248 
Another statement of Mr. Collins I should be disposed to question, viz., 
that “the primitive man must have had a most elaborate sacrificial worship”; 
but the subject of sacrifice is too large a one to enter upon here. 
I think, with Mr. Collins, that the historical survey and analysis of old 
religions prove that by the side of any generation of philosophy we must 
place the fact of degeneration in religion. To this law of degeneracy all 
religions have been subject. In the twelfth chapter of Unity in Nature, 
which specifies some of “the causes of religious corruption,” it is pointed 
out that “the same law has afflicted Christianity, with this difference only 
that alone of all the historical religions of the world it has hitherto shown 
an unmistakable power of perennial revival and reform.” This historical 
phenomenon of degeneration as characteristic of all religious institutions 
seems connected with the undeniable fact that human nature itself every- 
where testifies to a perversion of, and a fall from, a high original ideal. The 
tendency of human philosophising, if it be viewed apart from the Christian 
Revelation—is either to a materialism which denies God, or to an empty 
sentimentalism which alternates God into an abstraction, and dissolves 
religion into an unsubstantial, poetic emotion. It is Christianity alone that 
collects the scattered fragments of truth which scintillate in the most 
erroneous systems, and shows man that there is a Divine Purpose through 
the ages, and a Divine Goal at the end. 
THE AUTHOR’S REPLY. 
I do not know that it is necessary for me to add much to the 
discussion that followed the reading of my paper, except to thank Mr. 
James for so kindly reading it for me in my unavoidable absence. That 
it is a very imperfect summary of the kind of evidence to which it refers 
there is no doubt: but a paper must have its limits; and within those 
limits I chose only such illustrations as seemed to me at the time of 
writing it most. typical of that evidence, and suggestive of further study. 
I may, however, say, with regard to some remarks of Mr. James and the 
Chairman, that while I certainly do not endorse all Max Miiller’s theories,— 
indeed, I have expressed my dissent from some of them, so far as I under- 
stand them, in my paper,—yet I do think that Max Miiller’s connexion of 
