420 Lord Avebury on Marriage,
As Mr. Tylor published this evidence in 1 891, I do not, I admit, understand how, in 1892, he came to assert, in such measure as he did, the Theory of Borrowing. Borrow- ing may, and I doubt not does, occur in places, but we cannot invoke borrowing when the beliefs are found, (Mr. Tylor gives the evidence), prior to the arrival of mission- aries ; or are discovered in active existence by missionaries when they arrive. To these facts, which would be accepted in any Court of Justice. Mr. Tylor, as far as I am aware, has never replied, nor are they noticed by Lord Avebury.
Moreover, missionary beliefs, among the Arunta, Kaitish, and so on, do not crystallize round Atnatu of the Kaitish, or round the neglected All Father of the Southern Arunta, who are missionary-ridden. Here we have Lord Avebury's supposed cause of high elements in beliefs, — the mission- aries, — without the alleged effect : as among the Kurnai we have the alleged effect without Lord Avebury's supposed cause, — the missionaries.
Thus it is certain, if we accept Mr. Hewitt's authority, that the higher elements of Australian belief were not borrowed from missionaries, and, (see Mr. Hale), that Baiame, whatever his mythical eccentricities, was wor- shipped by tribes near Wellington before the date of first arrival of the missionaries.
If more facts and arguments are needed, (i) the women and children of Australian tribes were not allowed to know about the existence and attributes of the All Father, whatever his local name. Now, if the higher attributes were drawn from missionary teaching, the women and children would know as much about them as the Initiates. But they did not know. (2) If the higher attributes of the All Father were borrowed from pious Christians continually engaged in acts of public worship, the adults of the tribes ought to have borrowed the worship with the doctrines. But, according to Lord Avebury, the Australian All Father receives no worship. I am ashamed to say how often I