164 
humanity This view appears to me to contain the elements and basis of a 
truly rational monotheism. This is, I believe, the monotheism of the Bible 
and furnishes, I venture to think, the true test by which to try the real value of 
any “ estimate in which the Deity is held,” especially in certain modern scien- 
tific speculations, which too often present, at least, the appearance of conscious 
and determined hostility to the very foundations of divinely-revealed truth 
Mr A V Newton.— Are we to understand the last speaker to say that 
monotheism had its origin in the Bible, and was not known before ? 
Mr Gorman.— This question introduces a new element into the subject 
before the meeting, and one which it would be impossible for me now to 
discuss. Suffice it to say, that from the Bible itself it may be shown that 
the Word, or a Divine Revelation, existed among men before the Scriptures 
written by Moses, which we now possess. The law as g lv< ® on Moun 
Sinai was the commencement of the Word, as we now have it. When speak 
of THE Word, I mean Divine Truth, as distinct from the clothmg of the 
peculiar language in which it has been handed down to these times, and 
adapted to the capacity of man, specifically, to that of the Israehttsh pe^ 
There once existed among men a Paradise state, a golden age, of whic 
mankind is at this day, in general, profoundly ignorant. _ 
Mr. Newton.— Do not the fire-worshippers or the Parsees claim a much 
higher origin than any of the other idolaters ? _ ,. ,, 
Mr Gorman.— The worship of the Parsees, even in its most enlightened 
forms, is nothing but a remnant of the primeval revelation, more or less 
corrupted and perverted into an idolatrous worship. 
Mr ? Titcomb.- After having listened to the debate that has been rais 
upon my paper, I can only express my regret that Sir John Lubbock had not 
some r/vocal present to have shown fight on behalf of the system which he 
has taken up There are two objections which have been advanced agams 
fte pterltat both are very mild. The Rev. Mr. Badger did not mean 
to attack me but what he said was, in a certain sense, a sort of criticism 
upan^my paper, when he found fault, or expressed astonishment, because no 
^ -i i i Rfl-wii from Scripture. He seemed rather to put it to 
m!™ e y as 1 clergyman, I should not stand upon the platform of Scripture. 
Mr CaEm-Lcuime. I should have done the same as you have 
done • what I said was about your opponents. . 
Mr’ Titcomb. — Hut I should like to explain why it was that I did not g 
JVir ‘ . , f Cpyi ntnre SupuosinJ a Roman Catholic wanted to 
11™ ici I — A r« <■» 
con -it -r. bp 0 f orjy to Quote that tradition as a 
to prove the contrary. 0nly ^ point, brought forward rather 
can be nothing historic. 
