159 
order, and then to say “ The order in which I have arranged these beliefs is 
the order in which they sprang into being, from the beginning of man down 
to the present day.” (Cheers.) I cannot see on what principle such an 
inference could possibly be maintained. There are a great number of things of 
this kind on which Sir John Lubbock bases his theory, and there are many 
instances quoted in his book in support of his argument ; but still, with 
respect even to the present races of mankind, it is difficult for strangers 
going among savages to form any correct estimate of their religious beliefs. 
Nothing is more difficult, and it is not likely to conduce to the discovery 
of truth, to take up a number of reports which many people of various 
degrees of accuracy have made — many of them being quite unsupported 
and then to draw a conclusion from them. It would be more to the purpose 
to find out what were the earliest beliefs of historical man to which there is 
something like testimony. I cannot suppose that there was any law which 
regulated beliefs in prehistoric times in a different manner from the way in 
which they have been ruled in historical times ; and if you cannot prove in 
historical times that religious beliefs advance from low to higher forms, I do 
not see why you are to adopt another view in the case of prehistoric times. 
If I can show that there is a tendency in historical times to descend from 
higher to lower forms, then I conceive I am not entitled to say that a con- 
trary process went on in prehistoric times. Why is it that in historical 
times religious beliefs have retrograded ? for it is a fact that they have done 
so. We can appeal to the universal voice of history and show that a great 
number of beliefs, which we can prove to have existed in the earlier periods, 
have, instead of developing themselves from low to high, taken the opposite 
direction, and descended from high to low. Mr. Titcomb is well acquainted 
with the religion of Egypt, and who can doubt that the earlier theism of 
the Egyptians was not much more perfect than the religion which existed in 
the historic times of the Ptolemies and even during the first three centuries 
of our era, when it was one of the most degraded forms of polytheism known 
upon the earth ? It is certain that there was a higher form of religion in the 
earlier ages. In the same way, you can turn to India, and you can fairly 
assert that the earlier forms of Hindoo belief approached far more nearly to 
monotheism than they did later on ; and that, instead of a development of 
improvement, they underwent one of retrogression. Of course, if all religions 
are subject to laws of development, I suppose that persons who hold 
these views consider that the Jewish and the Christian religions are both 
subject to the same laws, and I am fairly entitled to argue with them on their 
own ground. Let me ask, Were not the earlier forms of Judaism much 
higher and more elevated than the Judaism that existed in the time of our 
Lord ; and, in one word, whether Judaism has invariably developed itself 
upwards or in an opposite direction ? Take another example — that of the 
Christian church itself — because I assume that I am now reasoning with 
people who say that both Judaism and Christianity are of natural growth. 
If you look through the history of the Christian church, you will see that 
