4d 
to be classed one read before the Institute a long time ago by Bishop 
Titcomb, in reply to Sir John Lubbock’s statement regarding monotheism. 
In that paper the author gave statement after statement, and proof after 
proof, that the original conception of God was the one great God of the 
Hebrew Scriptures. 
Mr. W. P. James, F.L.S.—I have had great pleasure in reading the paper 
in the absence of the author, whose general conclusions I sympathise with, 
especially with the statement that the farther back we go in the examination 
of primitive religions the nearer do we get to primeval revelation. But |} 
rather differ from the popular view in reference to the theories of Professor 
Max Miiller, who is the representative of a school which believes in a science 
called that of “Comparative Religion.” Now, I am one of those who pro- 
fotndly disbelieve in this new science. I regard it as one of the impostures 
of the day, and I unhesitatingly say there is no such science. It is only a 
pseudo-science. It is supposed to be derived from the comparison of all 
forms of religion, including the Jewish, of which Christianity is the 
complement. But a true comparative science can only be founded’ when 
the things compared are of the same kind. Now, the religions of the 
world are not of the same kind, They are not homogeneous. There is an 
impassable gulf between the Jewish religion and the others, and any 
comparison between them is simply like one between animals and crystals, 
between which there are no points in common. The Jewish religion stands 
in a unique and isolated position, from the fact that it is the only religion 
through which runs the golden thread of inspiration. It is the only religion 
in which there is any revealed truth at all, except when borrowed from 
foreign sources. All comparisons consequently made between it and others 
seem to be utterly futile ; and this supposed science has no postulates to 
start with. Of the precarious character of some of its conclusions I may 
say this : For the last twenty years Professor Max Miller has been telling 
us that Zeus means the bright sky. Now, the new school of German 
philologists do not agree with this derivation, but say it is an old word 
signifying God. A great deal of the old comparative romancing was entirely 
founded on that supposed derivation. This simply shows on what a 
precarious foundation Professor Max Miller is building up his imaginary 
science. I think the author of this paper might have given us a fuller 
treatment of the ancient Persian religion. The old Hindoo religion is very 
much of the same kind as that of the Old Greeks,—that is to say, it is a 
system of nature-worship, and, like all systems of nature-worship, it 
ultimately falls away to gross impurity. My own acquaintance with it is 
very slight ; but still I may say that I do know what the Greek polytheism 
was, and it is hardly possible to describe plainly the conclusions to which 
their system of nature-worship eventually led them. The Semitic nations, 
such as the Assyrians, were, apparently, at one time not so prone to nature- 
worship as the Aryans, and would appear to have had to some extent higher" 
and purer ideas. All through the history of.the past, man has often risen 
