306 
The Chairman. — I am sure all will join in thanking Mr. Brown for his 
very interesting paper : it is now open for any one to offer remarks thereon. 
Rev. Dr. Rule. — I have read Mr. Brown’s paper as carefully as possible, 
and should be glad if he would instruct us as to some conclusions, towards 
which the particulars we have in his paper do not in my opinion lead us. The 
cry certainly is not piteous wherewith the Hebrew acknowledged God to be 
his father, — “ father of Abraham and here I cannot exactly understand why 
we should limit our recognition of the Godhead to Zeus. With regard to 
Zoroaster, I believe the main doctrine of that author was that of duality — that 
of two gods, a god of darkness and a god of light. We have a book which 
contains a distinct historic reference to this idea. We have in that book the 
name of a person distinctly known in history, whose successor Darius, son of 
Rystaspes, waged war against Magism, which was associated with Zoroastri- 
anism. We find there a doctrine against that duality, and I think we have 
materials there, which are distinctly historic, and the account of God which 
we have, is not imbued with the vague superstitions of heathenism, but it is 
distinctly stated at the very beginning of the Bible and is historically con- 
tinued all through as revealed monotheism as proved by all prophecy, — 
prophecy fulfilled, associated and linked in with the general history of the 
whole world. It does appear to me, whilst anxious to second the vote of 
thanks to Mr. Brown for the great pains he has taken with this paper, that we 
should be anxious inquirers into Revealed Truth. I think if we were to take 
some firm basis in regard to this great subject of monotheism whereon to 
rest our researches, we should obtain some place on which to rest our inquiry. 
I think, however, that Mr. Brown’s paper has tended to furnish us with a 
very striking illustration of an undoubted proof, that none, by searching, can 
find out God ; and that those historians who have searched have most singu- 
larly failed, and have deprived us of any idea that the notion of Professor 
Miiller, which is adopted very warmly by Mr. Brown, will ever be realized. 
The words are these, and I think more distinctly than in any other part of 
the paper, they express the conclusions arrived at at the foot of page 278 : — 
“ However, ere examining the principal V edic concepts, we may remember 
with comfort a statement of Professor Miiller, which is not based upon any 
particular passage or passages, but upon a wide and careful investigation of 
the subject, a statement which has my warmest assent, ‘ Like an old precious 
metal, the ancient religion, after the rust of ages has been removed, will 
come out in all its purity and brightness, and the image which it discloses 
will be the image of the Father, the Father of all the nations upon earth.’ ” 
Now, it does seem ungrateful— very ungrateful— to forget that Divine 
Revelation and the coming of Christ into the world have not thrown the rust 
of ages upon the ancient truth, but have rather removed the rust of ages and 
brought life and immortality to light, and that whatever great change in the 
world has taken place in religion since the time of Zoroaster, must be 
attributed to that Divine interpretation which we find recorded in the Bible. 
Therefore, I should be glad if wo could be conducted by Mr. Brown to a 
