361 
and was remembered by vague traditions in all nations, to have been brought 
into visible and actual connection with man? I thank Dr. Phen6 very 
much for the collection of interesting facts which he has put before us. 
Dr. Phene. — I am greatly obliged for the kindly way in which you 
have received my paper. I have not read many works that have been 
written upon my subject, for had I done so I feel I should never have dis- 
covered wha,t I have. I have taken my own course altogether; and if we are 
to do any good, and to bring facts to light which are to be of use, I 
believe it can only be done by a man working from his own original ideas. 
As to what has been written by Professor Piazzi Smyth, upon the way in 
which I introduce my subject, I can only say that I cannot agree with him. 
In one place in my paper I have appeared to put forward a rationalistic 
idea ; such ideas are put forward very prominently sometimes, but my 
object in putting forward the one I allude to was to show that the 
rationalistic idea would not stand for a moment. I entirely agree with 
Mr. Weldon and others in the idea that serpent-worship was devil- 
worship, and that view is strongly maintained in the very last page of 
my paper; the term “devil-worship” was, of course, applied to it by 
Christians. The necessary limits of such a paper have confined me 
a great deal, I have as far as possible endeavoured to break new 
ground, besides leaving room for the expression of opinions into 
which I had not space to enter. I desired to view the subject as an inherent 
worldling might be supposed to view it, apart from' the antecedents 
which any such person would no doubt reject, but which I, of 
course, am bound to assume, and having shown that that view would not 
hold water, I then went forward to view it as you do ; but it was not 
my purpose to make the subject a purely scriptural one. With regard to 
my appearing not to speak of certain things which belong to the subject, 
it must not be supposed that because I do not put them into my paper, I do 
not agree with them. With regard to what was stated by the Hon. Secretary, 
I did not say that there were no mountains in the neighbourhood of the 
pyramids, but that the people wanted mountains nearer at hand ; and in 
another of my writings I have pointed out that it was an Eastern custom to 
have the place of worship close at hand : “ It is too much for you to go up 
to J erusalem.” (1 Kings xii. 28.) It was the custom of the Egyptians to 
carry their dead westward, and in that direction the pyramids supply the 
place of mountains. I do not know that I have any other points of criticism 
to answer, except that Professor Piazzi Smyth has referred to only one of the 
forms of Egyptian pyramids ; and that, while I agree with Mr. Waddy as to 
the effect of abandonment or disuse of the true worship, I have based my 
argument subsequently to a catastrophe resulting from indifference or aban- 
donment, and not on anything during a progress towards abandonment. I 
have to acknowledge valuable information from the Eev. Canon Stephenson, 
and on this and cognate subjects from the Rev. Richard Wilson, D.D., and 
on Scottish matters from my old friend of college-days, “ Cuthbert Bede.” 
The Meeting was then adjourned. 
