The Birmingham age-herald., 1906-04-02

our everyday experience. Whether Darwin was Justified or not in supposng for man and the ape a common, ancestor beyond the reach of historic time. 1t Is doubtless true that man al he first ap- pears upon the stage of things is scarce ly distlnguishable from the brutes about him in the aims and habits of his life; and 1t is doubtless true that. as we know him first in time, he has made progress, has advanced beyond his most primitive state. Observing the progress of all races under certain conditions from bar barism towards civilization, it would seem impossible to escape the conclusion that the most barbarous peoples we meeet with on the field of history at any time must have been at an earlier time even more barbarous, with lesser gap between them and the lower orders of creation.
 Moral Progress.
 Now. progress for man. wherever we find him, has always implied growth within him of moral sentiments, ideas, convictions, increase for him of the knowledge of good and evil. Such knowl- edge Is always greatest for man most civilized and least for man most barbar- ous. For man most barbarous 1t scarce ly exists at all. Without the slightest protest of remorse of conscience, he does things that his civilized brother accounts capital crimes to be atoned for by the death of the doer. Back behind the in- stitution of the Decalogue were genera tions of men to whom the deeds 1t pro- hibited were sins against no God-men no
 more rebuked by conscience for the nur- der of their fellows than for quenching their thirst at the nearest spring. Can nibalism was once rampant, and has not even today altogether ceased to eNlst. There are men today who can Kill ana eat their fellows, with emotions not or remorse but of elf-congratulation. IL would be hard to name any blacKes. crime which the highest civilization or the present time is in arms against, that was not done without any sense or sih whatever by our far-off ancestors
 This being true what Is more loBlca' and natural than to suppose that III hs most primitive state, the sense Of sin as we know 1t, historically, in it's Varyins degrees did not exist for man at ali | that there was far-bac< period when he sought qualification for his physical [ desires and made no distinction whatever | between moral good and evll-never dlo | anything because he reasoned within hih | self that it was right to do 1t, or ap' stained from anything because he req | soned within himself that 1t was Wrohe l to do it. that, in brief. there was | period when he was sinless' as we tlhc l him in the Garden of Eden story, De l cause the sense of sin had not come tt | birth in his consciousness. as 1t has mol come to birth In the consciousness oi | millions of children. today, under cer' 1 tain age.
 1 All the brutes are sinless and all young 1 children are sinless, not because they l are morally perfect, but because they | are lacking in moral vision, are With out the knowledge of good and evil So | for the same reason was primitive man sinless. He never disobeyed the law or moral righteousness, because his eyes had not been opened to perceive that there was such a law. He never heard the voice of the Lord God calling nm | to account for moral transgreslson' pe- cause he had no sense of obligation to | inc Lord God to pursue one course of | conduct rather than another. He knew l what was good and what was evil to sight taste touch; the thought or any other good or evil had not awakened with | in his mind. Therefore he was sln- | less. TT And so he would have remained, had l his eyes not been opened: had he not 1 bv providential leading achieved some 1 stage of progres. where good and evil | were no longer mere physical sensations | but also moral perceptions. So he would I have remained If God had intended him l to possess the earth for ends that are l material rather than for ends that are l spiritual. Brute manhood A0Ou toulu blNN | him. Moral manhood Cpd could not. l That he had to achieve for himself; and he could not achieve 1t. save by choice l of moral good and rejection of moral evil; | and. in order to choose the one and re- | feet the other, he had to know both. 1 If he was to take one step of advance l toward God he had to be as God-know- 1 ing good and evil. Without this knowl- l edge he might have obeyed Gods laws 1 as the brutes obey them: but he could never have done Gods will on any high l CT plane than that of brute obedience. | He had to know it was right to obey and wrong to dlsobey before his obedience | could possess q moral value
 Fall of Man Victory.
 The fall of man." therefore. instead of being a descent from a higher to a lcwer from a perfect to imperfect, state of moral existence, was. rather. an ascent from lower to higher pass ing from realm where morality was not to a realm where 1t began to be. It was not q defeat for God or man, but in truth. victory; not failure, but triumph; the same sort of victory, the same sort of triumph, that is witnessed