p. 208.] I hope that the subject will be again taken up by some member of the Institute. Mr. MACDONELL.-I am much pleased to hear the remarks of the last speaker. I think that two of the previous speakers have not done sufficient justice to this remarkable and interesting paper, one that evidently contains the result of very great information and research,—a paper that ought not to be treated in a light manner. It is full of other persons' thoughts, and containing authorities that are not within the reach of most people. It gives extracts from literature of a most interesting character, and quotes novel and beautiful poetry. Now, it seems to me that the paper is not open to the observations made by the first speaker. So far as I can gather from the statements that were made, there was no such feeling as he referred to running through the paper at all. On the contrary, frequent allusions were made in the paper by which we were reminded of the superiority of the Scriptures. So far as I understand the paper, it goes to show that, even in early times, there was a groping after some form of monotheism. This of itself would be a most valuable result. Having said so much in praise of the paper, may I be permitted to put one or two questions to the lecturer ? I was curious to see what opinion the lecturer had arrived at as to the precise age at which Zoroaster lived. At page 247 he states that Endocos and Aristotle placed Zoroaster 6,000 years before the time of Plato, and Hermippos placed the age of Zoroaster 5,000 years before the Trojan war; while another authority, Masudi, gives another date, namely B.C. 600. Mr. Brown himself arrived at a fourth opinion, which was somewhat different. With respect to the ground upon which he arrived at that opinion, or, in fact, the grounds upon which he has arrived at any of his opinions, I think there is room for further enlightenment. It is one thing to know when Zoroaster lived, and it is another, almost as important, to know whether he lived at all; and I think this is fairly open to doubt. At page 248 we have the opinion of Sir H. Rawlinson, to the effect that Zoroaster was "the personification of the old heresionym of the Scythic race." At the same page we have the opinion of a learned foreigner, M. Darmesteter, who regards Zoroaster as one of the many bright powers of heaven who fight in an almost endless strife against the powers of darkness and evil ;" and at page 249 we have the statement of Mr. Brown himself that the question whether Zoroaster lived or not is of comparatively little importance. Then, further on, it is said that Zoroaster might be regarded as the founder of a religion and as one who was essentially a reformer; and, if so, I suppose that at some time or other he lived. I should like to know from Mr. Brown whether there are any solid grounds for believing that Zoroaster was an historical personage, or whether Zoroaster is merely the name in which were included a vast number of religious reformers and teachers, perhaps of different ages? There is another remark I should like to make. I would venture to ask whether the method of inquiry pursued by the lecturer in the latter portion of the paper is a method of inquiry that is likely to result in really sound conclusions ? It seemed to me that the mode of reasoning which he followed was one which might lead to false conclusions. He took up a divinity named Agni, and endeavoured to find the various forms under which that divinity was expressed and discovered. He found a constant reference to fire, and then grouping the various descriptions together, he arrived at the conclusion that Agni was the God of fire. Now I think this is a dangerous way of reasoning. Suppose that 5,000 years hence some person with the same means of reasoning with respect to our society, as Mr. Brown has with respect to ancient Persia, should get information with respect to ghosts that have been seen in the 19th century, and putting all together should ask himself what there was in common? Mr. Brown has found that by common consent Agni in all respects was fire. What would a person considering the question of ghosts 5,000 years hence find? He would observe that they were always seen robed in white, and probably conclude that the idea of a ghost in the 19th century, by common consent, was inseparably connected with white calico. (Laughter.) Such a course of reasoning strikes me as rather dangerous, and I would suggest that Mr. Brown should state what portion of his paper he really considers conjecture, and what portion he considers as sound and based upon undoubted evidence. I think that there are two elements in the paper we have heard to-night, and that the valuable element which I have referred to is of no small extent. (Hear, hear.) Mr. D. HOWARD.—I think the subject of the paper well worthy of careful consideration, for it involves the whole question of early religions. There is a certain school of thought which tells us with all the boldness which modern scientists alone can command, especially when they are not quite sure of their subject, that man is an improving subject, and that man's religion in the beginning was not monotheism. It does seem to me that the more we study the early histories of religious thought, the more profoundly we are convinced that there is no truth whatever in this conception. I should not venture to enter into the question as to how far Zoroaster was responsible for the dualism in which his followers indulged; but still it is most interesting to find that at that early age you have a reformer appealing not to progress, but to antiquity. He does not appeal to the growing intellect of man, but he appeals to antiquity. He looks back to monotheism, not forward; and I say that from this point of view we cannot too carefully consider this ancient record. It is still more interesting to find the same monotheistic idea running through the religious books even of those he opposed. It is, indeed, true that there is a school of thought which goes to those books to find the origin of the Old Testament revelation. We may study Plato to see what the lights of the Greek mind were, and we may study St. Paul without thinking that St. Paul borrowed from Plato, and it seems to me that we may well study the longings of the human mind for a purer religion, that purer religion being monotheism ; and we shall find that in the past and better ages the religion of our fathers was monotheism. Any one coming fresh to the confused thoughts and to the muddled ideas of the books we have been considering, will all the more value the ideas contained in the book of Job, and it is interesting to find in that book those allusions to kissing the hand to the sun, which was the very beginning of that nature-worship which has degenerated into that horrible and barbarous system which we now see practised in India. Then, again, it is interesting to watch those attempts at reformation that are not founded upon revealed religion, but on human intellect. Another thing which renders the Zendavesta and Persian thought a matter of interest, is the amazing influence the Persian thought had on early Christian thought and on the speculations of the Gnostics. Rev. J. JAMES.-I should be glad to say a word or two in the same direction that has been pursued by the last two speakers; namely, that I do not see in the paper the slightest tendency to disparage the revelation we have in the Bible. On the contrary, every reference to the Christian faith in this paper is a loyal and warm tribute to the doctrines of the Gospel. I wish also to say that I look upon the paper as a very valuable contribution to the true philosophy of Religion. As has been observed by the last speaker, it seems to be a valuable contribution to the argument, that the degraded forms of religion which are found in all the heathen nations of the earth are not aboriginal, but descendants from an original higher height, and that that higher height is the highest height of monotheism. One passage has been referred to as an objectionable one, but which I must say, in my opinion, is a very valuable thought. It is Max Müller who says, "like an old precious metal, the ancient religion, after the rust of ages has been removed, will come out in all its purity and brightness, and the image which it discloses will be the image of the Father, the Father of all the nations upon earth.” True, the Gospel supplies us with religion free from rust; but what we want is to see that that rust which has grown upon the earlier and purer forms of pagan faiths is capable of being rubbed away, and that underneath we shall find tokens if not proofs of an aboriginal religion, which is a faith in the one God. I wish to join in the thanks to the author of the paper for his valuable contribution to this important argument. I should like to know, with reference to the passage in Greek given in the paper, where the words are taken from. The words are these : “ Πλούτων, Περσεφόνη, Δημήτηρ, Κύπρις, Ερωτες, Ἑρμῆς θ', "Ηφαιστός τε κλυτός, Πάν, Ζεύς τε, και Ηρη, Mr. BROWN.—I believe the passage is quoted in Athenæus, and I think it has been attributed to Hermesianax. Mr. J. FERGUSON (Ceylon).-Seventeen years' residence in the East has led me to think that one important point in the preparation for missionary work is a knowledge of the religious beliefs of the people among whom Christianity is to be taught, and a sympathy, so far as possible, with precepts and doctrines not distinctly evil in their tendency. I believe our most successful missionaries in the East have been those who have not only learnt the language of the people amongst whom they have laboured, but who have been enabled to translate their sacred and other notable books, and thus to obtain the sympathies of the enlightened among the natives. I think that this paper will be particularly valuable to Christian teachers going to work in Northern and Western India, and Persia, and I hope that it may pass through the hands of our more enlightened fellow-subjects in India, I think the value of such papers as this is very great to missionaries going to the East, who ought to get an idea of the religions they are about to controvert. Mr. R. W. DIBDIN.* Captain F. PETRIE.-We all know that it is unfortunately too common a thing in these days to find people instituting such inquiries as Mr. Brown has, with a very small portion of those abilities which he has brought to the task; such inquirers are unhappily only too eager to publish to the world the results of their investigations, which being imperfect, and generally very incorrect, naturally give false impressions; it is amongst the writings of such inquirers that the advocates of infidelity find weapons ready forged for their use. I think we may congratulate ourselves that the subject of inquiry in the present paper has been taken up by Mr. Brown, for few in England have had the training to enable them to investigate it with such understanding. Mr. BROWN.-I have to thank the meeting for the attention they have given to my paper, and, at the same time, to say a few words on one or two points which seem to require a reply. Dr. Rule has said that the Hebrew cry was not piteous, I did not say that it was; but that the words were spoken in that piteous way in which enlightened man would speak. He doubted whether the conception of Zoroaster was monotheism, and remarked that it was mere duality; but he did not allude to the opinions of the latest investigators on this point, and he quoted the Scripture, "Canst thou by searching find out God?" I would answer by another passage of Scripture"You shall find Me if you seek Me with your whole heart." Mr. Jones followed, and seemed to hope that I had not intended to degrade Christianity. * Mr. Dibdin has sent the following report of part of his speech :-"I cannot at all agree with the statement to be found in Section 6 of the paper, where the author says:- And here let me make a remark respecting the spheres of mythology and religion. The former corresponds with the material, the latter with the spiritual portion of the universe; they rise together as twin ideas in the human mind, and at the same time the mental and the physical eye grasp, however dimly, some of the wonders of God and the Kosmos, of soul and body. Mythology did not spring from religion, nor religion from mythology. They were two sisters of one race," widely differing indeed in value, but at first equally simple, equally pure.'-If by religion Mr. Brown means revealed religion, it seems to me that the best that can be said of mythology is that it is a debased distortion of it, and to call it 'equally pure' with it is certainly not the manner in which the Hebrew prophets alluded to the mythology of their times."-(It seems desirable to niention that the author of the paper has used the word "religion" in its strict sense.-ED.) "The author strives very hard to show that the Gâthas did not teach the existence of two spirits, one of good and the other of evil; but the passages quoted by himself in Section 9 seem rather to confirm the popular view of the teaching of Zoroaster.” : Certainly not. I can yield to no man present in my respect for Christianity and the Holy Scriptures. The object of this paper is their defence, and I should have thought it almost unnecessary to point it out. I am glad to find that other speakers have relieved me from the charge. This paper was not written merely for persons who accept Holy Scripture. It is a paper intended for the whole world. The object of this society is to set forth the truth of religion, and in doing so it must start from a common basis. It is no good appealing to people on grounds which your opponents disavow. You must say, "I will look at the question from your own point of view" that is the basis of this paper, and that is why extracts from the Scriptures are not more introduced, as the second speaker appeared to wish The object is to show that the statements of the Bible are supported by history. We believe the Bible to be inspired; but, at the same time, we are not on that account to neglect the teachings of nature. We should make a threefold cord that cannot be easily broken. This paper, I trust, may be examined by people who have not a belief in Holy Scripture. If it only has the effect of bringing them to a more careful study of these questions, it will lead towards the truth. Mr. Howard has alluded to Tammuz as a prophet. I think that he will find that Tammuz is the Assyrian Dumuzi, and that the women who wept for him wept for the setting sun. One gentleman has alluded to the great differences of opinion which exist as to the age of Zoroaster. I have given all the different opinions as to the age of Zoroaster, not because I follow them, but because I wish to give something like literary completeness to my paper. The highest authorities, who have devoted many years to this subject, place him at B.C. 1400, or 1300, and they educe this from the progressive state of the language. That is the chief means of fixing his date. As to the evidence, that is also comparative. You cannot call direct evidence of the original fact whether there was such a man or not, but I will read you a letter which I have received from Professor Sayce, of Oxford: "I am altogether of your way personality of the Iranian prophet. to me to postulate an individual Muhammedanism, or Buddhism." of thinking in regard to the historical The character of Zoroastrianism seems founder, just as much as Christianity, One gentleman has objected to my analysis of the Vedic Agni, and asked how it was that he was fire? We have the word " ignis," and we know that "ignis” means “fire." As to mythology and religion, my meaning is simply this, that mythology is the result of man's childlike and simple considerations of the world around us. If I may quote from a passage in a note on page 302 of the essay, I would say,— 'Prof. Jebb well observes,' There was a time when they [i.e. archaic men] had begun to speak of the natural powers as persons, and yet had not forgotten that they were really natural powers, and that the personal names were merely signs: That, I take it, was the simple primitive origin of mythology, and that is |