inscriptions, that they were familiar at an early period in the very country from whence Abraham came out.

This inference gives, to an astronomer, a special interest to not a few Scripture passages. We know that Abraham and Moses, David and Amos, must have looked upwards to the same shining eyes as those that look down upon us, and it seems to bring those ancient worthies nearer to us, if we realise that those stars were associated to them with the same imagined frescoes as they are to us. To them, as to us, Ophiuchus strangled the Snake and trampled on the Scorpion; the Kneeler crushed the Dragon's head; the Virgin held the Ear of Corn; and the giant Orion attacked the Bull.

We find evidence of the acquaintance of the Hebrews with the ancient constellations in Joseph's dream, wherein the "eleven stars" evidently signify eleven out of the zodiacal twelve; the twelfth, traditionally Taurus the leader, representing Joseph himself. We learn from St. Stephen that the worship of the golden calf in the wilderness, was "starworship"; the Israelites choosing the form of a calf, presumably because it was the form of Taurus :

:

"The white bull with golden horns that opens the year,"

to quote Virgil. It was the stellar bull, the leader of the host of heaven, that they were worshipping as Him Who had led them out of the land of Egypt.

There is a definite and direct reference to one of the constellation forms in the twenty-sixth chapter of the book of Job. There Job says of God that :

"By His spirit He hath garnished the heavens.

His hand has formed the crooked serpent."

Here the parallelism of Hebrew poetry obliges us to take "hath formed the crooked serpent" as a restatement of "hath garnished" (that is adorned) "the heavens"; the great constellation of the writhing Dragon, emphatically a crooked serpent," placed at the very crown of the heavens, and encircling its two northern poles, being poetically put for all the constellations of the sky.

The ancient constellations have a very high archæological value, and this in two directions. First, they preserve to us a record of the earliest scientific work of man. Next, they throw an important light on the origin of myth.

For it is clear that the constellation figures were associated with the stars upon a deliberate, and, in the strictest sense, a scientific plan. The science was real if primitive. The

twelve constellations of the zodiac were clearly meant to mark out the apparent path of the sun, a fact that shows that the length of the year had been at least roughly determined, and that means had been found for identifying the sun's place amongst the stars, with whom he is never seen. The equator was marked as well as the ecliptic, the long constellation of Hydra being formed for this purpose. These two great circles being so clearly indicated, the significance of the position of the northern dragon, coiled symmetrically round their two poles, becomes apparent, as well as the attitude of a third serpentine figure, the snake carried by Ophiuchus, which is bent into a right angle at the intersection of the equator with the equinoctial colure. These positions of astronomical importance were no doubt marked by serpentine forms, because such could be bent or stretched out to take any desired shape. Further evidence of astronomical knowledge and of deliberate purpose is seen in the zodiacal figures; the ascending signs, facing the east, the sunrise; the descending, facing the west, the sunset. Thus the solstices were recognised and marked out as well as the equinoxes.

Such knowledge, such designs, were not within the reach of savages; they could only have resulted from steady and definite observation carried on for the purpose. But we are familiar with an immense number of myths, devised to explain how the constellations came into being, or else representing the sun as the hero of some exploit, suggested by one of the zodiacal figures. None of these myths could have preceded the formation of the constellations, none of these myths could have given rise to the constellations. The types of mind and states of civilization required for such a work as the construction of the constellations and for the inception of myths are wholly diverse; more than diverse, opposed and incompatible. All such myths, therefore, are not only later than the constellations but they imply that the constellations had been known, and their meaning forgotten or misunderstood. Such myths therefore are the evidence of knowledge on the downgrade; of astronomical knowledge lost; not of astronomical knowledge incipient.

The myths did not give rise to the constellations, but when the true origin of the constellations was forgotten, and the astronomical facts that they expressed were lost or misunderstood, then myths were invented to explain them; they were the ditch into which the blind led the blind. And as with astronomical myths, so no doubt with other nature myths; for myth is essentially the outcome of ignorance, the confusion of

things that differ, the artificial attempt to explain that which is unintelligible to the narrator.

Let me take one example. My friend, Dr. Hind, the explorer of Assiniboia and of the Labrador river Moisie, told me that his Indians were accustomed "to fix the sun" by setting two stakes, one upright, and the other to fit its shadow. In this way the members of the party following after could judge of the height and direction of the sun when the leaders. passed, and so learn how many hours' journey they were ahead. If we turn now to Dr. J. G. Frazer's Golden Bough, vol. i, pages 117-119, under the title "Staying the Sun," we find a number of anecdotes. Dr. Frazer writes :

"In their journeys the " (Australian) "natives are accustomed to place stones in trees at different heights from the ground, in order to indicate the height of the sun in the sky at the moment that they passed the particular tree. Those who follow are thus made aware of the time of day when their friends in the advance passed the spot."

The Indian custom mentioned by Dr. Hind, is an exceedingly simple, but pretty and effective, way of marking the time. The Australian custom, as reported, is perfectly useless, being incomplete. The question arises, is the incompleteness due to the stupidity of the explorer who did not understand what the natives told him, and left out the essential feature? Or did the Australians retain a vestige of a useful custom after they had ceased to understand its purpose and meaning? An allied Australian custom is reported thus:

"When an Australian blackfellow wishes to stay the sun from going down till he gets home, he puts a sod in the fork of a tree, exactly facing the setting sun."

Did this mythical idea of "stopping the sun" arise from the stupidity of the Australian savage, who had retained and misunderstood a vestige of a once useful custom, or from the stupidity of the European, ignorant of the contrivances and necessities of primitive life? In either case the myth arises from knowledge lost. It is evidence of ignorance.

In astronomy then, we find that the sequence-whether now or in primitive ages-is observation, knowledge, then knowledge lost or misapprehended, then myth; and not the converse (as it is usually contended) of myth, out of which observation grows, and thence knowledge is gained.

Might I ask your serious consideration of the point which I have raised here, namely, that in the case of constellation

myths, we have direct evidence that they are knowledge lost. An immense amount has been written upon myths in recent years, and the assumption has almost always been that they are primitive, original, the first stage towards knowledge. That is an assumption, and,-in this case, where we can test it,-it is an untrue assumption.

If, in science, myth means the degradation of knowledge, does the very opposite of this hold good in religion? Have we the right to assume that in religion, myth is knowledge in the germ?

In the Address given you a year ago, Dr. Welldon affirmed that it is so. He said: :

"Primitive man then personifies Nature. He spiritualises Nature. He invests objects not with life only but with will; and his religion, as expressing the relation which he conceives to exist between his own spirit and the spiritual force outside himself, naturally takes the form of an attempt to influence the unseen powers in which he instinctively believes.

"This is the beginning of religion. It contains the germs of all the infinitely various creeds and cults which have elevated or desolated humanity.

"For as man's intellectual faculties were strengthened by observation and reflection, it was almost inevitable that he should effect the speculative transition from so-called idolatry to polytheism, from the worship of many gods to the worship of fewer gods, and in the end to monotheism. The spiritual powers resident in all natural objects converge into the one great spiritual power who is called God. And the gradual ennoblement of religion lies in the purging away of all the material imaginations which have gathered around the pure spirituality of God Himself. For when once the existence of spiritual beings, many or few, was apprehended, the belief in the supreme Being was a sure result of time and thought."

Is this so? Have we on record a single observed case in which a religion has evolved in this sequence of spiritism, polytheism, henotheism, and finally monotheism? Have we in all history an example of polytheism passing into monotheism except through the influence of monotheism from without? We have abundant illustration of a conflict between the two ideas-coming from different quarters-and of the victory of the purer faith. But where and when have we an instance of the direct evolution of polytheism into the worship of One and Only God?

On this point let us look at the evidence supplied by the first

chapter of Genesis, and read verses 14-19, especially verse 16:

"And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also."

I would ask you to weigh the extreme simplicity of these words, and to see what it signifies. Consider that the sun and moon have no distinctive names assigned to them. There is no recognition of any of the planets. There is no recognition even of the grouping of the stars into constellations. The celestial bodies could not be referred to in a more simple manner.

What does that mean? It means that we have before us the expression of man's earliest observation of the heavenly bodies. Whenever the book of Genesis as a whole was written, there was incorporated in it this primitive record whether preserved orally or in writing. But primitive it is beyond possibility of challenge. It is probably the earliest document existing. The astronomy is indeed primitive and simple in character, the very simplest possible, but it is astronomy of observation. It concerns the observed brightness of sun, moon and stars. But it is not myth; there is not the faintest trace of the deification of sun, moon or stars, or of spiritism. There is no confusion of ideas; no anthropomorphic treatment of sun or moon.

And as the astronomy of the chapter is simple and sane, and (we may truly say to the very small extent that it goes) scientific; so is the religion of the chapter. It is, as we have seen, a primitive document, but there is no personification of Nature, no spiritualisation of Nature, no endowing natural objects, not with life only, but with will. There are no myths of hideous demon monsters and of unnatural births. There is no confusion of ideas; no inability to discern between Creator and Creation. The religion of the chapter,-the religion of this earliest age, is perfect in its sanity and truth.

But it has been urged that this first chapter of Genesis was borrowed by the Jews from a Babylonian Creation Epic, though we are obliged to suppose that, as Professor Fr. Delitzsch puts it, "the priestly scholar who composed Genesis, Chapter I, endeavoured of course to remove all possible mythological features of this creation story." It has escaped the notice of those who press this view that it ascribes a measureless superiority in intellectual and spiritual standing to the Jew over the Babylonian, seeing that the former could recognise and bring to light the truth hidden beneath the debased and irrational Babylonian myth. But there is no need to suppose this miracle. The evidence of any connection between the