150 
I have not omitted any important doctrine in Mr. Muller's 
statement of the Science of Religion, as illustrated in the 
Origin and Growth of the Religion of the Indian Aryans. 
But I have not been able to agree with him in many of his 
positions. We have seen, partly from evidence which he 
himself furnishes, that from the beginning man has possessed 
a knowledge of the existence, character, and claims of his 
Creator and King; that all through human life on earth this 
knowledge has been preserved, and men have had individual 
intercourse with Him ; and that therefore man has never been 
left to discover the existence or the name of God. We have 
also seen in cases which Mr. Muller brings evidences of the 
retention of original revelation, which, in times of general 
degradation, have been sufficient to lead men back to God 
and righteousness. But all this is opposed to the theory of 
Mr. Muller, who, so far as we have been able to understand 
him, supposes that man has the power and the right to manu- 
facture gods and worship for himself and by himself, without 
any reference to his Creator; and who seems to think that 
men are experiencing growth in religion as they become 
more gross and material in their worship, and more unrighte- 
ous in their lives. It is surprising that it did not appear to 
Mr. Muller that a process which necessarily ends in Atheism 
cannot properly be described as the Growth of Religion. 
The Chairman. — I am quite sure, without putting it to the vote, that I 
may present the thanks of the meeting to Mr. Blencowe for his important and 
valuable paper. 
The following communication from the Rev. Canon W. Saumarez Smith, 
D.D., Principal of St. Aidan’s College, Birkenhead, was then read : — 
23rd Nov., 1880. 
I consider Mr. Blencowe’s paper to be a very useful and opportune 
critique on Professor Max Muller’s “ Science of Religion.” 
The writer has shown that the Professor’s assumption of a “godless” period, 
in which men were searching after God, is illogical, and involves him in 
inconsistencies of statement ; that the alleged growth into better religious 
notions is, really, a corruption of simpler truth ; that the practice of 
“sacrifice” among the Aryans implies an idea of God and of worship 
consonant with the earlier Mosaic record ; that the Mar mar theory of 
language is ludicrous and inadequate ; that the question of “ monotheism'' 
is an important one ; and that external Revelation is needed by, and has 
been given to, men, both at first and (to a certain extent) continuously. 
The gist of the argument is, — Was man, primarily, in possession of some 
