248 SURG.-GEN. C. A. GORDON, M.D., C.B., ETC., ON 
criticise it, has attempted too much, for really to do justice to the 
subject would require a large volume; but at the same time we 
must all agree that a sketch of this kind is very useful and sugges- 
tive. My own view of the matter is that in such a Paper we have 
shown to us the fact, which I believe the Institute has always 
contended for, and I have always contended for it here, that man 
had a revelation from God before His written revelation to Moses. 
I am aware that it is held by some that the first Divine revelation 
was given to Moses, and that before that time man was left to 
shift for himself. The wonderful similarities which we find 
between thé various religions of the world and also between them 
and the revealed religion of Moses and of the New Testament, 
appear to point to the fact that there was a primeval revelation, 
or perhaps more than one procedure by which the Almighty 
revealed Himself to His creatures, and that that revelation was 
handed down by tradition and not by writing. The first written 
revelation was that we call the Old Testament. That written 
revelation was completed as far as it went; but its completion was 
superseded, or rather supplemented and strengthened by the more 
perfect revelation through Christ. 
I think from the facts in this Paper we may to some extent see 
in the general principles of primeval revelation existing in Hindoo 
philosophy, such principles as are written for us in the Old and 
New Testaments. The resemblances between the customs of the 
Aryans in India, and the Semites in Palestine, are rather curious, 
but when we consider that both, most probably, had intercourse with 
Egypt, I think we may fairly assume that those principles in which 
Mosaic and other systems appear to coincide, are owing to contact 
with a third party, namely, the civilisation of Mizraim. 
The Cuarrman.—I have lived in India for many years, am much 
interested in all that is Indian, and have read more or less on 
Indian subjects. There is so much in the Paper, that it is like an 
index to a series of volumes on the ethnology, history, and science 
of India. 
The subject that specially interests me is that which appertains 
to medicine, and it is one that must most deeply interest any 
physician who considers it. I look upon it in a retrospective way. 
I look back and see what is its condition now, as compared with 
what it was in former days, and as I do so, I do not think only of 
the condition of scientific medicine as it now exists in India, but of 
