147 
servant only, did his work at the bidding of the Master; 
while Jesus, as the Son and therefore lord of the household, 
by His own direct volition. The importance of this principle 
is seen in the uniformity with which the Lord associated 
Moses with Himself in all the works He wrought in Egypt 
and in the Wilderness. All were done by the ministry of Moses, 
that the servant might have the authority of his Master. In 
both these cases there was a declaration of new facts — a new 
and fuller revelation. But there was no difficulty in under- 
standing the facts, nor can we suppose any greater difficulty 
at the first. All that we can learn of the Creator and Buler 
from our nature and the relations which are involved in it, we 
are left to learn by ourselves, but all that concerns us in these 
relations, which is beyond our power of discovery, can only be 
known by direct Divine instruction. 
We started with the assumption that, regarding man as the 
king of the earth, we had reason to expect such Divine in- 
struction as would remove him from the necessity of spoiling 
his own life, and rendering inoperative all past Divine work. 
And, with no wider horizon than the present life, we think we 
have given sufficient reasons for this expectation. But it is 
plain, from the teaching of Scripture and from the testimony 
of the various religions of the East of which Mr. Muller treats, 
that the life of man on the earth is only preparatory to 
another and enduring state of life. We cannot fail, therefore, 
to see, that every reason for a Divine revelation has much 
greater force from the fact that the present life of man is only 
preparatory to an endless existence. 
Passing from Mr. Muller's view of the origin to his descrip- 
tion of the growth of religion, we would suggest, that what 
he presents to us is not the growth, but the decay of religion. 
Religion, by common consent, is such communion with our 
Maker as shall result in the fulfilment of our duty to Him and 
to our neighbour. But, in the progress of the Vedic religion 
there grew up a dominant priesthood, who stood between the 
worshipper and His God, preventing all access to him, and 
who substituted a complicated and tedious ceremonial, in which 
their own service was necessary, for the truth, righteousness, 
and benevolence they owed to their neighbour. This Mr. 
Muller has fully shown in his paper on Caste. And this con- 
dition of priestly usurpation and tyranny 
“ Had gained ground in India before the first collection of Yedic hymns 
was accomplished. These very hymns were the chief strength on which the 
priests relied, they were handed down from father to son as a most precious 
heir-loom .... But the priests only were allowed to chant these songs, 
they only were able to teach them ; and they impressed the people with the 
