147 
The Chairman. — I may say a word or two with regard to the value of this 
Paper for our objects. We are not a mere archaeological society; and 
therefore, had it simply been an archaeological Paper, it might have been 
said that in making it form part of this evening’s proceedings we were not 
carrying out the object of this Institute; but it is no mere antiquarian essay. 
We cannot but remark how providential it is that these archaeological dis- 
coveries have been made at the present moment. At this particular time in 
the course of events everything is being tested ; the foundations o(' our political 
and of our religious institutions are alike being examined, and Christianity 
is not spared the trial. And this time, when our religion is being tested, is 
the time that divine Providence has chosen to place in our hands materials 
for the defence of God’s Holy Word, which we should not have been able 
to use one hundred years ago. I wish, farther, to call attention to the 
Paper as bringing out distinctly the fact, that primeval revelation has been 
preserved for our times first in the Hebrew and subsequently in the Christian 
revelation. It is the fashion for those who write and talk to us of comparative 
mythology and the science of comparative religion to put the Jewish reve- 
lation and the Christian completion of it on precisely the same footing with 
other religions. There are a great many religions in the world, say they, 
and they all are in the same predicament of having a certain element of 
truth, and a large accretion of falsehood. Mr. Tomkins has brought out the 
fact, that Christianity alone contains the truth, and that although other 
religions have elements of truth in them, these are but distorted fragments of 
primeval revelation. That is an important fact. On your behalf I beg to 
thank Mr. Tomkins for his Paper."' 
* Dr. Robinson Thornton also sends the following remarks in reference to 
the introductory statement of Mr. Tomkins’s paper : — The Niebuhrian criticism 
which Professor Goldziher applies to the Old Testament, is something like 
the Infinitesimal Calculus : it is admirably useful when applied to proper 
matter, but produces absurd results when otherwise applied. You cannot 
argue that because cl . x + 2 \ — d. x + 100, therefore 2 — 100 : because constant 
quantities are not amenable to differentiation. But before using the calculus 
you must know that your quantities are variable. So, before using the 
Niebuhrian “ kritik,” you must prove your history to be mythical ; you have 
no right to use it first, and then, because you get a result, say that it proves 
the story to be a myth. At that rate, I can prove the Professor to be a 
myth himself. “Professor Goldziher’s Mythology among the Hebrews.” 
“ Gold-ziher ” means “ drawer-forth of gold.” We have here, therefore, 
a keynote struck by which to regulate our interpretation. The myth has 
to do with the finding of gold, and drawing it from its concealment ; and the 
title “ Professor,” which is the reverse of “ Practical,” or “ Practiser,” shows 
the scheme to have been unsuccessful. And in the word “Mythology,” or 
“ telling of tales,” we find, at least, a hint that the scheme was elaborated 
not from a personal world-experience, or a fact-colligation (Thaten-verbindung), 
but from a generic intuition, moulding itself into form by inventive accre- 
tions (Eriindungsanhaufung). This “ tale-word ” (mythologie) was “ of the 
L 2 
