Doubts as to the Lubbock Theory.
By C. E. Stowe
The theory of Sir John Lubbock I understand to be this; to wit, that all the races of men, even the earliest and those who have made the greatest advances, were originally savages of the lowest grade, like the Digger Indians, and scarcely, not perceptibly, superior to baboons and gorillas. How does this theory correspond with the well-known facts of history? The old Egyptians were one of the original races, and became one of the most civilized and most highly cultivated. The remains and proofs of their civilization, being constructed of materials in their own nature almost imperishable, continue in great abundance and perfection to this day, in the shape of temples and obelisks, sphinxes, pyramids, hieroglyphics, etc., etc. Now, if the Egyptians began as Digger Indians, and worked up to their ultimate civilization by the slow process of natural development, always inhabiting the same country and having the same material to work upon, how happens it that we find no traces of this gradual development in their works of art? Why do we not find a rude, imperfect sphinx, rudely cut hieroglyphics, ill-proportioned and shapeless obelisks, clumsy stone structures like the stonehenge in England; and thence progressive, gradual improvement to the highest perfection of their art? Why do not the remains of their civilization indicate a progressive history of civilization? This certainly is what we should naturally expect if the Lubbock theory be true; and it is certain that there are no traces of a progress from the lowest to the highest in what we now find in Egypt. Again, we always find that a low, savage race, where it comes in contact with a superior civilization, even if it accepts the imported civilization, and lives for a while under its influence, shows no capacity for permanent progressiveness, but gradually dies out, till no trace of it is left. Were the original savages of so different a nature from the savages of modern times, that they had a susceptibility to indefinite improvement, while these have no such susceptibility? If so, then the ancient savages were not savages at all, as we understand savagedom. The Bible theory is the reverse of Sir John Lubbock's. It represents the original races as beginning with civilization. The first pair were horticulturists, and observers of nature. They gave names to the inferior animals; they had a spiritual religion, and talked with God. Their children and grandchildren set up the worship of God; they were farmers and shepherds; they were miners—they smelted iron and copper, and wrought them into useful implements; they even cultivated the fine arts, invented instruments of music, both stringed instruments and wind instruments, and were never Digger Indians, nor anything of the kind. Read the fourth chapter of Genesis, and then take a verse of Dryden: “When Jubal struck the corded shell,
His listening brethren stood around;
And, wondering, on their faces fell,
To worship that celestial sound.
Less than a God, they thought, there could not dwell
Within the hollow of that shell,
That spoke so sweetly and so well.”
Noah could build an immense ship that could float194in safety, heavily laden, for twelve months, on a shoreless ocean. His immediate neighbors could burn brick and turn bitumen into mortar, and construct a tower, imperishable as the primitive rocks, and the remains of which are still to be seen, the materials of which will never be decomposed. I cannot help thinking that the Bible theory of the origin of civilization is much more agreeable than Sir John Lubbock's, and in much better accordance with the actual facts of history, so far as we know them. I have no objection whatever to the most thorough scientific investigation; I would not attempt to disturb any man in his studies, by throwing the Bible at his head; but let us have well-ascertained and clearly defined facts, and let us remember, everywhere and always, that a hypothesis in science is no more authoritative than a speculation in theology. Scientific men must be willing to submit to as rigid tests as those which they apply to theologians; and when this is thoroughly done, I think it will be found that this generation is very much such an era in science, as the middle ages were in theology, and that the theology of the schoolmen, and the science of the nineteenth century, will be found to stand on very much the same footing; that is to say, it will be found that the conclusions have generally run far beyond the premises, and that the alleged facts, in all their length and breadth, have oftener been discarded by the imagination than by the perceptive faculties. I would not be impatient of investigation in any direction. Let every man have full swing, and say out, unhindered, all that he has got to say; for that is the dispensation of the present time, just as much as ecclesiasticism was of the middle ages. It is a phase of history through which the human race must pass in its onward march—and let it pass. If God is not disturbed about it, we need not be. It is all in the right way—in the way which has been ordained of God himself. The attainments of science in our day have been worthy of all praise and admiration; and yet I believe when the torches of future scientific generations have been applied to the big heap which we now see before us, and the wood, hay, and stubble, have all been burned out, the gold, silver, and precious stones, which survive the incineration, will be found, after all, to make only a very moderate-sized pile. This is especially true when the speculations of science apparently come in conflict with the truths of religion. There can be really no conflict between the two. Whatever appears to be such must be the result of misunderstanding, and not of accurate knowledge. I heard some men, the other day, who were going to a horse race, discussing the discrepancies between science and the Bible; and one of them exclaimed, “Well, I'll bet my money on the Bible, anyhow.” So will I, when all is well understood. That discussion much enlivened my idea of the extent to which freedom of thought, or at least freedom of talk, has grown among us. Very well, let us meet it just here, where is it?—PROV. C. E. STOWE, D. D., in Christian Union.