193 
“ Professor Rawlinson protested against tlie assumption that 
human beings were originally in that poor and destitute con- 
dition, which had been described, and that they all rose from 
a state of barbarism. He held the very opposite opinion, 
viz., that they were created in a state of considerable civiliza- 
tion, and that while most of the races had declined into abso- 
lute barbarism, some races had never done so. The Egyp- 
tian Babylonians and Jews had never so declined” (Rep 
of Brit. Assoc., 1865.) v 1 
And now, mark the importance of the facts contradicted by 
such assumptions. If this theory of the savage origin of 
mankind were true, is it not utterly incredible that not a 
single civilized people should have a knowledge, not even a 
tradition, of their immediate ancestors having been savages ? 
But some further important admissions have been made in 
confirmation of the religious theory. Our critic admits that 
empires have fallen through their own vices and the inroads 
and conquests of barbarians,” and also that “ there are a few 
examples of civilization ending in barbarism;” nevertheless 
he has the hardihood to conclude by telling me that “ mil 
theory, (as he will call our common old tradition of the Bible ') 
is an idle attempt to turn the order of social progress 
bottom upwards ; ” and he patronizingly advises that, “ as I 
evidently possess both knowledge and ingenuity, I should 
henceforth use them logically and forswear paradox ! ” 
y °^ er cr ^ c i n the Ethnological Journal was scarcely 
anther, for his views are much the same. His conclusion is, 
that, scientifically considered, primitive man must be viewed 
as naked, speechless, defenceless, and ignorant.” This is 
surely “ science made easy”! If a “ needs must ” is thus 
scientmcally to be employed to drive us into distance and 
darkness beyond all our knowledge, what does science mean ? 
then he tries to evade the evidence of all history by saying 
history can know nothing of the remote times of man unless 
oy divine revelation, and to bring in this is to remove the 
question out of the domain of scientific discussion.” But 
m.iy l not rather be said that, therefore, divine revelation may 
^ 6 Y ^ r y Means to enable us to complete our science? At 
Ml events we surely keep within the scientific domain when 
we subject the theory we adopt— whether its source is believed 
nmlnf 1Vme 0r human 1 — to ever 7 possible test of experience, 
rating °T “5 i^ if; “ must .” be s °> except upon 
rational giounds, and because it is in accordance with human 
1,7 h T a n k r wl0d ^ e of facts and nature. This 
objector also admits that social degradation is easily inel- 
igible and may happen to any people, though he does not 
