CHAPTER IX. Were our First Parents Savages?—Recent Theories as to the Origin of Civilisation 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 civilisation, arts, government, 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. WHA 'HAT was man's primeval condition? Were our first (( parents savages? Are we descended from some creature not worthy to be called a man"? Is civilisation 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 civilisation. The discussion has not been satisfactorily prosecuted, because of the want of agreement as to the constituent elements of barbarism and civilisation. 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 civilised ?—What kind and what amount of knowledge may be held sufficient to separate the civilised 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 civilisation, and the consequence is a prevailing haziness in all the reasoning which we have been constrained to follow. 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 organisation which we call civilisation, or to state in a few words how a civilised differs from a barbarous people. Indeed, to define civilisation 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 Sir beautiful world in which we live."1 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 safely 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 Civilisation in Europe," has recognised 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 civilisation. 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 you can read with ease and comfort his truly philosophic discussion; and even when you do not accept his conclusions, you will be prepared to admit how harmoniously they fit into the descriptive hypothesis which he gave 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. The refusal of Sir John Lubbock to state what, even in a general or comprehensive sense, are the distinguishing features of the civilisation 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 civilisation 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 1 "On the Origin of Civilisation and the Primitive Condition of Man," p. 339. 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 civilisation," 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 civilisation; 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 a 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 "civilisation," nor with any formal delineation of that complex social organisation which the word now implies, we have the principles clearly defined and the duties clearly 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 civilisation, 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 the spirit, human character is to be determined, and not by the industrial or the fine arts, nor by any external details whatever; these may shed light on the general attainments of a community in certain directions, but there may be a large amount of civilisation without as well as with them. This depends on the possession of certain distinct ideas as to man's relation to God, and as to his relation to his fellowmen. Let him but know that "God is, and that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him," and the external circumstances will gradually adjust themselves to expanding secular knowledge in both its principles and their applications. The civilisation of our first parents, in its relation to this knowledge, was very high; but in its relation to mechanical art it was at the outset necessarily very low,—as low, probably, as can be conceived. It is not required for our argument to infer, with Archbishop Whately, that God taught them any mechanical arts. He gave them quick perceptions, ready and accurate reasoning power, and consequently facility of application, according to the exigencies of their life. And this is all that was necessary, in our changed condition, for the origin of those subsequent complicated L |