200 
to prepare even for a start. The Archbishop holds it to be a 
complete moral certainty, that men in a state of nature, with 
the faculties born with them neither unfolded nor exercised 
by education, never did, and never can, raise themselves from 
that condition. Therefore, according to the present course of 
events, the first introducer of civilization among savages must 
have been in a more improved state. In the beginning of the 
human race there could be no man to effect this ; therefore it 
must have been the work of another being ; in short, there 
must have been something of a revelation to the first or early 
generation of man. The soundest conclusion is that a Divine 
Creator and Instructor had effected this necessity. 
I think there is great logical acumen and soundness in this 
view by the great logician, which will be more fully noticed in 
the sequel. 
Sir J ohn Lubbock undertook to refute this argument by 
concluding that the 'primitive condition of man was one of utter 
barbarism , from which certain races have, independently, 
raised themselves ; and that instead of existing savages being 
the degenerated descendants of more advanced ancestors, all 
the races now civilized arose from those that were in a state 
of barbarism. A further conclusion is indicated that the first 
man, “worthy to be called a Man, was in advance of the 
condition of some animal progenitor ” ; evidently tending to 
the gorilla speculation of Professor Huxley. This is an ex- 
pression which I think to be- unworthy of the subject, or of' 
the high and distinguished position in science which Sir John 
Lubbock holds. He pursues the argument by the two follow- 
ing propositions, which he undertakes to prove : — 
I. “That there are indications of progress, even among 
savages;” and 
II. “ That among the most civilized nations there are 
traces of original barbarism.” 
The Duke of Argyll has long had an impression that 
Whately's argument, though strong in some points, is at 
others open to assault, and that the whole subject requires to 
be handled from a different point of view. On the other hand, 
that the argument in favour of the “ savage theory ” is the 
weaker of the two, resting on a method more inadequate and 
incomplete. He proposes to set forth the reasoning on which 
his convictions rest, after noticing some preliminaries. 
Both the Archbishop and Sir John Lubbock advance 
arguments which are purely scientific, founded on natural 
knowledge, using only as evidence of truth such facts and 
inferences as are ascertainable by pure reason, avowedly con- 
ducted irrespective of any support from the Mosaic account of 
