THE REV. W. ST. CLAIR TISDALL, D.D._, ON MITHRAJ.SM. 277 



but all records tell us of the terrible immoralities practised by the 

 followers of Mithraism. 



The fact that some of our calendar arrangements have a heathen 

 source is founded on convenience, and does not touch the question 

 of aii}^ connection between the two religions. I am glad to notice 

 th.'it Dr. Tisdall niair.tair.s thr^t "^oth December v/as not the real day 

 of the Nativity; it is doubtless to be regretted that a heathen 

 festival has received a Christian name which is incorrect, but this 

 does not demonstrate any connection between Mithraism and 

 Christianity. 



Our first Chairman maintained that the Holy Scriptures are 

 coloured by the current beliefs of the days in which they were 

 written. They were coloured by them doubtless to the extent that 

 they refer to other religions to protest against them. In the Old 

 Testament the prophets denounced the idolatry of the heathen 

 nations, and in the New Testament the followers of Christ are 

 exhorted to come out from the world and its worship and to be 

 separate. (2 Cor. vi, 17.) 



Chancellor Lias said : It is a great pleasure to me, as one of the 

 oldest members of the Institute — my first paper was read in January, 

 1877 — to welcome our newest recruit. We must all recognize the 

 excellence of his paper, and the store of learning which he has opened 

 out to us. And I may also express the pleasure I feel that this 

 store of learning is employed in defence of the Christian position. 



As a matter of fact genuine learning will always be found on the 

 side of those who defend that position. I have noticed that in 

 spite of the somewhat condescending attitude adopted by the modern 

 critic towards those who take the traditional view of Scripture and 

 the Christian scheme, his own learning is often only skin-deep. 

 I thoroughly associate myself with Dr. Tisdall's criticism of the 

 critics on p. 257 of his paper. I have noted how a certain type of 

 critic ignores all that has been said for ages on the opposite side of 

 the question to his ; how often he cites no authority more than 

 twenty-five, or at the utmost thirty, years old ; how he views the 

 question he treats from one, and only one, point of view, instead of 

 endeavouring to approach it, as every large question should be 

 approached, from various standpoints. I have been astounded at 

 his large assumptions. In a question, for instance, such as the 

 priority of Christian doctrine to that about Mithra, it is quite 



