163 
question of the origin of man , stated in other words. It is clear, then that 
reasoning which is either implicitly or explicitly non-Christian can be of no use 
in this matter. With respect to the real point in dispute, there is no common 
ground. This ought to be frankly admitted on both sides. The Christian 
who knows what he believes, does not fear to make this admission. The 
Bible, in the simplest and clearest terms, declares that “ God created the 
heaven and the earth,” and that upon this earth “ He created man in His 
image,” and that He “ breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” These 
plain, direct, affirmative declarations must, I venture to submit, form the 
basis of all reasonable speculation concerning the origin of civilization. 
Man, thus created in God’s image, may be considered to be the true 
origin of the Civitas Dei, whether on earth or in heaven. Until some 
sort of agreement be come to, with respect to these elementary principles, 
it seems utterly useless to engage in totally incongruous processes of 
reasoning on this subject. I wish to observe, however, that in what has 
been advanced by such writers as Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Darwin, and 
Professor Huxley, a clear and marked distinction ought to be taken be- 
tween genuine facts of science and conjectures as to the true meaning of 
these facts. It should ever be borne in mind that truths of a philosophical 
kind belong to a sphere which is above that of mere science. In truth, the 
problem of the origin of civilization is one of those which, in some of its 
relations, transcends both science and philosophy. Students of physical 
science, in the present day, need to be reminded that the respective domains 
of science, philosophy, and theology are totally distinct, though intimately 
connected. The man of science, as such, is not competent to decide on 
questions which lie beyond the ambit of his peculiar studies. Even the 
philosopher, as such, cannot legitimately pronounce an opinion on matters 
which pertain to the sphere of spiritual and divine truth, or theology proper. 
Until the boundaries of these altogether distinct domains of thought are 
marked out with rigorous precision, and the principles peculiar to each duly 
subordinated, speculations on such subjects as that discussed this evening can- 
not but result in hopeless confusion of ideas and mere empty terms. In each of 
these fields of human inquiry, first principles must be clearly predetermined. 
Meantime, in the light of Christian philosophy we are able to say to those 
who differ from us, “Ye worship ye know not what : we know what we 
worship.” An unknown God is practically equivalent to no God. I wish 
to add, in conclusion, that this privileged position of the Christian philosopher 
in no way conflicts with another definite doctrine of revealed religion, namely, 
that all sincere and humble worship— embracing whatever may be included 
in Sir John Lubbock’s “ six stages is accepted, in ways unknown to men, 
by Him who sees the heart. Thus all non-Christian forms of worship, ac- 
cording to the light vouchsafed, comes at last to be, in reality, a worship, in 
fact, of the one living and true God, who is the sole and only origin of 
civilization, because He is the Creator of the first man, in His own image, 
and the continual inspirer and preserver of all that is good and true "in 
TOL. yj. o 
