navia, in Germany, or, still farther east, in the Sclavonic countries, are the same-not similar, but identical." Professor Nilsson traces the origin of bronze implements to the Phoenicians; and we know that in the East, bronze was common at least 800 B. C., for both Homer and Hesiod speak of them, and by an older pen than either held, it is declared in the fourth chapter of Genesis: "And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron." Egypt in Joseph's time had her sharp and polishing instruments, and, in Solomon's time, the Sidonians were skilled in hewing timber, and the Syrians were cunning to work all "works in brass." It is admitted by all that brass here means bronze. More than three thousand years ago bronze was common in the East, and its sudden appearance in the West, in Ireland, for instance, and in Scandinavia, not only gives evidence in favor of civilization being dependent on external influences for its progress, but sheds light on the question of time, and guides us to at least approximate dates. In short, there has been a complete breakdown in the effort to prove that, in the course of ages, the development has been continuous from the rough stone edge to the smooth, from that to bronze, and from bronze to iron. Since Archbishop Whately sifted, with the skill of a severe logician, all the historical evidence which, up to his time had been published, there has been little added in the way of discovery or fresh observation. The facts, in the main, are old; the collocation only is new; and any intelligent reader is competent to judge of both as matters of testimony, and of the inferences which have been deduced from them. If it had been shown, in even one instance, that any savage race had risen to a recognizable degree of civilization, without the introduction of new ideas and a higher example, there would be presumptive evidence for the truth of the theory; yet only presumption, unless it could also be shown that they had been so long sunken, that probably no recuperative power lingered from a previous state. In the descent from civilization to barbarism, a nation or tribe may preserve this recuperative force, when, in the history of individuals or of isolated tribes, it might be lost as they passed into new territories. The ancient Gauls and Germans, for example, preserved this recuperative tendency; and if such as the Australians or Fuegians ever gave any indication of self-improvement or tribe-culture, we should have the presumptive evidence which we desiderate; but even that has not been forthcoming, and as yet Whately's demand remains unmet. Those who, through close and varied intercourse, have had the best means of judging of the condition and capabilities of savage races, have decided against this plausible theory. Humboldt, with his usual caution, has said: "The important question has not yet been resolved, whether the savage state, which even in America is found in various gradations, is to be looked upon as the dawning of a society about to rise, or whether it is not rather the fading remains of one sinking amid storms, overthrown and shattered by overwhelming catastrophes. To me the latter seems nearer the truth than the former." And Sir George Grey, at a recent meeting of the British Association, firmly opposed the theory. He has had varied opportunities of observation, and in his view no advances have been made by really savage tribes. The stationary remain stationary, for they cannot extricate themselves, nor do they appear to have any decided desire to change their condition. It is unnecessary to prosecute farther this part of the subject, as enough has been stated to show that the historical evidence is, in its incompleteness, similar to that of Darwin for the advance of animal life and its fabrics, the links are wanting where we should expect to find them, and where their appearance is indispensable to prove the theory. Its advocates have, with more or less frankness, confessed their inability to account for those facts and principles on which Christian apologists rest their historical argument for the truth of the Scripture record of the origin and progress of civilization. CHAPTER X. WERE OUR FIRST PARENTS SAVAGES? (CONTINUED)—RE CENT THEORIES AS TO THE ORIGIN OF CIVILIZATION Christians have a right to protest against the arraying of probabilities against the clear teachings of Scripture. It is not easy to estimate the evil that is done by eminent men throwing the weight of their authority on the side of unbelief, influenced by a mere balance of probabilities in one department, to the neglect of the most convincing proofs of a different kind. Thus they often decide against the Bible on evidence that would not determine an intelligent jury in a suit for twenty shillings.— ... PROFESSOR C. HODGE. IN attempting to deduce those mental and moral results which characterize modern civilization from some creature that had not even a head in which to treasure a single idea, theorists have greater difficulties to overcome than when they endeavor to connect man's body with the lowest mollusk. No one refuses to acknowledge the existence of intelligence, memory, and some measure of reasonable power in many of the lower animals; but such an admission stops far short of connecting the human mind, by lineal descent, with intellectual germs in some gorilla, or snail, or worm, and of discovering in that lowliest origin not only the foundation of the complex fabric of our civilization, but the spring of all those ideas of immortality, responsibility, private and public duties, eternity, and God, which. shed a richer splendor over man's history than that which all the sciences and arts united can of themselves create. The advocates of this theory have utterly failed in their attempt to include in their system, and to account for, the practical lessons of Christianity. Its lofty morality, its sublime doctrines, and its "pure and undefiled religion," are left without an origin or an aim. As facts, if as nothing else, theorists are bound to account for them, or, at least, as an outcome from previous ideas. Let us examine the facts which they select from the natural history of the lower animals and of the lowest man, to constitute the basis of ultimate intellectual and moral improvement. What evidence is there that the ideas and the habits of the lower animals and the most sunken savages, so commingle as to make this theory even plausible? Is there a vestige of proof to show that there has been an intermingling of notions or practices, and that, through or by them, man has emerged to that lowest platform on which there was the first beam of civilization? What data do they present to warrant our acceptance of the sweeping conclusion that Psychology, Mental Philosophy, Ethics, and Practical Religion, or the lessons of Christianity, are deducible from even the most accomplished of the lower animals? To that issue the theorist is brought, and he is bound to face it. If he cannot include in his exposition all the higher forms of Feeling, Thought, and Law, he should acknowledge his failure, and that we are justified in rejecting his conclusions. Darwin, Herbert Spencer, and Sir John Lubbock, |