157 
repeat that it is to my great astonishment that so learned and well-known a 
man as Sir John Lubbock could possibly have made the assertion which 
I am told he has. With regard to the question of the 'ancient Hindoo 
mythology, to which I have paid more attention than to any other of the 
points now before us, I can corroborate the arguments of Mr. Titcomb on 
that subject. That mythology is now very much debased, and a school 
has sprung up among the Hindoos who revert to the original mytholo- 
gical belief of the Vedas ; but the present worship is derived from books 
called the Purans, written at present in Hindee, though some of the older 
ones were possibly written in Sanscrit. These books constitute the scrip- 
tures of the present Hindoos, and they contain quaint stories of demons 
and gods, and genii ; but the original religion of the Hindoos was something 
very different, and I cannot conceive any nearer approach to inspiration, that 
the mind of man is capable of making by its own efforts, than the religious 
philosophy of the Vedas, and the belief of the most ancient Hindoos. The 
idea of the Deity contained in the older forms of religion is a grand concep- 
tion, but the present Hindoo religion is extremely debased. If we go to the 
Mahommedans, who occupy so large a portion of the religious world, we all 
know that one of the main purposes of Mahomet was to overthrow, as far as 
he could, the idolatry that had arisen in Arabia ; and his efforts were the out- 
come of the purer growth of Monotheism which had existed before. I can 
only repeat my regret that we cannot hear Sir John Lubbock to-night, 
because he seems to me to have taken up a position which is quite untenable. 
(Cheers.) 
Mr. Titcomb. — As I have attacked Sir John Lubbock, it is only fair that 
I should so far defend him as to say that he is not without warrant in his 
assertion that the testimony of others is in his favour. In pages 141 and 
142 of his book, he says that there is the testimony of various travellers to 
the point, and he quotes Kobertson, who, speaking of America, says that 
several tribes had been discovered there with no idea of religion. At the 
same time, I quite agree with Mr. Prichard in not believing the assertion to 
be a statement of fact. 
Dr. J. A. Fraser. — As no one will defend Sir John Lubbock, I may 
be allowed to say that I do not think Mr. Titcomb’s paper goes into 
the pre-historical question, for all its arguments are drawn from historical 
times. We have references to the Aztecs and to the Scandinavians’; but 
these peoples were surely within reach of history in one sense of the term, and 
certainly the civilized Greeks, and even the Egyptians, are. 
Rev. C. A. Row. — Sir John Lubbock refers to all these nations in his 
book. 
Dr. Fraser. — But they are not pre-historical. I quite believe that, so far 
as historical times are concerned, the farther back we go, the more mono- 
theistic does religion become. Now Sir John Lubbock says : — 
“ The new and more powerful spirit is an addition to the old Pantheon, 
