never perish. As however, there are tribes now extant which iiave, as he says, no reHgion, and no knowledge of the arts, or of agriculture, he argues that they must have been barbarians from the beginning, and that barbarism must have been the original condition of man.
To prove that savages may by their own exertions become civil- ized he refers to such facts as the following : The Austrahans had formerly bark-canoes, which they have abandoned for others, hol- lowed out of the trunk of a tree, " which they buy from the Malays." The Peruvians had domesticated the llama ; the Poly- nesians made bark-cloth. " Anotlier very strong case," he says, " is the boomerang of the Australians. This weapon is known to EG other race of men," and therefore, he argues, cannot be a relic of a higher state of civilization. He lays great stress on the case of the Cherokees who have become agriculturists, having ploughs, horses, black-cattle, etc., ignoring the fact that they were sur- rounded by civilized Americans and had enjoyed for years the faithful teaching of Christian missionaries who instructed them in all the useful arts.
He finds indications of the original barbarism of the race in the fact that flint implements are found not only in Europe, but also in Asia, the cradle of mankind ; and in the gradual improvement of the relation between the sexes.^ His book is designed to " de- scribe the social and mental condition of savages, their art, their systems of marriage and of relationship, their religions, language, moral character and laws." This he does by a very copious col- lection of particulars under these several heads ; and thence draws the following conclusions. " That existing savages are not the de- scendants of civilized ancestors. That the primitive condition of man was one of utter barbarism. That from this condition several races have independently raised themselves." ^ How these conclusions follow from the facts detailed, it is impossible to see ; especially as they are in opposition not only to the Bible, but to all the teach- ings of history. That the lowest savage tribes have low ideas of God, is no proof that our first parents were fetich worshippers, when all history proves that the earliest religion of our race was pure Theism. As men lost the knowledge of the true God, they be- came more and more degraded in every other respect. And those
1 On page 66, he says, " Assuming that the communal marriage system shown in the preceding pages to prevail, or have prevailed so widely among races in a low state of civil- ization, represents the primitive and earliest social condition of man, we now come to con- sider the various ways in which it may have been broken up and replaced by individual marriage."
a Jbid. p. 323.
96 PART n. Ch. v. — original state of man.
who were driven away from the centres of civilization into inhos- pitable regions, tonid or arctic, sunk lower and lower in the scale of beinir. Certain it is that there is nothing- in Sir Jolin Lubbock's book that can shake the faith of a Christian child in the doctrine of the Bible as to the primitive state of man.
§ 2. Man Created in the Image of God.
Secondly. Other animals, however, besides man, were created in maturity and perfection, each according to its kind. It was the distinguishing characteristic of man, that he was created in the image and likeness of God. Many of the early writers assumed that the word " image " had reference to the body, which they thought by its beauty, intelligence of aspect, and erect stature, was an adum- bration of God, and that the word " hkeness " referred to the intel- lectual and moral nature of man. According to Augustine, im- v age relates to the cognitio veritatis, and likeness to the amor virtutis; the former to the intellectual, and the latter to the moral faculties. This was the foundation of the scholastic doctrine that the image of God includes the natural attributes of the soul ; and the likeness our moral conformity to the divine Being. This distinction was in- troduced into the Romish theology. Bellarmin ^ says, " Imaginem in natura, similitudinem in probitate et justitia sitam esse." He also says, ^ " Ex his tot patrum testimoniis cogimur admittere, non ■ esse omnino idem imaginem et similitudinem, sed imaginem ad naturam, similitudinem ad virtutes pertinere ; proinde Adamum peccando non imaginem Dei, sed similitudinem perdidisse." Others again somewhat modified this view by making the image of God to consist in what was natural and concreated, and tlie likeness in what was acquired. Man was created in the image of God and fashioned himself into his likeness. That is, he so used his natural endowments as to become like God in character. All these dis- tinctions, however, rest on a false interpretation of Gen. i. 26. The words C^!^ and ri^X3"J are simply explanatory one of the other. Image and likeness, means an image which is like. The simple declaration of the Scripture is that man at his creation was like V God. Wherein that likeness consisted has been a matter of dis- pute. According to the Reformed theologians and the majority of the theologians of other divisions of the Church, man's likeness to God included the following points : —
His intellectual and moral nature. God is a Spirit, the human
1 De Gratia et Libera Arbitrio, i. 6. Disputaiiones, Paris, 1608, vol. iv. p. 402, a.
2 Be Gratia Primi Eominis, 2. Ibid. p. 8, d.