afterwards: in place of the tree cut down you will find coppice-wood;
the sap which nourished a single trunk has been divided amongst a
multitude of shoots. This comparison expresses well enough the opinion
which tends to prevail amongst our savants on the subject of the
historical development of religions. The idea of the only God is at the
root,--it is primitive; polytheism is derivative. A forgotten, and as it
were slumbering, monotheism exists beneath the worship of idols; it is
the concealed trunk which supports them, but the idols have absorbed all
the sap. The ancient God (allow me once more a comparison) is like a
sovereign confined in the interior of his palace: he is but seldom
thought of, and only on great occasions; his ministers alone act,
entertain requests, and receive the real homage.

The proposition of the historical priority of monotheism is very
important, and is not universally admitted. It will therefore be
necessary to show you, by a few quotations at least, that I am not
speaking rashly. One of the most accredited mythologists of our time,
Professor Grimm, of Berlin, writes as follows: "The monotheistic form
appears to be the more ancient, and that out of which antiquity in its
infancy formed polytheism.... All mythologies lead us to this
conclusion."[11] Among the French savants devoted to the study of
ancient Egypt, the Vicomte de Rongé stands in the foremost rank. This is
what he tells us: "In Egypt the supreme God was called the one God,
living indeed, He who made all that exists, who created other beings. He
is the Generator existing alone who made the heaven and created the
earth." The writer informs us that these ideas are often found
reproduced "in writings the date of which is anterior to Moses, and many
of which formed part of the most ancient sacred hymns;" then he comes
to this conclusion: "Egypt, in possession of an admirable fund of
doctrines respecting the essence of God, and the immortality of the