civilization in Europe," has recognized the importance of distinct ideas as to the meaning of the term, and has elaborately stated what are those conditions of society which in his view represent civilization. Although he does not give a scientific definition, he states with such clearness, descriptively and hypothetically, what individual, social, and political interests are embraced by it, that we can read with ease and comfort his truly philosophic discussion; and even when we do not accept his conclusions, we are prepared to admit how harmoniously they fit into the descriptive hypothesis which he has given at the commencement. While his work has a different basis from that of Sir John Lubbock, and a less comprehensive aim, it illustrates the close philosophic treatment which the subject must yet receive in the new relations in which it has of late been discussed.

* "On the Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man," P. 339.

The refusal of Sir John Lubbock to state what, even in a general or comprehensive sense, are the distinguishing features of the civilization regarding which he writes with such fulness, is unsatisfactory. It leaves everything in confusion. Let it be understood that it is not a logical definition of civilization as it should be, nor any explanation of its material effects as they now appear, which we desiderate, but unambiguous references to such principles in mental and moral life as should control material results without being absolutely dependent on them. It does not avail to say that it is "impossible," because we have not "solved the problem how we may best avail ourselves of the opportunities and enjoy the beautiful world we live in." On what does this enjoyment depend? On material acts, with the luxuries they bring? or on mental and moral resources without them? or on both? It is surely not too much to expect from one who undertakes to explain to us "the origin of civilization," that he state in what sense he uses this term, and how much it implies in relation at least to those facts which he describes. There are surely some first principles which, operating in society, create civilization; or there are at least some facts which, when they do appear, determine its necessary conditions.

As the opinions which have of late been thus influentially promulgated, would, if correct, not only render the Bible unworthy of acceptance, even as an historical document, but displace the whole Christian system as a Force elevating and refining the human race, it is incumbent on all to examine, with the greatest care, the reasoning

by which their conclusions are supported. We therefore propose to examine the subject-First, generally in its relation to the Bible and to History; and Second, more minutely, in its relation to the Mental Faculties, the Moral Sense or Conscience, and Religion.

I. RECENT THEORIES IN RELATION TO THE BIBLE.

Although we do not meet in the Bible with the term. "civilization," nor with any formal delineation of that complex social organization which the word now implies, we have the principles clearly defined and the duties firmly enforced on which its origin, growth, and stability depend. They are moral rather than intellectual, and spiritual rather than material.

Apart altogether from the question of inspiration, and assuming the Scriptural record to be not less worthy of acceptance as a mere history, or as suggesting a theory, than are those statements in books of travel which have been so lavishly used, we may fairly enough refer to the view which it gives of the origin of civilization, and claim for it respectful consideration. It expressly states that " man was created in the image of God"that is, that he was not only intellectually but morally great; that he acted from holy motives; that, in his highest and most ennobling vocation, in fellowship or communion with the BEING whose spiritual image he bore, he had an exhaustless source of true happiness. By spirit, human character is to be determined, and not by the industrial or the fine arts, or by any external details whatever; these may shed light on the general