363 
This you certainly find in the Egyptian, and, I think, in the Indian 
cosmogonies. I must apologise for making these remarks ; but I could 
hardly do otherwise than state how far I agreed, and how far I did not fully 
agree with the paper read by Dr. Rule. I hope I shall be succeeded by 
some one who will be able to do fuller justice to the subject, but I 
would just say, before sitting down, with regard to the Lahma which is 
alluded to here as one of the gods, or Lakh-mu, explained by Mr. Boscawen 
as meaning “light,” that Lakh-mu was so called originally, just as in Genesis 
God says, “ Let there be light, and light was.” So we find it stated on the 
4th page of this paper, “ Out of Mummu came Lahma ” (force or growth). 
According to Mr. Boscawen this latter word means “ light ” — it means that 
light penetrated into the abyss, and that great results followed. Every one 
knows that in the Egyptian mysteries there was always a hidden or esoteric 
meaning, known only to the priests ; and an outward or exoteric meaning, 
which was propounded to the common people. This I take to be what was 
meant by the Apostle Paul, when he teaches that they held down the know- 
ledge of God that they had, and prevented it from having its right effect, 
either on themselves or those they had under their teaching. I came here not 
having the expectation of taking the Chair ; and, as I am obliged to retire 
now, I will ask Mr. Cadman Jones to take my place, feeling assured that 
he will fill it better than I can. 
Mr. H. Cadman Jones then took the Chair. 
The Honorary Secretary stated that it was held by Canon F. C. Cook 
“that distinct traces of primeval monotheism are found in Egypt, and that 
the confusion with mystical legends began early and continually increased.” 
Bishop Claughton. — I rise with great diffidence, after having listened to 
the very interesting paper that has just been read, to make a few remarks. 
It would be impossible at this hour of the evening, and in a meeting of this 
kind, to go fully into this question, nor do I feel competent or able to do so ; 
but at the same time I think that the subject of this paper is one of the very 
deepest interest, and I will venture to make a few observations. I must say 
that I think the writer of this paper has made out his case, and that, so far 
as his reasoning has gone— and he has told us that he could not go further 
into so wide a field— he has quite proved that the mouotheism of the Holy 
Scriptures is not in any way depending on, or derived from, any of the 
other systems of which ho has given us an outline. (Hear, hear.) But 
there is one very striking thought that must occur to most of us when 
we come to consider those very confused, I will not say historical, but con- 
jectural, systems of theology, and it is this : — When man has lost his 
knowledge of the true God, he has always, either in his ignorance or 
false learning, tried in some way to recover it. The untaught savage has 
a firm belief in a Father— a good spirit, and, also, in an evil spirit ; 
and the sages and priests of Egypt and Phoenicia, as well as others 
of those who propounded those very ancient systems of which we have 
heard to-night, held theories that were widely distinct from the simple 
