| 


e 


Siete Cates een. eee ee 
“se SFR oe ste te ete ae tenes Fe CR REN IRN kOe ARR SO CNTR PRE OTOL BE 
SALW MGS THEE 2A ELEN SDE SN SOMO RE NNE WEIE TEN Se eo 


HARVARD UNIVERSITY. 


LIBRARY 


OF THE 


MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY 


\a.6o05 


< 


7 “ X , '* 1 a 
sl es Fd ibs 
ae il hk ae 
AY “¥ ed 
| : - , a, re y 37 vt 
# *- Sy a" 
( ' ty i 
A « , ; 
‘ i }4 a] » 
= — . “ 
- ‘ ‘ ‘ i < Fuh Py iu ‘ 
: 
: _ ‘et i 
' : , \: 
1 “ 
: ’ , » £ : 
- , 4 . j 7 
> 
% : 
* i ‘ 
: u¥ee. s 
z, . a a” 
f ‘ 
: ae a 
. bas ‘ 
* ' ' 
iv 
. 
. : ‘ by 2 
‘ 
* . . ‘ 
‘ = at - 
’ ‘ | : ‘ 
i 
rma) 


Bie Nod aN 
a Ba Aly Me 


v4 ae he ona - 


JOURNAL OF THE TRANSACTIONS 


OF 


Pere VICTORIA INSTERTUTE. 


VOL. XLIV. 


‘ 
‘ 
' 
‘ 
» 
] “a 
i 
. 
‘ + 
¢ * 
“ 1 
a 
+ 
. 
. 
. 
++ 
i 
. ‘ 
» 
* 
> 
¥ 4 


JOURNAL OF 


THE TRANSACTIONS 


OF 


Che Victoria Institute, 


Bink 
| 


Philosophical Society of Great Britain, 
EDITED BY THE SECRETARY. 


Veep cal Vi 


LONDON : 
(Publisher by the Institute, 1, Avelphi Terrace Bouse, Charing Cross, Wi.C.) 


ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 


1912. 


Cy 


ae 


HARRISON AND ee ‘PRINTERS IN Go 


VRKnG(l oem 
‘HOIOOS KOH EU 


_ 
te 


CEAM GE FOCnEN Ae ts 


’ 2 . J ‘ * ‘a =e : — 
’ . rt s 
-" = P| 
‘ss 
. 
7 » a te . 
LONDON : 


da 
e ais a 
e/ 


.“ 


ay 
[ o, 


PREFACE, 


HIS Volume, XLIV, is larger by thirty-eight pages than its 
immediate predecessor, chiefly owing to the length of the 
discussions and written communications on the papers contri- 
buted. Since October, 1911, thirteen new members and thirty- 
two new associates have been elected. We may fairly take 
these two facts as an index of the increasing interest taken in 
the work of the Institute. 

The subjects dealt with in this Volume will be found to meet 
the needs of the times in many respects :—Mrs. Lewis’s, Colonel 
_ Mackinlay’s, and Professor Milligan’s will interest students of the 
New Testament; Professor James Orr’s, Mr. Tuckwell’s and Arch- 
deacon Potter’s, students of the Old Testament ; Mr. Tod applies 
ancient Greek History to present-day interest in Arbitration 
Dr. L. von Gerdtell and the Bishop of Down throw oil on the 
troubled waters of difficulty and doubt; while Mr. Maunder, 
Mr. Klein, and Professor Henslow lead their readers into higher 
regions of Philosophy and Science. In the Annual Address, 
Sir Andrew Wingate bases a thoughtful examination of current 
life problems on the integrity of the Bible and its value as the 
antidote to the spirit of Modern Unrest. 

The Institute is greatly indebted to the Authors for the time, 
trouble, care, and thought given to their papers; and to those 
taking part in the discussions, for the additional light and 
criticism brought to bear on the subjects examined. 


val PREFACE, 


As Editor I desire to add my personal thanks for the great 
kindness all have shown me in enabling me to produce a care- 
fully corrected record of the transactions for the year. 


FREDERIC S. BISHOP, 


Editor. 


October, 1912. 


CONTENTS. 


i 
PAGE 
PREFACE eoee coee eevee eevee soee eeee veoe ese coco Vv 
REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE YEAR 1911... aie eg “tf 1 
CasH STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR 1911 .... fast Ea, ii. an 7 


ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING, HELD IN THE ROOMS OF THE INSTITUTE 
on Monpay, 5TH Fepruary, 1912. Lt.-Cot. Mackinuay ;IN 
THE CHAIR ... we sr te ms Kad Ns tf Aad, 


THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LorpD. By Mrs. A. S. LEwis .... 


Discussion. REMARKS BY ne ee "e ae the; eo 
Tue Ven. ARCHDEACON Porter, 
Rey. Canon GIRDLESTONE, 
Martin L. Rouse, Esq., 
Lr.-Cot. MAcKINLAY, 
Dr. J. W. THIRTLE, 
Rev. E. SEELEY, 
Rev. PREBENDARY Fox. 


COMMUNICATIONS FROM .... Pee ae +% ks 8 ES 
Rev. G. CrEewpson, 
Dr. Kenyon, 
Dr. MarcouioutH, 
Mr. E. J. SEWELL. 


NaturaL Law anp MiracuteE. By Dr. Lupwic von GERDTELL, 
Marsoure A/L..... Pus an ue ae, ane ase OB i 


Discussion. REMARKS BY ne re pees ae Nie st 
Dr. W. Woops Smytu, 
Mr. Martin L. Rovss, 
Rev. C. L. Drawsrines, 
Dr. J. W. THIRTLE, 
Rey. Joun TuckKwEtt. 


vill CONTENTS OF VOL. XLIV. 


PAGE 
CoMMUNICATIONS FROM att 
Proressor H. LANenorRNE ORCHARD, 
Lr.-Cot. MackINLAy, 

Mr. J. O. Corrs, 


Mr. W. E. Les.is. 


THe GREEK Papyri. By THE Rev. Proressor G. Miuuiean, D.D. 62 


Discussion. REMARKS BY ar pai a ane eR ae 
Rey. Canon GIRDLESTONE, 
Lr.-CoL. ALVEs, 
Ven. ARCHDEACON POTTER, 
Mr. E. R. P. Moon, 
Dr. J. W.. THIRTLE. 


THE CoNnpDITIONS OF HABITABILITY OF A .PLANET, WITH SPECIAL 
REFERENCE TO THE PLANET Mars. By E. Water MAUNDER, 


wore 


Discussion. REMARKS BY i ee an oP ES tae 


Mr. E. J. SEWELL, 
Mr. Martin L. Rovss, 
Mr. J. T. Marruews, 
Mr. J. SCHWARTZ, 

Mr. Davin Howarp. 


CoMMUNICATIONS FROM mim oie) wi Ss eH A: 1 OO 
Rev. Dr. IRvine, 
Mr. Sypney T. Kien. 


Tue Hisroriciry oF THE Mosaic TABERNACLE. By THE REV. 
PRoFEessor JAMES OrR, D.D. ae Fie = a An Ge 


Discussion. REMARKS BY aN aay ie ee 


Dr. W. Woops Smytu, 

Mr. E. WAautER MAUNDER, 
Mr. Martin L. Rovss, 

Dr. J. W. THIRTLE, 

Sir Ropert ANnpDERSON, K.C.B., 
Pror, E. Huu, 

Rev. J. A. LiguHtroot, 

Mr. H. M. WIENER, 

Dr. Heywood SMITH. 


CONTENTS OF VOL. XLIV. 1X 


PAGE 
COMMUNICATIONS FROM .... Ast o) ie ay 2. N24 


Rev. CANON GIRDLESTONE, 
Rev. CHANCELLOR LIAS. 


THE REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL Eco. By Sypwney T. 
Kuen, Esq., F.L.S., F.R.A.S. Ace ia ae iy at LO 


Discussion. COMMUNICATION FROM fen tie eke Te 5 ¢°4 
Rev. CANON GIRDLESTONE. 


REMARKS BY.... = ae ee ah, biz seu the LDA 
Rev. Dr. Irvine, 
Proressor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, 
Mr. Davip Howarp. 


DifFicuLtTies oF Breuier. By THE RicHt Rev. Tue BisHor or 
Down _.... oe ae ae tl Ete er a9, sn FLOOD 
Discussion. REMARKS BY are scab fo the etirel 1 O 
Dr. W. Woops Smytu, 
Mr. Martin L. Rouse, 
Lr.-CoL. MAcKINLAY, 
Mr. Joun ScuwartTz, 
Rev. C. L. DRAwBRIDGE. 


COMMUNICATIONS FROM .... Pa ch fe ie iu MOU 
Rev. CHANCELLOR L1ias, 
Sin Ropert ANDERSON, 
Prorressor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD 
Rev. Dr. Irvine. 


Some Lucan Prosiems. By Lt.-Cou. G. Mackinuay Ee A oi 


Discussion. REMARKS BY nie at _ uo Lak ONL 
Mr. E. Water Mavunnper, 
Rev. Dr. Irvine, 
Mr. Martin L. Rovuss, 
Mr. Srpney Couuert, 
Mr. F. W. CHALLIs. 


COMMUNICATIONS FROM ..., ois eg ae Bi ... 206 
THe Rev. Sir Joun Hawkins, Barr., 
Rev. Proressor J. Orr, 
Rev. J. VERNON Bart Let, 
Rey. F. H. Woops, 
Rev. H. Gaussen, 


xX CONTENTS OF VOL. XLIV. 


PAGE 
Rev. Canon GIRDLESTONE, 


Sir Wiiuiam Herscuen, Bart., 
Rev. Prorrssor T. Nicon, 
Rev. J. J. B. Couns, 

Rev. A. H. F. Bouauey. 


DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING Lit.-Cot. MACKINLAY’S PAPER we facing 218 


ARCHEOLOGY AND MopERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. By THE REV. 
JouHn TuckweLi, M.R.A.S8. .... eds a ae ele as Se 


Discussion. REMARKS BY We ses x ma onys oe 
Mr. E. J. SEWELL, 
Rey. CHANCELLOR LIAs, 
Mr. E. WALTER MAUNDER, 
Mr. JOHN SCHWARTZ, 
Rev. W. BR. WHATELY:. 


ADAPTATIONS IN PLANTS AND ANIMALS TO THEIR CONDITIONS OF 
LIFE ARE THE RESULT OF THE DIRECTIVITY oF Lirse. By 
THE Rev. Proressor G. Henstow, M.A. .... me AG i aT 


Discussion. REMARKS BY Le By, aN wis DOB 
Proressor Epwarp HULL, 
Rev. Dr. Irvine, 
Mr. ArtHur W. SvurrTon, 
Mr. Martin L. Rouse, 
Mr. Davin Howarp, 
Mr. Srpney Couuert. 


COMMUNICATIONS FROM 78 ate yu as Bley sone? Oe 
Proressor H, LANGHORNE ORCHARD, 
. Dr. W. Woops Smyta. 


INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN THE GREEK WorLp. By Marcus 
N. Top, Esq., M.A. .... met a hie o sane Sas eo 


Discussion. REMARKS BY... dies om ae eae wa. 292 
Mr. Davip Howarp, | 
Rev. H. J. R. Marston, 
Dr. J. W. THIRTLE, 
Dr. T. G. PINCHES. 


Tue INFLUENCE OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS . ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 
By THE VEN. ARCHDEACON BERESFORD Portrer, M.A. .... ing ey 


CONTENTS OF VOL. XLIV. 


Discussion. REMARKS BY 
Mrs. WALTER MAUNDER, 
Rev. Dr. W. H. Grirrita THomas, 
Rev. J. J. B. Coss. 


COMMUNICATIONS FROM 
Rev. CHANCELLOR LiAs, 
Rev. Canon DRIVER, 
Rev. R. M. Curwen, 
Rev. Dr. Irvine, 
Mr. Joun ScHWARTZ, 
Rev. Canon GIRDLESTONE, 
Mr. Martin L. Rouse. 


ANNUAL ADDRESS. MopDERN UNREST AND THE BIBLE. By 
ANDREW WinGATE, K.C.I.E. 


Discussion. REMARKS BY 
GENERAL J. G. HALuipay, 
Proressor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, 
THe SECRETARY. 


List oF OFFICERS, MEMBERS, ASSOCIATES, ETC. 


Xl 


PAGE 
Pe OLS 


. 827 


SIR 
leiBoo 


. 052 


. 356 


uty The Institute's object leing to investigate, it must not be held to endorse 
the various views expressed either in the Papers or discussions. 


VICTORIA INSTITUTE. 


REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE YEAR 1911. 


READ AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING, FEBRUARY 5TH, 1912. 


1. Progress of the Lnstitute. 


In presenting to the Members the Forty-third Annual 
Report, the Council are glad to be able to state that there 
has been a larger increase in the number of Members and 
Associates than for many years past, and that the interest 
taken in the papers read, evidenced by full attendances, ample 
discussions, and written communications, has been very great, 
and confirms the real need and value of the Institute’s work. 


2. Meetings. 


During the year 1911 fourteen meetings have been held. 
The papers read were as follows :— 


“Theosophy.” By the Rev. J. J. B. Cotes, M.A., F.R.G.S. 
“The Demand for a Christian Philosophy.” By the Rev. A. R. 


Wuarety, D.D. 

“The Last Century’s Witness to the Bible.” By the Rev. Jony 
SHarp, M.A. 

“Science in Relation to Christian Missions.” By the Rev. F. 
Bayuis, M.A. 


“Psychology.” By the Rev. J. Grecory Smitu, D.D. 

*“Professor Hilprecht’s Newly-discovered Deluge Fragment.” By 
Dr. THEoPHILUs G. PINCHEs. 

‘Indications of a Scheme in the Universe.” By the Rev. Canon 
GIRDLESTONE, M.A. 

“The Sidereal Universe.” - By Sir Davip Giiu, LL.D., F.R.S. 

“A Life’s Contribution to the Harmony of Christianity, Philosophy, 
and Science.” By Prof. Roeer. 

“The Descent into Hades : a Study in Comparative Theology.” By 
the Rev. Canon MacCuttocn, D.D. 

“Mithraism: Christianity’s Greatest Rival under the Roman 
Emperors.” By the Rev. W. Sr. Ciair Tispaut, D.D. 

“The True Temper of Empire.” By Sir Cuarues Bruce, G.C.M.G. 
[The Annual Aadicet 

B 


De ANNUAL REPORT. 


“The Genealogies of Our Lord in St. Matthew and St. Luke.” By 
Mrs. Aenes Smita Lewis, LL.D. St. Andrews, D.D. Heidel- 
berg. 

** Natural Law and Miracle.” By Dr. von GERDTELL. 

In four instances advantage was taken of the kindness of 
The Royal Society of Arts in lending their large theatre, and 
twice the meetings were held in St. Martin’s Vestry Hall by 
the kindness of Prebendary Shelford, one of the Members of 
the Institute. 


3. The Journal. 


The forty-third volume of the Institute’s Transactions was 
issued in October last, and contained the papers, discussions, 
and communications of the year, December 1910 to June 1911. 
The Council have endeavoured to carry on their investigations 
strictly on the lines of the Institute, searching for actual philo- 
sophic and scientific truth on all questions. The speculations of 
philosophy and science vary from year to year, and are followed 
as closely as possible. The Bible is the Great Source of Divine 
Truth, and so far as the Institute has been able by its work to 
deepen this conviction, the Council desire to express their 
thankfulness and to give God the glory. 

The Council have now printed a full and complete Index of 
all the volumes (No. I, 1865, to No. XLIII, 1911), in which the 
names of authors and the leading words in the titles of the 
papers appear. The Council believe it will be of considerable 
value to Members and Associates. Upwards of 100 have 
already been taken.* This Index will practically remain 
effective for two or three years. 


4, Council and Officers. 


The following is the list of the Council and Officers for the 
year 1911 :— 


President. 
The Right Honourable The Earl of Halsbury, M.A., D.C.L., F.R.S. 


Vice- Presidents. 


Sir T. Fowell Buxton, Bart., K.C.M.G. 

David Howard, Esq., D.L., F.C.S. (Trustee). 

Right Hon, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, G.C.M.G., LL.D. 
Lieut.-Gen. Sir H. L. Geary, R.A., K.C.B. 

Professor Edward Hull, M.A., LL. D. , F.BR.S., F.G.S. 

Rey. Canon R. B. Girdlestone, M.A. 

General Halliday. 


* The price is ls. each. 


ANNUAL REPORT. 


Honorary Correspondents. 
Sir David Gill, K.C.B., LL.D., F.R.S. 
Professor Sir Gaston Maspero, D.C.L. (Paris). Professor Warren Upham, D.Sc. 


Professor E, Naville, Ph.D. (Geneva). Sir Robert S. Ball, F.B.S. 
Professor A. H. Sayce, D.D., LL.D. His Excellency Herr Fridtjof Nansen, D.Sc. 


Honorary Auditors. 
E. J. Sewell, Esq. | H, Lance Gray, Esq. 


Honorary Creasurer. 


E. S. M. Perowne, Esq., F.S.A. 


Seeretarp and Editor of the Journal. 


Frederic S. Bishop, Esq., M.A., J.P. 


Council, 
(In Order of Original Election.) 


Very Rev. H. Wace, D.D., Dean of Canterbury William J. Horner, Esq. 


(Trustee). A. T. Schofield, Esq., M.D. 

Rev. Chancellor J. J. Lias, M.A. Heywood Smith, Esq., M.A., M.D. 
Theo. G. Pinches, Esq., LL.D., M.R.A.S. Rev. H. J. R. Marston, M.A. 
Ven. Archdeacon W. M. Sinclair, M.A., D.D. E. Walter Maunder, Esq., F.1.A.S. 
Rey. John Tuckwell, M.R.A.S. Ven. Archdeacon Beresford Potter, M.A. 
Colonel G. Mackinlay (Chairman). Rev. J. H. Skrine, M.A. 
Arthur W. Sutton, Esq., F.L.S., J.P. J. W. Thirtle, Esq., LL.D., M.R.A.S. 
Professor H. Langhorne Orchard, M.A., B.Sc. E. J. Sewell, Esq. 
Rt. Rev. Bishop J. E. Welldon, D.D. Prebendary H. E. Fox, M.A. 
Sydney T. Klein, Esq., F.L.S., F.R.A.S., 

M.R.I. 


5. Election of Council and Officers. 


In accordance with the rules the following members of 
Council retire, but offer themselves for re-election :— 


Wm. J. Horner, Esq. 

Dr. A. T. Schofield. 

Dr. Heywood Smith. 

The Rev. H. J. R. Marston. 
E. W. Maunder, Esq. 
Archdeacon Beresford Potter. 
The Rev. J. H. Skrine. 

Dr. J. W. Thirtle. 


The Council nominate also Mr. Chancellor P. V. Smith and 
Mr. Joshua Cooper for election on the Council. 

The Cauncil greatly regret that Mr. E. 8. M. Perowne has had 
to retire from the duties and office of Treasurer, and they record 
here their hearty thanks to him for his many kind services on 
behalf of the Institute. 


t ) 


B 


4 ANNUAL REPORT. 


The Council have the greatest pleasure in nominating their 
valued colleague on the Council, Mr. A. W. Sutton, as Honorary 
Treasurer of the Institute. 


6. Obituary. 


The Council regret to announce the deaths of the following 
Members and Associates during the year :— 


The Rev. W. H. Painter, Rev. S. Treanor, Bishop Ridley, G. A. Man- 
waring, Esq., Rev. Prof. Mead, Mrs. Percy Smith, The Archbishop of 
Armagh, Surgeon-General Partridge, R. Thomson, Esq., Dr. Veasey, 
Dr. Harper and Sir F. 8. Powell. 


7. New Members and Associates. 


The following are the names of new Members and Associates 
elected up to the end of the year 1911 :— 


Members.-—G. A. King, Esq., M.A., Rev. D. M. Panton, B.A., The 
Right Hon. the Rev. Lord Blythswood, John B. Braddon, Esq., Rev. 
Cyril C. B. Bardsley, M.A., R. D. Richardson, Esq., The Venerable 
Archdeacon Jefferis, D.D., Rev. W. C. Minifie, D.D., Charles Phillips, 
Esq., Rev. A. M. Niblock, The Right Rev. The Bishop of Llandaff, Mrs. 
Agnes 8. Lewis, LL.D. 


AssociaTes.—G. H. Wedekind, Esq., Robert Heath, Esq., Miss 
Pickersgill-Cunliffe, F. D. Outram, Esq., W. H. Poate, Esq., Rev. 
Principal J. A. Lightfoot, M.A., T. F. Victor Buxton, Esq., M.A., Rev. P. 
Rose, Miss Louisa Churchill, Miss Dreaper, Major H. Pelham Burn, 
W. E. Leslie, Esq., Rev. Chancellor 8. B. McCormick, D.D., W. H. Seagram, 
Esq., W. Weller, Esq., Right Rev. Bishop Hassé, Dr. H. M. Bishop, Rev. 
Claude C. Thornton, M.A., Mrs. Stuart Trotter, Mrs. Edward Trotter, 
Dowager Lady Pearce, Rev. W. Banham, B.A., Rev. E. Blackburn, M.A., 
Rev. H. Howson, Peter Whitfield, Esq., Rev. Gifford H. Johnson, M.A., 
Dr. Philip Rice, Rev. J. C. Fussell, Ph.D., Miss Amy Manson, Rev. J.C. M. 
Mansel-Pleydell, M.A., Miss E. M. Baumer, C. H. Wingfield, Esq., Lord 
Balfour of Burleigh, Miss M. R. Strange, J. Graham, Esq., Rev. W. B. 
Norris, M.A., Rev. J. W. ff. Sheppard, M.A., Rev. A. Cochrane, M.A., 
W.C.C. Hawtayne, Esq., M.I.E.E., Sir Charles Bruce, G.C.M.G., Mrs. 
Mabel Holmes, T. G. Hughes, Esq., Mrs. Margaret D. Gibson, LL.D. 


Lisrary AssociatEs.—Yale University Library, Chicago Public 
Library, Wellington General Assembly Rooms Library. 
8. Numbers of Members and Associates. 


The following statement shows the number of supporters 
of the Institute at the end of December, 1911 :— 


=e 


ANNUAL REPORT. 5 


Life Members a hs x 28 
Annual Members .... $e Ho. E06 
Life Associates io a HF 65 
Annual Associates... By ep Oe 
Missionary Associates ale a 19 
Hon. Corresponding Members is 90 
Library Associates... ee + 24 

Total 616 


showing the satisfactory net increase, after allowing for deaths 
and retirements, of 50 on last year’s return. 


9, Finance. 


The Statement of Receipts and Expenditure attached hereto 
reflects the increased interest shown in the Institute. The 
Council are thankful that though there is a deficit on the year’s 
working of £18 6s. 10d. it has not been found necessary to make 
any call upon the Reserve Fund this year, and they confidently 
hope to entirely clear this deficit next year. 


10. Auditors. 


‘The thanks of the Council are again most cordially given to 


Messrs. Sewell and Lance Gray for their kind services as 
Auditors. 


11. Country Meetings, 


In March last, the Rev. John Tuckwell addressed a meeting 
for the Institute at Woolwich, and Mr. Maunder one in October at 
Tunbridge Wells, the latter kindly arranged by the Rev. J. H. R. 
Marston. General Sir Henry Geary was good enough to arrange 
a course of three meetings at Camberley, at which lectures were 
given by Mr. Maunder, the Rev. John Tuckwell, and Professor 
H. Langhorne Orchard. To all these gentlemen the Council 
tender grateful thanks for their kindness in giving their time 
and able services on behalf of the Institute. 


6 ‘ANNUAL REPORT. 


12. The Gunning Prize. 


The triennial competition for this prize falls in this year, 1912. 
The Council have selected as the subject of the essay :— 


“The Bearing of Archeological and Historical Research 
upon the New Testament.” 


The competing essays must be in the Secretary’s hands on or 
before the 31st March next. 


13. The Coronation of King George and Queen Mary. 


At the Annual Meeting in June, 1911, the Members and 
Associates of the Institute approved of an address of loyalty 
and congratulation to their Majesties upon their Coronation. 
This was graciously acknowledged in due course. 


14. Conclusion. 


The Council, feeling the great importance and the value of 
the Institute, warmly recommend its work to Members and 
Associates, and invite them to induce their friends to join, in 
order that the Institute may be strengthened, both by sympathy 
and contribution, and enabled to increase its efficiency as an 
invaluable means of upholding the Great Truths of Holy 
Scripture. 


Signed on behaif of the Council, 


HALSBURY, 


President, 
26th January, 1912. | 


AVE FONVT ‘A 
TITMAQ ‘Pf “OT 


"qoaTI0D UYY PUY pUL SLOTONOA PUB SYOOd oT} YIM UST} poreduioo puv syUnoooV oO} [[@ POA OAVT OA 


vonenr { 


Z el sce 

9 FIZ c ae Pope aay er MOONE TOE ete eas 
9824 Metta: TT6T ‘pag 4to¢ 
OPES SS Se, OSS ee 2 POD rans bible eae ete 
Ga ca SR oe cen oss en a oe oe 
oie. Top 


‘GNNA AZIUd YNINNIDYD 
‘PO “SET STF oztwor 0} poqoodxo ore onp suorjdiaosqng jo stvolupy “pe ‘se FETF 0} JUNoue sypiq predug 
‘yoojg AvMTILY AR[NsUIUET VIPUT yvaLy QOSF ‘puny ysnay, Suruunsy oyy Jo [eyide_ oy} osye ‘sposuog ‘ques sod 2g QOSF jo uns jeudey v st osoyy, 


LZ &T 089F L &T1 O&9F 
0 OT ZG ie ae * phe ee bepangerr XBT, FUIODUT 
Cc CI ST ee ee ee ee ee oe suolyeuo(d 
lt: GEG ‘ ue = is Ag he yqueq 78 yse) Tt ees - ** sfosmog “490 aod 1 00s uo pueplAlg 
O TL Z ee ee ee of ee ee ee sotrpung z FL 29 ee ee ee ee ee ee so[BG 
ae | oe ee eo. ee oe ee sosIvyg yueg 0 8 Eg 
0 bat 0 ee ee ee oe ee oe soUBINSUT OIL iT 0 8 g 9T6T-2T61 4c Z 
OT Z 6 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ALvIquy 0 el cL e.6 ZI6I in CT 
TaN igre ghee . ) OPUR yo Sane ofan oer Pue cap imi a2 ame = ee 
TT 6 z ee ee oe ee oo ee souBINnssy OWT 0 g 8 ee OT6T a9 8 
OL OT 02 *f I o. 3 as oi en jo sosuodxy 028 ** 6061 ‘soqe1oossy Z 
OT IT bP ag ra a ae ii * o8eqsog 0 OT OT e ‘ayBIOOSSYW Oj] T 
0 O GOT ee ee ee ee ee ee ee quoyy 0 ZI ZL ee ZI6I (a3 9 
aig 0 822 ee ee ee ee ee oe oe SOTLVTBG 0 9 CEL ane LI6I ce £6 
a Oe oe ee vt aS + OTST Jo S114 £r9u0rye49 09 9 "* O16T = ‘stoquioy ¢ 
a oa S predun otf} o10m ‘pp “sg 19OTF eseyy Jo aaa 0 6 & ** 6061 ‘raquieyy T—:suoryditosqng 
tae | 8 IT 0 ty °* OIG Woaz oourleg ysto 
meee: Yea tee tees ee 3 


“AH OLIGNAdC Xa 


“‘SLd THON 


TIGL ‘ISTE saquocag burpua wah ayy sof ‘LNAWALVLS HSVO 


THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 
OF THE 
VICTORIA INSTITUTE 


WAS HELD IN THE ROOMS OF THE INSTITUTE ON 
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 51x, 1912, AT 4 O'CLOCK. 


Colonel MACKINLAY took the Chair. 

The Minutes of the last Annual General Meeting were read and 
signed. 

The SECRETARY read the Report of the Council and the 
Financial Statement and Auditors’ Report for the year 1911 
(see pp. 1-7). 

Sir RoBERT ANDERSON, K.C.B., moved, and Dr. Woops SMYTH 
seconded, the following resolution :— 


‘“‘ That the Report now read be received and adopted, the 
Officers named therein be elected or re-elected, and the thanks 
of the Meeting be given to the Council, Officers, and Auditors 
for their efficient conduct of the business of the Victoria 
Institute during the year.” 


This was carried unanimously. 


Colonel MACKINLAY responded on behalf of the Council and 
Officers. He referred with much regret to the resignation of the 
Treasurer, Mr. Perowne, and cordially welcomed Mr. Sutton, the 
newly elected Treasurer. He also referred with satisfaction to the 
increase of membership, which he considered due chiefly to 
the energy of the Secretary, who was warmly thanked for his 
services. 


A vote of hearty thanks was accorded to the Chairman, and the 
Meeting adjourned. | 


522ND ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 


HELD IN THE ROOMS OF THE INSTITUTE ON MONDAY 
DECEMBER 4ru, 1911, AT 4.30 P.M. 


THE VEN. ARCHDEACON BERESFORD POTTER IN THE CHAIR. 


The Minutes of the last Meeting were read and signed. 
The SecrETARY announced that the following had been elected 
Members since the last meeting :-— 
Rev. W. C. Minifie, D.D.; Charles Phillips, Esq.; Rev. A. M. 
Niblock ; and the Bishop of Llandaff, 
and the following twenty Associates :— 


Rev. W. Banham; Rev. E. Blackburn; Rev. H. Howson; Rev. 
Gifford H. Johnson ; Peter Whittield, Esq.; Rev. J. C. Mansel- 
Pleydell ; Rev. J. C. Fussell ; Dr. Philip Rice ; C. H. Wingfield, 
Esq. ; Miss E. M. Baumer; Miss M. R. Strange ; John Graham, 
Esq.; Lord Balfour of Burleigh; Rev. W. B. Norris: Rev. A. 
Cochrane ; Sir Charles Bruce, G.C.M.G.; W.C. C. Hawtayne, 
Esq. ; Rev. J. W. ff. Sheppard ; Mrs. Holmes ; and Miss Manson 
(Life Associate). 


The following paper was then read :— 


THE GHENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 
By Mrs. A. 8. LEwIs. 


HE Gospels occupy a central point in the citadel of Divine 

revelation. If their authority could be refuted, or even 
- seriously doubted, the interdependence of the books which 
comprise the Old and New Testaments would become a thing of 
nought. The Bible would be like a splendid Gothic arch from 
which the top stones have fallen, or like a bridge without a key 
stone, by which we could never cross any stream. 

It is not therefore surprising that the strongest battering 
rams of rationalistic criticism and the artillery of those who are 
trying to eliminate the supernatural from the region of possi- 
bility should be unceasingly directed against them. 

Where were all our pleasures ? 
Where our hearts’ deep love ? 
If the herald angels 
Ne’er had sung above ? 
If in Bethlehem’s manger 
Christ had never lain, 
Joy were but a phantom, 
Life a sob of pain. 

At the beginning of the Gospels we meet with difficulties 
which seem almost incapable of solution and have given rise to 
discussions which would be interminable, were it not for the 


10 Rs. A. s. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 


fact that everything must have an end at some time or another 
in this transitory world. 

We have :— 

I. Verses 8, 9, of chapter i, in the Gospel of Matthew: 
II. The difficulty of reconciling the genealogy in Matthew i, 
1-16, with the genealogy in Luke 111, 25-38. 

Some have tried to get rid of the second difficulty by asserting 
that Matthew i, 1-16, is a later addition to the Gospel and no 
real part of it. Others think that the genealogy is primitive, 
but that chapters i, 18, to 11, 23, of Matthew are a later addition. 

If both these sections be integral parts of the Gospel and 
have suffered little at the hands of scribes, we ought not to find 
it quite impossible to explain away discrepancies, and bring the 
whole story into a harmonious whole. I must begin by saying 
that the view which I intend to put before you is not original. 
It has been published by Dr. Joseph Michael Heer in parts 
1 and 2 of the fifteenth volume of Bublische Studien. Dr. 
Heer is, I am told, a Roman Catholic; there cannot therefore 
be perfect similarity of view between him and ourselves on all 
points; and I am both surprised and pleased to find so fearless 
an investigator within that very old bottle, the Roman fold of 
the Church Catholic. 

I. Let us look at our first problem. It is, that whilst there 
were forty-two generations between Abraham and Jesus, the 
name of the first progenitor, and the last-mentioned name, that of 
the Messiah, being (in accordance with Semitic custom) counted 
into the number, and while it is easy to divide forty-two by the 
sacred number of three, producing three times the sacred number 
of fourteen, or twice seven, we know from the books of 11 Kings 
and 11 Chronicles that the second group had seventeen, not four- 
teen, members, and that the names of three of the Jewish kings, 
who were actual forefathers of Joseph, are omitted from the 
list. These names are Ahaziah, Joash,and Amaziah. Is this the 
result of a blunder ? or is there any deep-seated reason for it ? 

Dr. Heer finds the explanation in the curse pronounced upon 
the house of Ahab, king of Israel, in 1 Kings xxi, 21, and 1 Kings 
ix, 8. There it is declared that because of Ahab having intro- 
duced the worship of the Baal into Israel, his male descendants 
should be cut off. This curse, like the one which is attached to 
the second commandment (the very commandment which Ahab 
had so flagrantly disobeyed), extended only to the first four 
generations of his children, and as his daughter Athaliah was 
married to Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, the 
priests of the temple in Jerusalem, who were also keepers of its 


MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 11 


records, thought themselves justified in excluding from the 
genealogy of their kings the names of Ahaziah, Joash, and 
Amaziah. With Amaziah the curse was extinguished; and 
Jehoram was not a descendant of Ahab. 

This explanation seems to me the more convincing, inasmuch 
as Dr. Heer has found it in Hilary’s Commentary on Matthew, 
and in Jerome also on Matthewi, 8. 

But it may be asked: Have we any proof that such temple- 
records existed ? 

i. Dr. Heer tells us that the Hebrews from very early times 
paid great attention to genealogical tables. In the books of 
Genesis, Samuel, Chronicles, Ruth, and Nehemiah, we find 
ample confirmation for this statement. The motive for their doing 
so was naturally the blessings and promises given by Jehovah to 
the patriarchs, their ancestors ; and the wish to preserve them 
must assuredly have become more intense in the minds of those 
who were looking for a Messiah to appear in the line of David. 
It is possible that during the Babylonian captivity, and after it, 
many families may have become negligent in the preservation 
of their genealogical trees. When desolation had passed as a 
ploughshare over the land; when the heaven over their heads 
was as brass and the earth under them as iron, they may well 
have said, What use isit ? But two family lines, that of David 
and that of Aaron, had enough of innate vitality to resist all 
adverse influences. 

u. The existence of private family registers is proved by the 
recent discovery of Aramaic documents concerning the Jewish 
colony at Elephantine, near Syene (Assouan) of the years 
471-411 B.c. 

ili. Flavius Josephus (Contra Apionem, i, 7) speaks of the 
great care which was taken to keep the line of the priests pure. 
When a priest took a wife, he must not have respect either to 
money or to honours, but must choose a maiden of ancient line- 
age, who could bring forward sufficient witnesses for her ancestry. 
For 1,300 years the names of the High Priests had been written 
in the lists from father to son. The greatest care was exercised 
even in those priestly families who lived in exile, for exaimple, in 
the temple of Leontopolisin Egypt. When ascion of one of these 
families wished to marry, he had to send a list of his nearer 
ancestors and of his more remote ones to Jerusalem, and also 
the names of witnesses who could vouch for their accuracy. 
Jerusalem thus became naturally the storehouse of all family 
archives which belonged to the tribe of Levi. 

iv. We learn from Julius Africanus (in Eusebius, 4. i, 7) 


12 MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 


that Herod the Great (son of Antipater) caused most of these 
registers to be burnt, because he was himself of a plebeian 
family, and wished to conceal from the Roman Emperor that he 
had no blood relationship with either the royal line of David or 
the priestly one of Levi. The private family registers would 
not, however, all disappear in this catastrophe. Some of them 
were rewritten from memory, and duplicates may have been 
preserved in more than one household. 

The custom of the damnatio memoriae was practised also in 
Imperial Rome and was carried out in a striking manner 
against the Emperor Commodus. He, or rather his memory, 
was condemned in a night sitting of the Senate within twenty- 
four hours of his death, the same sitting in which Pertinax was 
nominated as Emperor. It was decreed, amidst the acclama- 
tions of the people, that his body was to be thrown into the 
Tiber, the statues of him were to be destroyed, his name was 
to be abolished, and erased from every private and public 
monument. 

The Athenians pronounced a like doom on the memory of 
Alcibiades, and of Philip V. of Macedon, in the year 200 3.c.* 

In a far more remote antiquity, about 1450 B.c. under the 
18th Dynasty, quite near to the time of Moses, the Egyptian 
priests cursed the memory of Amenhotep IV., the heretic king, 
whose strange behaviour appears to have been responsible for 
both the building of Tell-el-Amarna and for its ruin. 

But what have these stories to do with the omission of three 
kingly names from our Lord’s genealogy in Matthew’s Gospel ? 

We have allusions to this practice in the Old Testament. It 
cannot, therefore, have been non-existent among the Hebrews. 
At the time when the Golden Calf was made, “ Whoso hath 
sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book”: Exodus 
Xxxli, 33 (see also Deuteronomy ix, 14; xxv, 19; xxix, 20; 
11 Kings xiv, 27). 

Psalm ix, 5, “Thou hast rebuked the nations, Thou hast 
destroyed the wicked, Thou hast blotted out their name for ever 
and ever.” 

Psalm Ilxix, 28, “Let them be blotted out of the Book of 
Life.” 

Revelation iii, 5, “I will in no wise blot out his name out of 
the Book of Life.” 


* See Livy, Book xxxi, cap. 44. 
t See Wew Light on Ancient Egypt, pp. 63 ff. 


MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 13 


These three kings, it will be said, were not worse than others 
of their line. One of them, indeed, Joash, was decidedly good 
during the first part of hisreign. The genealogy, which included 
Manasseh, might well have included him. 

True, but they, viz., Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, were the 
descendants of Ahab and Jezebel in the second, third, and fourth 
generations. 

We owe this explanation to Hilary and to Jerome.* So 
when Matthew copied “ Joram begat Ozias,” it was only what he 
found written in the official genealogy, and he made no mistake 
about it. With Amaziah the curse was extinguished. We 
must recollect that the descendants of Ahab and Jezebel in the 
male line, seventy persons, actually perished (11 Kings x, 11) by 
the hand of Jehu. 

Those who wish to understand the explanation of how the 
number 42, that is three times fourteen, would convey to a 
Jewish mind a confirmation of our Lord’s claim to be the 
Messiah, and also of how 72, the number of generations by which 
He descended from God (see Luke iii), would signify that He 
was the Saviour of all mankind, must consult Dr. Heer’s book 
for themselves. This is a region which I have no great wish to 
explore. 

At the very beginning of the third group, verse 12, during the 
Babylonian captivity, we are told that Jechonias begat Salathiel, 
although of him it had been said in Jeremiah xxii, 30, “ Write 
_ ye this man childless.” Yet in the very same verse these words 
are explained to mean not that he was to have no children (see 
I Chronicles iu, 17, 18), but that no man of his seed should 
prosper. Perhaps Salathiel, his son, died young, and also 
Pedaiah, son of Salathiel. Matthew Henry remarks that as 
Pedaiah probably died in his father’s lifetime, his son Zerubbabel, 
was called the son of Salathiel. Thus the curse on Jechonias 
died out in the third generation, for Zerubbabel had the high 
privilege of returning to Jerusalem and helping to build the 
temple and also of restoring the dynasty to its ancient thrones 
(see Ezra ii, ili, iv, v; Nehemiah vii, x11). 

The official registers were probably drawn up according to the 
form of which we have a specimen in Ruth iv, 18-22, where the 
style is remarkably like that in Matthew’s Gospel. If so, it is 
not difficult to see that the statement of our Lord’s birth must | 
have been nearly as it is in the Sinai Palimpsest, “Joseph begat 


* Hilary (Migne’s Patrologia), vol. ix. Comm. on Matt. i, 8. Jerome, 
vol. vii, c. 10. Comm. on Matt. i, 8 (Migne, vol. xxv). 


14 MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 


Jesus, who is called the Christ,” perhaps from Mary his wife, 
- “the daughter of Heli,” being added. 

We must remember that Joseph had already exercised the 
right of a father in naming the Child (see Matthew i, 25), and 
that any indication of our Lord’s real descent would have brought 
upon Mary the terrible punishment of stoning (see Deuteronomy 
xx, 21), which was exactly what Joseph sought to avoid. 

II. Referring now to our second problem, more than one 
explanation has been given by commentators in different ages, 
as to why the genealogy in Matthew differs so completely from 
the genealogy in Luke. I think that Dr. Heer, like Matthew 
Henry, has adopted the true explanation. Matthew, having 
received the story of the Nativity from Joseph, gave also 
Joseph’s genealogy, through which our Lord’s claim to be the 
Messiah and the official descendant of David is asserted, for 
Matthew’s aim in writing his Gospel was chiefly to convince his 
Jewish countrymen of this fact. Luke, on the other hand, gives 
us Mary’s account of the Nativity, and therefore he gives us 
also Mary’s genealogy. His chief aim was to convince his friend 
Theophilus and other Gentiles that Jesus of Nazareth was the 
Son of God. Our Lord’s claim to the Messiahship would have 
had very little weight with them. I cannot think that the story 
of the Virgin Mary’s parents being named Joachim and Anna 
rests on any secure foundation. It is derived from a fabulous 
book called the Protevangelion Jacobi (which I have myself 
edited in its Syriac dress), and which, though embodying early 
traditions, was excluded from the list of canonical, and even true 
books, by the Decretum Gelasi in the sixth century, but upon 
which the whole worship of the Virgin Mary in the Roman 
Church rests. Anna may have been the name of Mary’s mother, 
though it has obviously been suggested to the mind of the 
romancer, either by the story of the prophet Samuel or by that 
of Joachim and Susanna. 

The Talmud tells us that the name of Mary’s father was Heli.* 
Men, says Dr. Heer, were often called the immediate fathers of 
their daughters’ children. We can find more than one instance 
of this for ourselves in the Old Testament. Athaliah was the 
daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, yet in 0 Kings vii, 26, 
11 Chronicles xxii, 2, she is called the daughter of Omri, who 
was Ahab’s father. Also Salathiel is called the father of 
Zerubbabel, although Pedaiah came between them: Ezra in, 2, 
v. 2; Matthew i, 12. I love to think that our Lord was not an 


* Jerusalem Talmud, Chagigah, fol. 77, 4. 


MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 15 


actual descendant of the gorgeous Solomon, nor of any Jewish 
crowned head excepting David, the sweet singer of Israel, whose 
poetic gift seems to have been inherited by the most blessed 
among women. No. He sprang from a line of more modest 
ancestors, amongst whom we find no kingly names save those of 
Zerubbabel and Salathiel, names which may possibly represent 
quite different people from those in I Chronicles and in Ezra. 
Possibly Mary may have sprung from a more consistently God- 
fearing stock than Joseph did. In Zechariah xu, 12 ff, it is 
remarkable to find the names of Nathan, Levi, and Shimei 
following one another, all of these being in Luke’s genealogy. 
Justin Martyr* and Irenzeusf both assume that the genealogy 
in Luke is that of Mary. Justin, indeed, tells us that amongst 
the Jews a man was often called the father of his daughter’s 
children (Dial. 43), and it is possible in reading Luke iu, 23, to 
shift the bracket and make the parenthesis begin with “being,” 
and end with “Joseph.” We should then read, “And Jesus 
Himself was the son of Heli.” “When He began” is absent 
from some of the best Latin MSS. and from all the Old Syriac 
versions. 

And now we must speak further of the startling verse which 
led many English scholars to think that the text of the Sinai 
Palimpsest is heretical, before it was subjected to the minute 
investigations which it has since undergone. I think it is 
Mr. Conybeare of Oxford who observed in the Academy: “ If 
this verse had been altered by a heretic, why did he not make 
‘a clean sweep of verses 18-25, which are so contradictory to 
it?” The text shows no trace of a lke heresy elsewhere. We 
must therefore seek for another explanation. 

It is quite possible, as Dr. Burkitt and others have suggested, 
that verse 16 may spring from a misreading of the MS. which 
underles the Ferrar group of Greek cursive MSS. But I think 
that my explanation is a much simpler and more probable one. 
The phrase, “Joseph begat Jesus,” is very probably what 
Matthew found in the Temple register, the words “to whom 
was betrothed Mary the Virgin,” and “ who is called the Christ,” 
being the evangelist’s own additions toit. That some such state- 
ment had to be explained away is shown by the opening clause 
of verse 18, which in Greek reads: But the birth of the Christ 
was on this wise. (Incov is omitted also by all the oldest 
Latin MSS.) To what does that “But” refer? King James’ 
translators and our own English revisers did not know, for 


* Dial. cum Tryphone, 43, 88, 100, cf. Migne, vol. vi, pp. 567, 686, 710. 
t Book IIT, cap. 22. Migne, vol. vii, p. 955, seq. 


16 MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 


verse 16 had been altered in the early centuries, and so they 
translated it “ Now.” 

Is “ Now” right? I allow that the small particle 6é might 
be so rendered, and that it is not so emphatic a disjunctive as 
adXa, but it is surely significant that our revisers have rendered 
de as “ but” in Matthew i, 20, Matthew ii, 19, 22, and in 162 
other passages of the same Gospel. 

If you will accept my “ But” the whole narrative is brought 
into harmony; and the quibbles of those who find in it two 
narratives pieced together are rendered useless. 

There are also other considerations. Joseph was more than 
the foster-father of our Lord. He was a legal parent. Without 
him there would be no sense in Matthew’s giving us that 
genealogy, and a very insufficient basis for the claim of Jesus to 
be the son of David. Descent in that royal house was never 
through a woman, and never is so, even 1n our own enlightened 
age, except where the male line has utterly failed. Joseph 
deserved the high honour, for he threw the shield of his 
protection over Mary at a most trying time, and his faithfulness 
to, her brought it about that our Lord was born in wedlock. 

Semitic custom invariably gives the child of a woman’s first 
husband to her second one. This rule is the same in old Arab 
custom, in Moslem law, and in Hindu law. For proof of this 
I refer you to Robertson Smith’s Kinship and Marriage in 
Ancient Arabia, pp. 109-120, to Sir Henry Maine’s Dissertation 
on Early Law and Custom, p. 20. 

The Syriac versions bring out the position of the Virgin 
Mary in regard to Joseph much more clearly than the Greek 
MSS. There is an unfortunate ambiguity about the weuvnotev- 
pevnv of Luke i, 27, and a still greater one about our word 
“espoused.” I hold that the claim of the Ferrar reading found 
in the Greek versions of that group 13 @ pvnotevOeica trapbévos 
Mapiap éyévyncev "Incodv tov Aeyowevov Xpiotov, to be the 
original reading is greatly weakened by its being rendered 
in the Latin of Codex Bezez, “ Cuz desponsata virgo Maria peperit 
Christum Jesum.” This is quite at variance with the facts. 
Mary was much more than betrothed to Joseph at the time 
of our Lord’s birth. She had the full legal status of his wife ; 
else how, I may ask, could she have travelled with him to 
Bethlehem ? All Oriental ideas of propriety would have been 
outraged if it had been otherwise. The early Syriac versions 
leave us in no doubt on this point. When the visit of the Angel 
to Mary is related by Matthew, whether in the old Syriac of the 
second century or in the Peshitta of the very early fifth, the 


MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 17 


word by which she is described is «qaasg “betrothed.” Both 
MSS. of the Old Syriac fail us in Luke 1, 5; because they are 
defective, through the loss of a leaf; the Peshitia, however, 
uses the same epithet. In Luke i, 56, it will be observed that 
Mary, after her visit to Elizabeth, returned to her own house, 
which she would surely not have done had she been then 
married. When she travelled to Bethlehem she is distinctly 
called by our Syriac witnesses the wife of Joseph. Not 
“espoused wife,’ nor any ambiguous title of that kind: such 
as we have in the Authorised Version, and in the Greek MSS. 
which underlie it. And here I must enter an emphatic protest 
against the rendering of the Revised Version. In spite of the 
great debt which we owe to the distinguished scholars who have 
given it to us, I think that here they have displayed a great 
lack of imagination by rejecting the word yuvacxi, “ wife,” and 
keeping only éuwvnotevpévyn, “betrothed.” I cannot help 
wondering if any one of that learned company was familiar 
with the ways and ideas of Eastern people at the present day ? 
If such an one had been amongst them, he would surely have 
pointed out the absurdity, nay, the impossibility, of such a 
circumstance. 

I am aware that the oldest of the Greek MSS. (& and B) sup- 
port the word “ betrothed ” without “ wife,” and Tischendorf has 
lent to this reading the weight of hisauthority. But the oldest of 
the Latin MSS. support the Syriac “ wife,” and as the Syriac is 
racy of the soil, and was our Lord’s mother tongue in its 
Palestinian or Galilean form, I think that on a point like this, 
where it has some strong corroboration from other sources, it 
ought to command attention. 

And in weighing the evidence of these MSS., would it not 
be well to take into account the balance of probability? The 
late Dr. Frederick Blass would certainly have agreed with me, 
for he thought that any reading which takes no account of 
literary style must be doubtful. 

The Sinai Palimpsest also tells us that Joseph and Mary 
went to Bethlehem to be enrolled there, because they were both 
of the house and lineage of David. 

This statement appears also in the Armenian version of the 
Natessaron, edited in its Latin translation by Moesinger, in the 
Commentary of Ephraim and in Aphraates. 

The chief interest, I might rather say “value,” of the Sinai 
text hes in its uncommon and often suggestive variants, 
variants such as “ We are servants,” in Luke xvii, 10, the 
word “unprofitable” appearing to be in itself an unprofitable 

C 


18 MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 


interpolation ; the statement that our Lord, though He was 
sitting on the well when His disciples left Him at Sychar, was 
found by them when they returned, standing and talking to the 
woman, and many other little points of a like kind. A recent 
critic of my book The Old Syriac Gospels, the Rev. Dr. Moffatt, 
who has shown himself slow to adopt new theories like 
Sir William Ramsay’s South Galatian one, judges them to be 
due to revision rather than to an original text. I do not think 
so. It cannot be due to revision when the supposed discrepancy 
between St. John and the Synoptists as to the scene of our 
Lord’s trial has quite disappeared by the rearrangements 
of the matter in the XVIIIth chapter of St. John’s Gospel,* 
whereby verse 24 is restored to its true place after verse 13; 
my discovery, partly at Sinai and partly at home, that the 
Greek word wp@tos or mp@Tov (for 8 and B differ) in John i, 41, 
was originally wpwi, that the two dots over the last letter of 
this word caused it to be mistaken for a7, and that Andrew found 
his brother Simon not after the tenth hour, but at the dawn of the 
next day after his meeting with the Saviour (a reading found also 
in three of the best Latin MSS. a.e.7.) as “mane.” Dr. Burkitt 
accepted this reading immediately after I had published 
it in the Expository Times, and he made the further suggestion 
that Luke vi, 1, with its impossible grammar (in some MSS.) is 
capable of a similar solution. Dr. Wilkins, of T.C.D., has pointed 
out another instance in the Odyssey, book xxiv, line 24, where 
for the last twenty years all editors have printed mpi instead 
of mp@tos or mpa@tov. These and many other things cannot 
surely be due to revision ; quite probably they are records from 
the memory of some of the early disciples. Dr. Moffatt approves 
of those in John i, 41, John xviu, 13, 24, 14, and Luke xvii, 10. 
These might have predisposed him in favour of the others. To 
one of these I wish to draw your attention, before I close, as it 
is connected with the Birth story. The Sinai text makes the 
wise men say in Matthew iu, 2, “We have seen His star from 
the east, and are come to worship him.” One day I happened 
to be transcribing this passage: and I asked myself, “ What can 
‘from the east’ mean?” Is there any justification for it in the 
Greek? Looking closely at the original text, I saw that if you 
take it to be a loose construction, common in popular speech, 
you might just as easily read, “ We, being in the east, have seen 
His star,’ as you might say, “I have seen Brooks’ comet in Cam- 


* This was perceived by Dr. Martin Luther in his translation of the 
Bible into German, edit. 1558, 1664. 


MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 19 


bridge.” And at once there flashed on me the solution of a 
difficulty which I have often felt. How could a star visibly 
move in the sky? And if the wise men saw a remarkable star 
to the east of them; why did they not go off to India? The 
fact that they travelled to Palestine shows that the star was 
in the west when they saw it. They went to Palestine, over 
which the star appeared to stand, and they could not go further 
west, because of the sea. 

It happened curiously enough that Dr. Deissmann was 
visiting us at that time, and as he is one of the first living 
authorities in Biblical Greek, I took the passage to him. He 
asked me at once for a Greek Testament, went off to his room 
to look at it, and in two minutes he returned saying: “ You are 
quite right, the passage may be read just as well, ‘ We, being 
in the east, have seen His star.’ Such loose constructions are 
quite common in English.” We have not quite forgotten 
Miss Hobhouse’s “To continue the concentration camps is to 
murder the children,” and how an evil suggestion was read into 
this which she herself has repudiated. 

On the origin and value of these variants opinions must differ. 
Some further discovery may perhaps tell us whether the Sinai 
text is older or younger than Tatian’s Diatessaron; and that 
will no doubt influence greatly the verdict of scholars on this 
point. What I am anxious about is that the question shall 
not be prejudged; and any attempt to fix either the date of 
the translation or the name of the translator from the evidence 
we now have appears to me to be fraught with nothing but 
mischief ; for it discourages people from trying to investigate 
the facts. Rather let us be content to say “ We do not know,” 
when we have not a scrap of evidence to guide us to a true 
solution. 


DISCUSSION. 


The CHAIRMAN said that he felt much indebted to Mrs. Lewis for 
her able paper : but would not detain the meeting long as the subject 
was one to which he had not given much study. He thought the 
instances given of a grandfather being called the father helped one 
much, and made it easier to understand how different names should 
appear in the two genealogies. Doubtless what happened was that 
at first the original “ nucleus” was the record of the Evangelists ; but 
later, when new material came to be added from different sources— 

C2 


20 MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 


these sources caused the variety. But the fact that no attempt was 
made in early times to make the two genealogies agree by cutting 
out, or adding, spoke well for the honesty of transcribers. He 
understood that the usually accepted theory was that both were 
genealogies of Joseph: but the other theory made the matter easier of 
reconciliation. Mrs. Lewis’ explanation of the vision of the star as 
suggested by the Sinai MS. was very interesting, and quite recon- 
cilable with the Greek. The only difficulty was, as the star in this 
case would be in the west, why did not the wise men travel on from 
Bethlehem till they reached the sea. He asked Mrs. Lewis to explain 
on what grounds the revisers had rejected “ wife” for “ betrothed.” 
Canon GIRDLESTONE said: All will join in thanking Mrs. Lewis 
for her interesting paper on a subject of very ancient dispute. Ii I 
differ from her it will not be taken that I do not appreciate her case, 
and it may add interest to the discussion. Our subject involves the 
study of Jewish methods of registration. St. Matthew traces the 
line of Joseph down from the patriarchs; St. Luke traces it up to 
our first parents, and so to God. If we turn to I Chron. vi, we find 
two genealogies of Samuel, one going down and the other up, and 
with several variations of names. I discussed them in the Ezpositor 
for November, 1899. In Josephus’ life there is a reference to the 
fact that at certain times genealogies had to be re-copied, and this 
would possibly lead to mistakes and omissions. The first of the three 
missing names in St. Matthew begins with the same letters as the 
name that follows (whether in Hebrew or in Greek), and this may 
account for the omission, though the theory held by Mrs. Lewis 
seems quite a reasonable one. The complications round 
Zerubbabel’s name are considerable. Salathiel was probably son of 
Neri of Nathan’s line, and Zerubbabel the son of Pedaiah was adopted 
by him. Something similar happened in the case of Joseph. This 
view was worked out by Julius Africanus, one of the most learned 
men of his age. Hammurabi's code deals with adoption and is at the 
root of Jewish law. The 188th section orders that if a man teaches 
his adopted son a handicraft no one can take the lad away from him. 
This was evidently done by Joseph in the case of Jesus, who was his 
legally adopted son. Two royal lines converged in the carpenter. 
If the crown of David had been assigned to his successor in the days 
of Herod it would have been placed on the head of Joseph. And 
who would have been the legal successor to Joseph? Jesus of 


i ee ew ae lel) ee ee 


MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 21 


Nazareth would have been then the King of the Jews, and the title on 
the Cross spoke the truth. God had raised Him up to the house of 
David. 

Mr. MARTIN Rouse said: It is a pleasure indeed to listen to the 
result of new research made by one of those two ladies who brought 
to light the most ancient Syriac version of the Diatessaron and who, 
to establish and enlarge their discoveries, made three more 
pilgrimages to the remote library of Sinai where they had found 
it. 

The most remarkable and delightful thing in Mrs. Lewis’ paper 
is that she has found in the Jerusalem Talmud the statement that 
Mary, the mother of our Lord, was the daughter of Heli. This 
confirms my own previous conviction that, as Matthew’s genealogy 
is the official one—of Joseph, who took the place of a father to 
Jesus, so is Luke’s the natural one—of Mary, the only earthly parent 
of the Saviour. For her omission from it and the mention of her 
husband alone we find two analogies—the first in I. Chron. ii, 35 f., 
the second in Ezra ii, 61-63. In the first case Sheshan, having no 
sons, gives a daughter in marriage to his Egyptian servant Jarha ; 
and the son of this marriage is next mentioned and all his descendants, 
the pedigree being thus throughout Sheshan’s, not Jarha’s. In the 
second case a priest named Hakkoz marries a daughter of Barzillai, 
the succourer of King David, and takes her family name, so that 
when his descendants on returning from the Babylonian captivity 
claim to be priests their male or priestly ancestry beyond Hakkoz 
can no longer be traced. In neither case is the daughter’s name 
mentioned ; but the genealogy goes on from father-in-law to son-in- 
law and thence to grandson or later descendant, just as in Luke ii, 23, 
the genealogy passes from the father-in-law Heli to the son-in-law 
Joseph and thence to the grandson Jesus. 

It is deeply important to prove that Mary was herself descended 
from David. I once met and tried to re-establish in the faith a 
thoughtful young man who had been unsettled by a remark of the 
late Chief Rabbi Adler that the evidence for the Messiahship of 
Jesus failed in the most important item, since both the pedigrees 
given of Him in the Gospels traced His ancestry up through Joseph, 
while there was otherwise no evidence that His mother was a 
descendant of David. 

Yet there is other evidence, though it is immensely strengthened 


22. MBBS Ass. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 


by establishing, as has been done to-day, that the second Gospel 
pedigree is that of Mary. 

When the angel was foretelling to Mary the birth of the Holy 
Child, he said, “The Lord God shall give Him the throne of His 
father David.” Now if Joseph, her betrothed, had alone been 
descended from David, Mary would have answered, “I am not yet 
married to Joseph,” whereas she did answer simply, “I am an 
unmarried woman,” which plainly implies, 7f I were married, since 


I am descended from David, I could infuse my royal blood into a 


son, but how can I have a royal son while I am a virgin ? 

Again, Joseph was a poor man; he would not have spent a 
longer time from his trade at Nazareth than was needful for 
reporting himself at Bethlehem to the census-taker and for saluting 
a few friends there ; so when he started Mary must have been very 
near her time of delivery—say two or three weeks. He surely 
would not have taken her on that three days’ mountainous journey 
to Bethlehem when she was in that condition, unless she as well as 
he was “of the house and lineage of David.” And this view, as 
we learn from the paper (p. 17) is strikingly confirmed by a reading 
in the Sinaitic Syriac Version. 

The Revised Version of 1 Chron. iii, 17, 18, makes it clear that 
both Salathiel and Pedaiah were sons of Jeconiah, the name Assir 
just following Jeconiah’s in the Authorized Version being rendered, 
as it may lawfully be, ‘‘ captive,” and verse 17 being thus brought into 
the same form as verse 16. Salathiel and the second son Malchiram 
doubtless both died before having children, Pedaiah then taking 
Salathiel’s place, and one of the other sons mentioned Malchiram’s 
place, in raising up children to their brothers ; and so Zorobabel was 
later called the son of Salathiel, though he was really (ver. 19) the 
son of Pedaiah. 

On the other hand, the Zorobabel, son of Salathiel, in Luke’s 
pedigree can hardly be the same as Zorobabel, son of Salathiel, in 
Matthew’s; for the former stands twenty generations back from 
Joseph inclusively, while the latter stands only twelve back; and 
this difference is out of all proportion to the whole number of 
generations in the respective pedigrees, which in Luke is forty-two 
from Joseph back to David, and in Matthew (when the three 
expunged kings are restored) is thirty-two. There is analogy 
enough for the repetition of such a combination of names even in 


ie ee ee a ere 


MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 23 


two pedigrees from the same remote ancestors; for in one of the 
priestly pedigrees in Chronicles we have two Elkanahs, and in 
another two Zadoks, two, if not three, Azariahs, and two Ahitubs, 
sons of Amariah and besides Isaiah’s witness Zechariah, son of 
Jeberechiah, there seem to have been two Zechariahs, sons of 
Berachiah, known to history—the prophetic writer and a martyr 
who must have suffered long after that writer’s period of religious 
revival: Isa. viii, 2 ; Zech. i, 1 ; and Matt. xxii, 35. 

Colonel MAcKINLAY said: Our heartiest thanks are due to 
the learned lady who has so kindly responded to our invitation 
to lecture to us. Her deep knowledge of Syriac MSS. gives great 
value to all her papers, but specially perhaps to her remarks about 
the true meaning of Luke i, 27. 

With regard to the star (p. 18), allowing that the words of 
Matt. 1, 2, may mean “ We, being in the east, have seen His star,” 
it does not necessarily follow that the star had been in the west 
because the Magi had journeyed in a westerly direction. We are 
not told that they were /ed by the star to Jerusalem; they evidently 
came there because they expected to find those who could tell them 
where Christ was to be born. Afterwards we are told the star 
“went before,” this seems to be mentioned as a striking fact, and 
naturally suggests that during the long journey to Jerusalem the 
star had nof been in front of them. 

The star would be more likely to be seen in the east than in the 
west,’the place of power rather than of decadence. 

Colonel Mackinlay then gave his reasons for believing that the 
star was an exceptionally bright appearance of the planet Venus, and 
concluded by again thanking the Lecturer for her interesting paper. 

Dr. THIRTLE: Much of the Bible criticism of our time is vitiated 
by a lack of sympathy with Oriental ideals and modes of thought 
on the part of critics and expositors. The learned lecturer this 
aiternoon has come to us with an equipment which, in this 
important respect, is altogether exceptional ; and we cannot but 
express our gratitude to her for the paper she has read. 

I desire to make a few remarks upon the passage in which 
Mrs. Lewis dealt with the relation subsisting between Joseph and 
Mary at the time of the journey to Bethlehem, for the enrolment 
mentioned in Luke i. Was it a state of betrothal or marriage ? or 
might it not, very properly, be described by either of these terms ? 


24 MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 


In the Authorized Version we read that Mary was ‘“‘ the espoused 
wife” of Joseph; in the Revised Version that she was “ betrothed ” 
to him. The word in the Greek is a participle of the passive voice 
of the verb mmnésteud. The event specified in Matt. i, 24—he 
‘took unto him his wife ”—was assuredly antecedent to the journey 
to Bethlehem; yet in connection with the latter event, the 
Evangelist Luke seems to find no difficulty in describing Mary as 
“betrothed” to Joseph (Luke ii, 4, 5, Revised Version)—the same 
term as is used in the previous chapter in the story of the 
Annunciation (Chapter i, verse 27). The circumstances as thus 
brought before us make it necessary to inquire what the Jews 
understood by betrothal. 

In the article on “ Betrothal” in the Jewish Encyclopedia (vol. 3) 
by Rabbi Dr. Drachman, of New York, it is made clear beyond 
question that the ancient practice in this particular was much 
different from that which prevails in Israel at the present time. 
Speaking of the negotiations requisite for arranging marriages, the 
Rabbi says: “‘When the agreement had been entered into, it was 
definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were 
considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except 
that of actual cohabitation.” Note the situation: the betrothed 
were considered as man and wife, one condition alone being excepted. 

Dr. Drachman proceeds to show that the Hebrew word drds, 
‘“‘to betroth,” must be taken in this sense, 7.¢., to contract an actual 
though incomplete marriage. ‘‘In two of the passages in which it 
occurs, the betrothed woman is directly designated as ‘ wife’— 
11 Sam. 1, 14, ‘my wife whom I have betrothed’ ; and Deut. xxii, 23, 24, 
where the betrothed is designated as ‘the wife of his neighbour.’” 
Another such reference is 1 Mace. iii, 56, ‘‘ them that were betrothing 
wives.” The Rabbi continues: “ In strict accordance with this sense, 
the Rabbinical Law declares that betrothal is equivalent to an actual 
marriage, and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce.” He goes 
on to explain the “home-taking” of the bride, whereby the 
marriage was completed, in ordinary circumstances at the end of 
twelve months, in cases where either of the parties had previously 
been married, at the end of thirty days. 

In the light of these facts we can trace without difficulty the 
progress of the events set forth in the Gospel story. After receiving 
from the angel of the Lord the message ‘‘ Fear not,” Joseph ‘“ took 


MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 25 


unto him his wife ” (Matt. i, 20, 24). To the world this step would 
seem to mark the completion of the marriage; it was, at least, the 
formal home-taking. 'The Evangelist Matthew, however, proceeds to 
record another fact: Joseph ‘knew her not till she had brought 
forth a son” (verse 25). This statement shows that, in truth, for 
the time, the betrothal had not eventuated in marriage as the same 
is contemplated in Rabbinical Law. See “betrothal” and “ taking ” 
distinguished in Deut. xx, 7 ; xxviii, 30. 

On a review of all the facts, we conclude that, while it was not 
incorrect to speak of Mary as the wife of Joseph, as is plainly 
implied in Matt. i, 24, yet, in view of the pious resolution which 
lies behind the words of verse 25, there was a refined propriety in 
the use of the Greek word mwnésteud in the sense of ‘ betrothed,” 
thus suggesting an incomplete marriage. Accordingly, the Syriac 
versions, of which Mrs. Lewis has spoken, in referring to Mary as 
Joseph’s “ wife” express the ostensible fact ; but the Greek text in 
maintaining the relation of the betrothal takes account of the 
heart and soul secret of the parties, whereby the nuptial contract 
was reverently qualified until the birth of our Lord. 

The Rev. E. SEELEY said: May I draw attention to another 
interesting genealogy which in some points illustrates the difficulties 
in our subject to-night? Our King George, and also nearly all the 
royal families of Europe, trace their descent backwards through 
many of the great men of past ages to the Odin of legendary glory 
but somewhat misty history. If we compare these various 
pedigrees and look for their point of contact, we may be struck 
by the interlacing of the pedigrees and puzzled by many difficulties. 

The Gospel genealogies go back to more remote ages and we 
have fewer side-lights to help us; while we know that sometimes 
a man was known by two different names, and in other cases several 
men all bore the same name; so it is quite natural that we puzzle 
over such pedigrees for want of knowledge. 

There is one statement, on p. 12, in the highly interesting 
paper read this afternoon, with which I cannot agree. ‘“ The 
private family registers would not, however, all disappear in this 
catastrophe. Some of them were re-written from memory, but 
in these cases they could hardly go beyond the fourth generation 
upwards.” The last clause seems to me highly unlikely in the case 
of David’s royal line. To me it seems much more likely that each 


26 MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 


branch of that family would keep careful memory of its own 
descent. 

Prebendary Fox said: I am ill qualified on literary grounds 
to discuss the problem before us, but I desire to thank Mrs. Lewis 
for the suggestion that “These genealogies, as part of inspired 
scripture, have their spiritual as well as historic uses”; such, for 
example, as the lesson conveyed by the omission of the three names 
in the second group, and the reason for that omission. Old Thomas 
Fuller, quaintest of English divines, writes somewhere: ‘“‘ How 
fruitful are the seeming barren places of scripture. Wheresoever 
the surface of God’s word doth not laugh and sing with corn, there 
the heart thereof within is merry with mines, affording, where not 
plain matter, hidden mysteries.” And he illustrates this elsewhere 
in his Scripture Observations, by a reference to the very chapter 
which we have been considering. ‘Lord, I find the genealogy 
of my Saviour (Matt. i, 7, 8) strangely chequered with four 
remarkable changes in four immediate generations. 


1. Roboam begat Abia; that is, a bad father begat a bad son. 
. Abia begat Asa; that is, a bad father, a good son. 

3. Asa begat Josaphat ; that is, a good father, a good son. 

4, Josaphat begat Joram; that is a good father, a bad son. 


i) 


I see, Lord, from hence, that my father’s piety cannot be entailed ; 
that is bad news for me. But I see also that actual impiety 
is not always hereditary ; that is good news for my son.” 


COMMUNICATIONS. 


The Rev. GEORGE CREWDSON writes :— 

There can be no doubt that the anticipation that Christ would 
be descended from David was very general in our Lord’s time 
(St. John vii, 42, etc.). It is also clear that it was believed, at least 
by the disciples, that Jesus was actually descended from him 
(St. Matt. i, 1; Acts ii, 30, xu, 23; Rom. 1, 3; Rey: xxi lG, etc.) 
The genealogies in St. Matthew and St. Luke are apparently inserted 
to prove that this is the fact. But at first sight it would appear 
that the two genealogies were mutually destructive, and that one 
or both are entirely untrustworthy. They both appear to be 
genealogies of Joseph, but they start from two different sons 


MRS. A. 8. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD, 27 


of David, and end with a discrepancy, which cannot be ascribed 
to a copyist’s error, in the name of Joseph’s father. 

Further investigation shows that the two lines are distinct from 
the time of Solomon to the captivity; after which they show 
agreement for about five generations from Salathiel to Abiud. 
A similar succession of names may be rather more dimly traced 
in I Chron. iii, as far as Hodaiah, who is the last of David’s line 
who is named by the Chronicler. (See pp. 28 and 29.) 

From this point they are again distinct till we reach Matthan 
or Matthat (if we may take these as variants of the same name), 
the (apparent) grandfather of Joseph; after which they again 
apparently diverge; St. Matthew giving Jacob as the name of 
Joseph's father, while St. Luke gives the name of Heli. It is scarcely 
credible that this could be due to an error on the part of the 
evangelists, for they were almost if not quite contemporaries of 
Joseph and Mary. It must also be noticed that St. Luke qualifies 
his statement of the parentage of Jesus by the words, “As was 
supposed.” 

The problems before us then are four— 


1. To account for the coalescence of the two lines in Salathiel, 
etc. 

2. To account for the similar coalescence in Matthan. 

3. To explain how it is that Joseph has apparently two 
fathers. 

4, To find what St. Luke means by his qualifying clause. 


1, This can be easily explained by assuming that St. Matthew 
throughout traces the succession through the leading branch of the 
family, which of course at first is the line of Solomon; and that 
this line died out in Jehoiachin, the curse of Jeremiah that he 
should be childless being literally fulfilled. I do not see that the 
following words in Jer. xxii, 10, prove that this supposition is 
wrong, as Mrs. Lewis seems to think. If the royal line thus became 
extinct, the next senior branch would take its place, and Salathiel, 
son of Neri, would become the representative of the family. To 
suppose: that Salathiel was Jehoiachin’s own son would leave 
unexplained the remarkable coincidence which occurs at this period 
between the genealogies of St. Matthew and St. Luke and greatly 
discredit the latter. 


28 MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 


GENEALOGICAL TABLE, 


I Chron. wi. 
David 
Solomon 
Fe lees 
et ah 
Asa 
Jehoshaphat 
J ales 
Pye 
*J ak 
* Amaziah 
ie 
J eres 
Ahaz 
Hosckinh 
Manasseh 

Amon 
J cae 


*Jehoakim 


Jeconiah or Jehoiachin 


ob 


Salathiel— 
| 
ft Zerubbabel 


| 


Hananiah Caan 


St. Watt, 7. 


Salathiel 
Zerubbabel 


St, Luke ii. 
David 
ae 
ines 
Menan 
Milea 
se 
Jonan 
J aie 
J ae 


Simeon 


| 
Levi 
| 
Matthat 


Jorim 
oe 
Jose 
Er 
wees 
Cosam 
ada 
aie 

Sari 


| 
Salathiel 


| 
——TZerubbabel 
| 
§ Rhesa 
| 


Joannan 


MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 


GENEALOGICAL TABLE. 


I Chron. wii. St. Matt, 7. 
||Shechiniah 
||Shemaiah 
[Neaviah 
|| Elioenai 
Hodsiab ts Abiud 
a 
eke 
aoe 
aes 
wilfud 
se 


Line extinct 


Matthan 


** Jacob 


| 
| 
ttJoseph 


* Omitted in St. Matthew’s list. 
+ Line extinct. 


St. Luke wit. 


Judah 

J a 

Ags 
MAGed Hue 


| 
Maath 

| 
Nagge 


Esli 


| 
Nahum 


Amos 
Mattathias 
J a ph 
Janna 


| 
Melchi 
| 


Levi 


Matthat 


| 
** Heli 

| 

| 


Mary 


t Said, 1 Ch. iii, 19, to be son of Pedaiah, Salathiel’s brother. 


§ Omitted in 1 Chronicles and Matthew. 


29 


|| Omitted in Matthew and Luke. There is evidently confusion in the 
list in Chronicles at this time. The identification of Hananiah with Joannan is 


pretty clear, that of Hodaiah with Abiud more doubtful. 
{| End of line in Chronicles. Possibly identical with Abiud and Judah. 


** Brothers. 


tf Son of Jacob by Levirate marriage, J oseph dying childless. 


30 MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 


2. The second coincidence, which supposes Matthan (St. Matthew) 
to be identical with Matthat (St. Luke), which I think most 
probable, can be explained in the same way—that the senior branch 
of the family followed, as was his custom, by St. Matthew became 
extinct in Eliazar, Matthan, of the junior branch, becoming head. 

3. Joseph’s parentage also, I think, admits of an easy explanation. 
If we suppose that Matthan had two sons, Jacob and ‘Heli, and 
that Jacob died childless, then Heli would take his wife under the 
Levirate law. If Joseph were the fruit of this union, St. Matthew 
would be quite correct in calling him the son of Jacob, and I 
believe he would be reckoned as first cousin to Mary the daughter 
of Heli by a regular wife, and therefore Joseph and Mary would 
not come within the prohibited degrees of relationship. 

4. If Joseph and Mary were living together under one roof, as 
they probably would be under the circumstances, it is easy to under- 
stand how Joseph discovered Mary’s condition before his marriage 
(St. Matt. i, 18). This explanation also gives an intelligible 
meaning to St. Luke’s qualifying words (iii, 23), and also corroborates 
the remarkable statement of the Talmud to which Mrs. Lewis refers, 
that Mary was the daughter of Heli. 

Dr. KENYON writes: As one would expect from the writer, this 
paper is both learned and stimulating. I do not think there is 
anything that I could usefully add to it, nor indeed have I time 
to write at length on the subject. One point only, which Mrs. Lewis 
makes, I should like to emphasize; namely, that we have no 
business to assume that records of what one may call generally the 
Old Testament period were scanty. All recent discoveries go to 
prove that the knowledge and use of writing were much more - 
widely spread than used to be supposed. The tablets of Babylonia 
and Assyria, the papyri of ancient Egypt, the correspondence 
between Syria and Egypt found at Tell-el-Amarna, the records 
discovered by Sir Arthur Evans at Gnossos, and in later times the 
Aramaic and Greek papyri found in Egypt, all these go to prove 
a veryfgeneral use of writing in the ancient world, so that one is 
now entitled to argue that, when direct evidence is wanting, the 
presumption is in favour of the original existence of records, not 
against it. 

This is a consideration which has a wide bearing on the criticism 
of Old Testament history, not confined to the genealogies with 


MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 31 
which Mrs. Lewis deals; but there need be no hesitation in 
assuming that these genealogies were derived by the Evangelist 
from written, and possibly official, records. 

Dr. MARGOLIOUTH writes :— 

“The genealogies of our Lord,’ which you have kindly sent me, 
I am unfortunately not able to study closely at present, being rather 
in bad health just now. From the cursory perusal, however, of it 
which I have been able to make, I gather that the subject is treated 
in it in a very interesting and instructive way. One point that 
struck my attention was this: If the report of Julius Africanus 
that Herod the Great caused most of the Temple registers to be 
burnt be true, is it likely that such a document as the genealogy 
given in St. Matthew would have escaped destruction if it had been 
one of the records preserved in the Temple at that time ? 

Mr. E. J. SEWELL writes :— 

Mrs. Lewis is of opinion (p. 14) that St. Luke gives us Mary’s 
genealogy. 

So far as this rests upon the statement on the same page that— 
“the Talmud tells us that Mary’s father was Heli,” itis, I think, open 
to very grave doubt. Dr. Gore, now Bishop of Oxford, in his 
Dissertation on the Virgin-birth of our Lord says (p. 39) that the 
statement—“. . . is based on a quite untenable translation.” 
He quotes the Hebrew of the citation from the Talmud referred to 
by Mrs. Lewis. It is, of course, unpointed. Lightfoot adopted one 
possible pointing and rendered it: He saw Miriam the daughter of 
Heli among the shades. ‘‘ But,” says Dr. Gore (p. 40), ‘‘I am assured 
that the only legitimate translation is: He saw Miriam, the daughter 
of Onion-leaves (a nickname of a kind not uncommon in the Talmud) ; 
and there is no reason to suppose any reference to our Lord’s 
mother.” 

Without the support of this statement from the Talmud there is 
very little reason to connect Heli with Mary. This is not, of course, 
urged as any reason for doubting that the Virgin Mary was, in fact, 
descended from David. Mrs. Lewis’ very interesting and important 
statement that ‘“‘ the Sinai Palimpsest tells us that Joseph and Mary 

were both of the lineage of David” and that the Armenian 
version of the Diatessaron has the same reading strongly support the 
inference which one would draw independently of them from 
St. Luke i, 32; Rom. i, 3, and other passages that through His 


32 MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 


earthly mother our Lord was “born of the seed of David according 
to the flesh.” 

As regards our Lord’s descent from David there may be added 
to the considerations on pp. 11 and 12 of Mrs. Lewis’ paper the 
statement of Ulla, a Jewish Rabbi of the third century, that Jesus 
was treated exceptionally because of this royal extraction. (Bishop 
Gore quotes as authority for this the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 
43 (a): of. Derembourg, p. 349, n. 2.) See also Farrar’s Life of Christ, 
vol. i, p. 9, note, and Lenan Evang., p. 60. 

Dr. Gore further quotes (Jussert., p. 380, the authorities there 
quoted) that the great Hillel, grandfather of Gamaliel, who 
belonged to a family of Jewish exiles in Babylon, and came to 
Jerusalem about 50 B.C., was recognized as of David’s family, and 
that ‘appeal was made in vindication of his claim to a pedigree 
found in Jerusalem.” 


REPLY. 


I am asked by Archdeacon Potter why the Revisers of our 
English Version left out the word “wife” in Luke ii, 5% They 
doubtless did so chiefly on the authority of $§ and B; which, 
though the oldest of our extant Greek MSS., are probably not 
older than the Sinai Palimpsest, nor than the old Latin a and 3, 
which have “ wife” always, like the Diatessaron and the Peshitta. I 
appreciate the arguments used by Dr. Thirtle; but yet I hold that 
the phrase ‘who was betrothed to him” must convey the 
impression, to plain English people, that Mary was not yet legally 
married to Joseph. Probably the ‘‘his espoused wife” of the 
Authorized Version describes the situation better than any other 
phrase would do. 

I cannot agree that the Virgin Mary would require a fortnight to 
travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem. The path was probably, as 
now, a frequented mule-track, over soft grass. My sister and I have 
done it, very leisurely indeed, in seven and a half days. Mary 
perhaps thought that there would be ample time to allow of her 
return to Nazareth before the expected event; and the usual rate 
of progress, three miles an hour, did not necessarily put any great 
strain on her. 

I agree with Canon Girdlestone that we must try to understand 
Jewish methods of registration if we wish to explain the genealogies 


— ee ee a oe ee ee ee 


MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 383 


of our Lord. I agree also that Ochozias and Ozias begin with the 
same letter. But as we are told in v. 17 that the generations from 
David until the carrying away to Babylon are fourteen generations, 
we see that the omission of the three names, which would bring the 
number up to seventeen, must be deliberate. 

The explanation which is given to us by Julius Africanus one 
hundred years after the time of Irenzus and one hundred and fifty 
after that of Justin (A.D. 250) is considerably qualified by his 
statement (Husebius, H.E., i, 7), Kat nuiv atrn pedréto, ef Kat pi) 
€ppL.pTUPOS eOTL, TO pay KPElTT OVE a aAnberrépav EX ELV ELITELV, This 
I translate, ‘ And this is for us to consider, although there is not 
sufficient evidence for it, as there is nothing better or more true to 
be said.” 

The statement of Africanus, which he heard from a remote 
kinsman of our Lord two hundred and twenty years after the 
Resurrection, is thus summed up by himself. ‘‘ Matthew of Solomon’s 
line begat Jacob. Matthew having died, Melchi of Nathan’s line 
begat Heli of the same woman. Heli and Jacob were therefore 
brothers, and had the same mother. Heli having died without 
children, Jacob raised up seed unto him, having begotten Joseph, 
his own child by nature, but legally the son of Heli. Thus Joseph 
was the son of both.” 

It seems to me that we have to choose between the accuracy of 
St. Luke, who probably got his information for the rest of the 
story directly from our Lord’s mother, and that of some unknown 
kinsman of the family two hundred and twenty years later, in 
whom Africanus did not himself place implicit trust. For St. Luke 
puts at least two generations between Melchi and Heli. 

Mr. Crewdson suggests a Levirate marriage between Heli and the 
widow of Jacob. But this is not what Julius Africanus reports. Is 
this second version of the story founded on any evidence ? or is it 
purely conjecture? Both versions cannot be true. 

I am greatly obliged to Canon Girdlestone for drawing our 
attention to the law in Hammurabi’s code, which binds an 
adopted son more closely to his adopted father, when the latter has 
taught hima craft, suchas that of carpentry. 

I fear that some of my audience are under the impression that 
the Syriac MS. which I found on Mount Sinai is a copy of Tatian’s 
Diatessaron, or Harmony of the Gospels. Not so. It is the Four 

D 


34 MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 


Gospels of the Separated, expressly so called; being really an older 
form of the Old Syriac, or Curetonian Version. Itis called Mephar- 
resha, 7.¢., “Separated,” exactly the same word, and I think the 
same grammatical form, as the fourth word which Belshazzar saw 
written by a mysterious hand on the wall. But as I am ignorant 
of Babylonian Semitic I cannot be quite sure of this. The 
Diatessaron is not extant, either in Syriac or in Greek. We have 
only Ephraim’s Commentory on it, with numerous quotations, in an 
Armenian version translated into Latin by Moesinger. And we 
know its structure from two very late Arabic MSS., which have in 
the course of ages been so closely assimilated to the Peshitta that 
they have lost much of their value for textual criticism. 

The examples of sons-in-law being called sons, as they were in the 
families of Sheshan and Barzillai, are most valuable for my 
argument, and I thank Mr. Rouse for them. 

I agree with the Rev. G. Crewdson that I ought to withdraw my 
agreement with Dr. Heer’s idea that a Jewish family would probably 
not recall its genealogy upwards for more than five generations, 
But when we find contradictory statements about the childless 
Jeconiah having children (Jer. xxii, 30; 1 Chron. iii, 17) how are we to 
interpret it? Surely that these children died young. 

It is by no means proved that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of 
Luke’s genealogy are the same people as those who bear similar 
names in Matthew’s. They cannot, in fact, be so, if we allow to 
Luke even a moderate degree of accuracy. For he gives twenty 
names between Shealtiel and David, whereas Matthew gives 
fourteen. Between Zerubbabel and Heli, Luke gives seventeen 
names, while Matthew has eight between Zerubbabel and Jacob. 
Allowing for many mistakes of transcription, we cannot put the 
Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Luke into the same period as those of 
Matthew. 

It may be my want of perception, but I cannot see that the two 
genealogies show agreement for about five generations from Shealtiel 
to Abiud. I am very familiar with the mangling which Semitic 
names undergo on Greek lips, and vice versd, and I see a likeness 
between Hananiah and Joannan ; also between Hodaiah and Judah. 
There is a very slight one between Abiud and Judah, but none at all 
between Abiud and Rhesa. Nor can we even be sure that Matthan 
and Matthat are identical. 


MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF ‘OUR LORD. 35 


There may be a difference of opinion as to whether “ Mary the 
daughter of Heli,” who is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud, 
is Mary the mother of our Lord, or Mary Magdalene. She is 
represented as suffering great torture in Gehenna, and I would 
submit that this really fiendish idea must have sprung from the 
spite which many of the Jews undoubtedly felt for the most 
blessed among women, and which nothing in the history of Mary 
Magdalene could have been sufficient to awaken. We know that 
in their blind hate they confounded the two Marys, and gave out 
that the Virgin Mary had earned her living as a woman’s hair- 
dresser, the verb gadal in Hebrew meaning “to plait.” Jewish 
tradition says that after the Virgin-birth had been spoken about 
at Pentecost, she had to bear with many gibes and insults from 
her fellow-countrymen. May it not have been for this reason that 
she perhaps ended her days at Ephesus, as well as for the purpose 
of being under the care of her sister’s son, the Apostle John, to 
whom her Divine Son had entrusted her ? 

To Mr. E. Sewell I reply, that the question as to which Mary 
is mentioned in the Talmud would be best decided by Jewish 
scholars. He will find the subject discussed in Dr. Dalman’s book, 
Jesus Christ in the Talmud, translated by Dr. Streane. I cannot see 
that Dr. Gore’s authority, although great, is final, nor is Lightfoot’s, 
because new editions and translations of the Talmud have appeared 
since his day. 

The legends about Mary in the Talmud are certainly a tissue of 
confused nonsense; but still it is remarkable that the name of Heli 
should be brought into connection with Mary’s at all. 

Amongst the German scholars who support the Heli theory, 
I may mention Drs. Zahn, Laible, Vogt, and Bardenhewer. One of 
these, I think it is Dr. Zahn, points out that the name Joseph is 
not part of Luke’s genealogy, for in that genealogy the name 
of each member is preceded by rov, whereas the word vids stands 
before Joseph to express the supposition that our Lord was his son. 

I cannot help thinking that Joseph would have clearly been 
included in the genealogy if rot had stood before his name, i.c., if 
we had read vids tov Ilwond. Tov has the same effect in Greek as 
the Irish “O” in names like O’Donnell, or as I am told that the 
Northumberland miners put it when they call a boy “ Jack o’ Jim,” 
“Tom o’ Jack,” without any further surname. I would point out 

D 2 


36 MRS. A. S LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 


that we may read verse 23 thus: ‘“ And Jesus Himself, at about 
thirty years old (being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph), was 
of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi,” etc. 

Our English ae age ought?not to have inserted the explana- 
tory words “ which-was ” into that genealogy at all. 

I have little space left to speak of the star. My one great 
objection tothe theory of its having been Venus is that the 
varying appearances of that brilliant planet must have been long 
familiar to the Magi; for Venus is supposed to be older than our 
earth itself. Whether the star was a comet, or the appearance 
of a conjunction of stars seen in the same line, it is impossible now 
to ascertain. Astronomical calculations cannot help us much, for 
as my friend Sir Robert Ball said to me the other day, ‘‘ We are not 
told from what country the Magi started.” Dr. Zahn points out 
that the star is said to have stood, not over the house, but over the 
place, or rather ‘“‘over where the young child was,” “ And when 
they came into the house,” etc. Probably arriving at the gate 
of Bethlehem, the Magi inquired if there “were any children in it 
who had been born so many weeks ago,” according to the time when 
they had first observed the star. 


D23RD ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 


MONDAY, DECEMBER lit, 1911, 4.30 p.m. 


JAMES W. THIRTLE, Esq., LL.D., M.R.A.S., TOooK THE CHAIR. 


~ The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed, and 
the following {elections were announced :— 


Members: Rev. 8. H. Wilkinson (formerly an Associate) ; Mrs. Lewis 
(Camb. _). 


Assoc1ATEs : Mrs. Gibson (Camb.) ; Thomas G. Hughes, Esq. 


NATURAL LAW AND MIRACLE. 
By Dr. LUDWIG VON GERDTELL, Marburg a/L. 


HAT the Gospel of Jesus. Christ stands or falls with a 
belief in miracles is beyond all doubt. The Gospel is 
essentially a matter of revelation, and revelation itself is 
miracle. 

Modern unbelief has shown a true instinct therefore in 
directing its criticism against the faith in the miraculous which 
belonged to early Christianity. The two principal objections 
of a philosophic nature which modern unbelief levels at the 
miraculous are these :— 


1. Miracles are impossible, since they destroy the funda- 
mental principle of modern science—the absolutely 
unalterable, the all-embracing Law of Causation. 

2. Miracles are impossible, since they contradict the 
unchangeable Laws of Nature as known to us. 


If these objections could be upheld, the Gospel would be 
destroyed. Thenceforward culture would be lnked with 
unbelief, and the Gospel with barbarism. The Gospel could 
then advance only amongst those classes of mankind who were 
of deficient intelligence, and only prolong that miserable and 


38 DR. LUDW1G VON GERDTELL, ON 


ridiculous existence which is the lot of all forms of super- 
stition. 

We, the disciples of Jesus, have therefore not only the right 
but the duty of showing the scientific world that we retain our 
position in purity of conscience, enlightened by scholarship. 

We commence our inquiry with the consideration of the first 
objection. 


Miracles are impossible, since they destroy the fundamental 
princeple of modern scrence—that of the absolutely unalterable and 
all-embracing Law of Causation. 


Before we reply to this objection we must arrive at an 
understanding with our opponents on two preliminary questions : 


1. What is to be understood by the Law of Causation ? 


2. How does modern science establish its foundation 
principle of the absolute validity of the Law of 
Causation ? 

We commence with the first question: What is to be under- 
stood by the Law of Causation ? 

By Causality or Natural Law we indicate that well-grounded 
deduction which rests on the innumerable facts of experience, 
namely :— 

1. That every occurrence in the world of nature has a 
corresponding cause. 


2. That the same causes have the same effects in all cases; 
or otherwise expressed, that all. occurrences in actuality 
follow one another according to a certain unalterable 
rule. 

For the elucidation of this second definition we give several 
illustrations, which may be multiplied at will. A _ stone, 
allowed to drop from a tower, finding no other resistance than 
that of the pressure of the air, falls always in the direction of 
the earth’s centre. The direction of the stone’s descent is 
therefore according to an invariable rule. Water freezes at 
32° Fahr.; nitroglycerine explodes with intensest violence under 
sudden heat of about 420° Fahr. or by means of impact or 
pressure of a certain force. Strychnine, administered in a 
certain dose, always causes the death of the person concerned. 

As soon as we know these rules of consecutive action, we are 
in possession of a limited power of natural prophecy. We are 
able, that is, as soon as an event takes place—such as the 
swallowing of a certain dose of strychnine by anyone—to 
predict with certainty in every case the result, viz., the death of 
the person concerned. , 


NATURAL LAW AND MIRACLE. 39 


Let us examine the second question—How does modern 
science establish its foundation principle of the absolute validity 
of the Law of Causation ? 

The investigator represents human reason, methodically 
trained. It is well, therefore, first to inquire what impressions 
are made upon the less cultivated, the simple person, or even upon 
the brute beast by the fact of Natural Law. 

We commence with brute creation. It is an incontrovertible 
fact that the brute creation has a sort of intuition concerning 
those fixed rules by which the processes of Nature are governed. 
We give some instances of this statement. 

No one would believe that the pike stands on a very high 
plane of brute intelligence. Yet the Berlin zoologist, Mobius, 
relates the following interesting observations with a pike. A 
bowl of water was divided into two contiguous compartments 
by a piece of glass. On the one side was a pike, on the other a 
variety of small living creatures specially to his taste. The 
pike went straight for his prey, but received for his pains, not 
the expected bonne bouche, but a disquieting shock from the 
invisible piece of glass. After repeating the process for some 
time, the pike finally learnt to deny himself. Several weeks 
after, the glass division was removed. The pike now swam 
freely amongst the other creatures. But it never entered his 
head to attack them. He had—if in this case without justifi- 
catlon—apparently made a “Law of Nature” for himself— 
namely, that to attack his prey resulted in a revengeful blow 
upon himself. 

Brutes have, ike men, the power of holding impressions in 
the memory. The dog will recollect his master after years of 
separation. Without this feature of animal intelligence the 
circus performances for which animals are trained would be 
impossible. Animals are therefore able to note the sequence 
by which events follow one upon the other according to natural 
processes, They can, under certain conditions, by a mechanical 
instinct, reproduce this sequence by means of the rules impressed 
in their memory. If a dog has been often struck by his master, 
he knows, by experience, the regular sequence of events: the 
raised whip, the pain that follows. And every time that the 
master raises the whip, instinctively, that is, involuntarily and 
unconsciously, the sensation of the approaching pain forces 
itself upon him. The dog betrays this feeling plainly by his 
plaintive cries and crouchings, before even the blow has 
descended. He anticipates the blow with certainty. Indeed 


40 DR. LUDWIG VON GERDTELL, ON 


he already feels it, as if it had taken place, even though it may 
possibly not take place at all. 

The dog places the once experimentally acquired rule that 
the same cause has always the same effect in the service of his 
practical policy. When he learnt to “beg” his master always 
rewarded the completion of his performance by a dainty morsel. 
The dog came to connect in his memory the two ideas: “beg” 
—dainty morsel. After a time he comes to “beg” without being 
told, when he sees the morsel ready. The dog satisfies the 
condition—that of begging—and expects on the round of 
experience the consequence thereof—the reception of the 
desired morsel. 

The eminent English philosopher, David Hume, justly 
maintains, therefore, in his penetrating and epochal work, 
A Treatise on Human Nature, that the brute beast derives 
a fact directly from that which has acted upon its senses, and 
that this deduction rests entirely (?) upon past experience, since 
the beast expects the same consequences to follow the present 
happening which it has seen always to result from. previous 
similar happenings. 

Now let. us advance a further step and inquire what im- 
pression the primitive human being receives into his conscious- 
ness from the fact of Natural Law. 

Even the smallest child, slowly awakening into intelligence, 
is able to form an impression of the regularity of consecutive 
action in two related events. It experienced hunger and at 
first simply cried in sheer discomfort. This was always followed 
by the appearance of the mother with the bottle. It soon 
notes the connection of the two related occurrences, and for the 
future it uses its voice to summon mother and the bottle. 

A child of about a year old accidentally burns its finger on 
one of the grate-bars. It connects this thereafter with the 
sight of a grate-bar, which by mechanical instinct calls up 
the idea of heat, and excites fear and reluctance to touch 
the bar. 

Here we have the first psychological root of the principle of 
causation in the fact of the association of ideas. 

(a) We understand by “association of ideas ” the involun- 
tary and instinctive joining up of sensations and 
conceptions in the same consciousness: each observa- 
tion showing experimentally the effort to call back to 
consciousness those mental images that have previ- 
ously been connected either by space or time with the 
observation. | 


NATURAL LAW AND MIRACLE. 41 


For the elucidation of this sentence we mention some well- 
known psychological facts. 

An old man, looking among his time-stained documents, 
setting them in order before he dies, suddenly lights on a long- 
forgotten faded lock of hair; at once the precious vision of his 
early love starts up before his mind’s eye. He lives again in 
that glad May morning on which he cut the lock from the girl’s 
head. He sees again her smile, and the words they exchanged, 
forgotten for sixty years, awaken in his memory. 

Another instance: we have all suffered from a wound. 
Every sight of a wound hereafter forces upon our imagination 
‘the sense of pain. If we look at a bit of iron, we expect—and 
that for the same reason—to find it heavy. The observation of 
a piece of iron, that is, always excites in us on the ground of 
previous experience the conscious impression of weight. 

The “association of ideas” is, in opposition to the sense of 
causality, an involuntary mental act. It rests on strong instinct 
and operates mechanically. 


(>) A second equally psychological root of the idea of 
causation 1s the instinct of inquiry, possessed by 
every healthy human being. 


This sense is developed in people just as is the power of 
speech. As people carry their power of speech to varied 
degrees, so with the instinct of inquiry. 

The human mind is so fashioned that it is always asking 

“Why?” This fact, like that of the association of ideas, is one 
that cannot be explained or traced to its origin, but can only 
and simply be recognized. 

The instinet of inquiry lends itself to confirmation most clearly 
in the case of novel experiences which occur in the sphere of 
human life. 

We may see it specially distinctly, for instance, in children of 
three or four years. As to these every object and occurrence is 
novel, their inquiring instinct finds most energetic play. They 
plague us adults a hundred times a day with their stereotyped 
repetition, “ What is that?” “ Why is this made so?” 

As the human mind by reason of its make-up is under the 
necessity of exercising its will in the direction of reasonable 
objects, so is it compelled in the same way to seek the cause of 
every object or occurrence. 


(c) The last root of the causal principle is that of a 
constantly repeated experimental fact: our instinct 
of inquiry finds satisfaction in constant experience : 


42 DR. LUDWIG VON GERDTELL, ON 


the mechanical course of our imaginative associations 
becomes more fully confirmed by the actual occur- 
rences of the anticipated observations. 


Let us explain this more in detail. We have experienced 
that fire is hot. First our instinct of inquiry urges us to 
investigate the source of heat. It finds it close at hand in the 
fire. Thereafter whenever we see a fire we are compelled by 
the natural mechanism of our imaginative associations on the 
ground of former experience to anticipate the sensation of 
heat Each test confirms the correctness of our anticipation. 
Fire is experimentally always hot ; and as this anticipation is 
without exception strengthened by innumerable experiences, it 
becomes by continued practice a mere matter of course, a second 
nature. We can then no longer doubt that fire and heat are 
inseparable, or as Kant and others have expressed it, they are 
“necessarily ” united. 

However much the majority of unschooled scoffers may 
believe in this apparently necessary connection between cause 
and effect, they are just as little acquainted with the funda- 
mental principle of modern science, viz., the “ absolute ” validity 
of the Law of Causation. 

The Berlin philosopher, Friedrich Paulsen, well says in his 
Introduction to Philosophy :— | 


‘‘The whole of popular medicine consists of observed results : 
whether rightly or wrongly observed ; that is, if one does this or 
that, then one catches cold or fever. If you have fever, you must 
sweat or be dosed, etc. Many feel no need of an explanation of 
the relationship between the allied phenomena. Nor are they upset 
at ail if the means donotalways cure. Their Law of Causation does 
not demand it. Its formula seems to be: This follows that 
generally, but sometimes it turns out otherwise. Indeed this 
formula corresponds to their demand. Practical life has always to 
do with consequences such as are only rules with exceptions and 
are not regardable as fixed laws: the peasant has to do with 
weather conditions and occurrences in organic life, which are 
variable and answer to his formula; the labourer with materials 
and tools which are not always of the same quality ; the teacher, the 
official, with human constitutions which, alike in general features, 
have all their peculiarities and follow no identical line of action.” 


It is certain that the simple-minded person, that is to say, 
the man unschooled in the spirit of modern science, knows 
nothing of an absolutely inviolable Natural Causation. This can 
be historically proved. We need only to call to mind the most 
hihgly cultivated types of classical antiquity. 


4 


NATURAL LAW AND MIRACLE. 43 


Homer was the greatest poetic genius of antiquity. But he 
knows of no absolutely inviolable causality. Gods and demons 
intrude themselves constantly and ludicrously into his historic 
matter, and submit it to obvious and extreme variation. 

Even such a truth-loving historian as Tacitus, who wrote 
centuries after Plato and the Stoics, coolly records miracles, 
which are in no way behind those of Homer. 

The most influential thinker of antiquity was Aristotle. But 
even this realistic philosopher, naturalist as he was, contents 
himself with the notion of a system of causes which permits of 
incontrollable exceptions. Under the title of accidents, they 
-are relegated to that indefinite and irregular factor of nature, 
the material, while regularity is ascribed to the other factor, 
that of intelligent being. On that account, science, so far as 
this disturbing factor enters into it, can get no farther than the 
formula, “as a rule” (Paulsen, Hinlettung im die Philosophie, 
1906). 

A philosopher like Epicurus, otherwise so consistent and 
materialistic, accepted as his atomic theory that of a causeless 
deviation from the normal. 

These instances suffice to show that even philosophic 
intellects of the first order have probably had no acquaintance 
with an absolutely unalterable Law of Causation in nature. 

Finally, we hardly need to go so far back, for about one-half 
of living philosophers stand to the conviction that at least one 
class of important phenomena, that of human will, is inde- 
pendent of the unalterable Law of Causation, which in all else 
they zealously defend. 

The declaration of the unexceptional validity of causality is 
rather a special achievement of modern science. The latter 
expresses itself thus: the naturalist must exclude all super- 
natural explanations ; in his investigations he must be guided 
by the theory that every occurrence has a natural cause, and 
that the same cause always produces the same effect. 

But this theory of a universal and unalterable Law of 
Causation is, for the accurate naturalist, no longer a new dogma 
of natural philosophy established for all time past and future 
and for the whole cosmos. Rather is it for him, so to say, a 
utilitarian principle, that is, a method of research which is, in 
relation to all his investigations, to be presupposed as a working 
hypothesis, and which is to assist him in the _ practical 
experience of his science. 

The Causal Principle remains therefore to the true and 
critically exact student nothing more than a working 


t+ DR. LUDWIG VON GERDTELL, ON 


hypothesis, which, in its origin, differs not at all from any other 

hypothesis: it is a rational idea which is forced upon the 

student of nature as he advances into his analysis of actualities, 

the soundness of which he continually proves by experience. 
Let us take a concrete example: why do we decide 


(1) That every stone thrown upwards into the air will fall 
back to the earth, if nothing but air pressure resists 
it; and 

(2) That, if the object does not return, there must have 
been some preventative element, such as, for instance, 
a shock to shatter into dust, or a whirlwind, or the like. 


The answer is this: from abundant experience, in which the 
apparent exceptions are attributable as a rule to imperfect 
observation, and which has been verified by numerous tests, the 
main conclusion has been reached: we believe that it will 
always be so, because it has always been so. We have no 
reason to doubt it, and therefore we eal! our conclusion “ Know- 
ledge.” For practical life this “knowledge” has shown itself 
to be so valuable and satisfactory that it would be foolish to 
depend upon any other premiss (Georg Runze, Metaphysik, 
1905). When we fire a shot into the air and fail to find it 
again, we know as a practical certainty that the shot has not 
disappeared into the cosmos and lighted perhaps on Sirius, but 
that it has fallen somewhere on the earth. But this practical 
certainty is, as a matter of exact theory, not proved or 
apodictical “ knowledge,” but only a well-grounded conviction 
of a high degree of credibility: theoretically considered, it 
would at least be conceivable that a bullet might, under 
different conditions, escape into the cosmos. But, so far as 
experience goes, bodies always return to earth. We therefore 
assume that in agreement with previous experience, all bullets 
discharged from a rifle return as a matter of course and 
practical certainty to earth, even when we have no evidence of 
their whereabouts. And we have a right to this assumption 
until a case occurs which can be proved to be an exception. 

But this practical certainty must not for a moment be 
allowed to lead us into the error of thinking that the Causal 
principle is aught else than hypothesis. To be sure, the Causal 
principle is a hypothesis of a remarkable kind. It differs from 
all other hypotheses which enter into Natural Law in these 
respects : 


(1) It is a hypothesis with which we approach every future 
possible occurrence in Nature. We expect every 


NATURAL LAW AND MIRACLE. 45 


occurrence in Nature to conform toit. It is, there- 
fore, the most general and comprehensive Law of 
Nature known to us. 

(2) It carries with it the validity of all other hypotheses 
of Natural Science; which stand or fall with it. 

(3) It provides us with the only possible means of foresight 
into those things which le beyond that which is 
directly present to our conceptions of sense or 
memory. 

(4) It is the essential antecedent to all human thought and 
action. 


On the other hand the Causal principle shares the weak- 
ness of every other hypothesis: it demands proof from every 
new experience and confronts therefore—if considered with 
critical accuracy—the danger of being, if not reversed, yet 
submitted to limitations in its validity by some completely new 
experience. A present system of Natural Law can therefore— 
strictly speakinge—never pledge the past or future. The only 
real proot for these, as for all other hypotheses in Natural Science, 
lies along the line of constantly repeated experience. 

By this we have established the fact that the Causal principle 
is the most general and comprehensive of natural laws; that it 
is therefore most clearly itself a Law of Nature. 2 

When opponents use the Causal principle as a weapon against 
the facts of early Christianity, they declare themselves to be 
opposed to miracles on the ground of an ostensibly unalterable 
Law of Nature. 

Thus the first objection leads to the second, and the two can 
be disposed of at once. 


Miracles are tmpossible since they contradict the unchangeable 
Laws of Nature as known to us. 


The modern mind is nowhere so proudly self-conscious of its 
mental possessions as in regard to this conception of “ Natural 
Law.’ This conception has pressed itself into the centre of all 
scientific thought in a manner of which the ancient and medieval 
mind knew nothing. 

Nor for the purpose of exact research is the argument of 
“ Natural Law ” again a new philosophic dogma established for 
all time. Our whole acquaintance with the Laws of Nature 
has its source rather, so far as their purport and argument is 
concerned, simply and solely in a scientific observation of 
actualities. The Laws of Nature are really nothing more than 


46 DR. LUDWIG VON GERDTELL, ON 


descriptions of our scientific experience. Our knowledge of the 
Laws of Nature is here just as little “unalterable” as our 
experience itself. So far from being unalterable, it is, on the 
contrary, aS an entirety, very variable, being subject to constant 
change and dislocation. It needs therefore constant revision 
on the basis of sustained and scientific observation. 

One of the most eminent men of recent times, Eduard von 
Hartmann, has in his work Zhe Outlook of Modern Physics (1902) 
once more and with emphasis called attention to the hypothetical 
element in the Natural Sciences. What he says of Physics 
applies to all branches of Natural Science. _He says :— 


‘The sooner physics remembers its merely hypothetical character, 
the better will it be for its scientific recognition in public opinion. 
As the Natural Sciences in their fundamental conceptions and 
logical tendencies have become, generally speaking, an echo 
of a philosophic bias formerly dominant, so it is again in the 
second half of the nineteenth century, when they have taken over 
the claim to unqualified certainty from a dethroned speculative 
philosophy. Long has the spirit of the times submitted its faith to 
this claim, but scepticism, which, leagued for so long with the 
Natural Sciences, opposed philosophy, now begins to waver in its 
allegiance. The recoil is strongest where the claims were 
highest, and public adulation of them greatest. The Natural 
Sciences, the hypotheses of which have been accepted by the public 
of the last half century as the infallible dogmas of a new revelation, 
may have to endure temporarily an equally unjustified depreciation 
with that of philosophy in the last generation, unless in good time 
it remembers the hypothetical character of its findings. . . . 
Physics can never attain to a certainty denied to every practical 
science and which is only to be found in a purely formal science. 
It must content itself with the greater or lesser probability of truth 
in its results . . . Its conceptions and laws as well as its 
causes and the existence and constitution of that nature with which 
it deals are alike hypothetical.” 


In truth the expression “absolutely unalterable” is only 
applicable in Natural Law to that which proceeds from human 
intelligence—such as logic and mathematics—the purely 
formal. 

On the other hand, the history of all Natural Sciences shows 
that the argument of Natural Law has only a relative validity. 
lt requires rearrangement from time to time. ‘This is again 
dependent upon the actual occurrences met with in experience. 
If in the study of Natural Science wholly different decisions are 
arrived at, it will be necessary to formulate afresh the Law of 


NATURAL LAW AND MIRACLE. 4,7 


Nature which is therein involved, in order to possess a canon 
which will precisely and fully reconcile that which is charac- 
teristic of one group of natural phenomena with all else that 
we at present perceive in regard to it. 

A “Natural Law” which has held good for a millennium 
may need to be altered or modified to-morrow, through one 
successful experiment or one single discovery. 

For the better appreciation of this, think of the revolution 
wrought by Copernicus in the history of astronomy. Tull his 
time, the theory that the sun revolved around the earth held 
good as a fixed “ Natural Law.” But if anyone were to support 
this “ Natural Law” to-day every third class scholar would 
assign him his place as scientifically obsolete. 

But not only the purport and argument of the Laws of Nature, 
but also the view of the possible or impossible is probably 
subject to the changes of time and the changes of the material 
cosmos. Let us look only at the following facts. 

Medieval theology rejected the thought of the possibility of 
an antipodes with righteous anger as impossible nonsense: yet 
this truth now presents no difficulty to the credence of the 
most illiterate Capuchin friar. 
~ Ina legal manual of the eighteenth century an incidental 
sentence declares that contracts wherein the undertaking of 
one party includes an impossibility are invalid: and it cites as 
an illustration: “as if for instance we should undertake to 
perform a flight in the air.” In a subsequent edition of the 
~ book the writer adds the foot-note, “This instance is no longer 
suitable, for in the meantime M. Montgolfier has invented the 
balloon.” 

And if the apostle Paul in one of his admittedly genuine 
epistles had related that Jesus had rendered Himself visible to 
His disciples through a closed wooden door, the whole natural 
and popular philosophy of the nineteenth century up to the 
date of the discovery of X-rays by Professor Rontgen would 
have declared with one voice that such a “miracle” was 
ludicrously impossible, since it contradicted “the unalterable 
Laws of Nature as known to us.” 

When the first German railway was about to be built, the 
medical faculty of Erlangen expressed their official opinion 
that the prospective passengers would, through the rapid 
transport, become en masse the victims of incurable brain 
diseases. 

A traveller told the negroes in Central Africa that the water 
in Europe became, at certain times of the year, so hard and 


48 DR. LUDWIG VON GERDTELL, ON 


strong that horses and carts could be driven over it. But the 
negroes thought it to be extravagant “brag,” and laughed him 
to scorn. They considered a “miracle” such as that to be 
impossible, for 1t was altogether irreconcilable with the “ un- 
alterable Laws of Nature as known to them.” 

In facts and occurrences such as these, facts which have been 
declared impossible, there is no case of true miracle. Our 
philosophic opponents really stand on the same ground as the 
negroes. This statement is made neither as joke nor insult. 
We desire only to help them to see their own position. The 
fundamental difference between us and them is this: our 
opponents think medizevally and we think as moderns. Our 
opponents subordinate the reliable and attested actuality of 
early Christianity to a dogma of popular philosophy called 
“the unalterable Laws of Nature as known to us.” We, on the 
contrary, subordinate our thought and philosophy to the 
brilliantly proven facts of history. Our opponents have 
respect, but lack the critical faculty for a current dogma. We, 
on the other hand, approach this as we approach all dogma, 
with a critical faculty devoid of respect. In reality it matters 
little whether our opponents derive their dogma of the un- 
alterability of the known laws of nature from the Catholicism 
of the middle ages or from the philosophic enlightenment of the 
twentieth century. Dogma remains dogma. And to play off 
dogma against the united experience of the apostolic age is 
nothing else but to think medizevally. The scientific instincts 
of theological free thought are, in point of fact, medizval, even 
though they may appropriate the set phrases of the modern 
thinker. And the medieval mind represents something that 
must eventually be outstripped by the modern mind. 

These two objections of our opponents represent the main 
argument of the scientific superstition of modern cuiture. The 
superstition is, indeed, only recognised as such by a few. The 
modern world of culture, hypnotized by the phrases of an 
enlightened age, languishes in a bondage of naturalistic dogma, 
of which it is for the most part quite ignorant. We must 
therefore penetrate more deeply into our subject. 

Our opponents really treat the “ Laws of Nature” as if they 
were a mystic power, brooding over the individual occurrences 
of Nature and determining the realisation of their changeless 
course. They put this power in the place of the Godhead, and 
see In it an object of almost divine dignity. Justly does such 
a shrewd and learned observer of the modern world of culture 
as the philosopher Rudolph Eucken say in his Geistegen 


NATURAL LAW AND MIRACLE. AQ 


Strémungen der Gegenwart (1904), “So does the remarkable 
eult of natural law pass from Giordano Bruno through the 
new era to the present time. The more sceptical men are 
to-day about religion, the more do they make a fetish of Natural 
Law. The more audaciously the declaration of a law and 
canon is pressed, the more easily does it find acceptance. We 
are accustomed to look at a fact before we recognize its truth. 
But to doubt a law seems to be a sin against the spirit of 
science.” 

Now how is it really that our opponents have come to lean 
on this dogma of the “absolutely unalterable Laws of Nature ” ? 
The answer is simple enough. Our opponents have observed 
that the occurrences in Nature arrange themselves according to 
certain rules in Nature and recur in regular sequence. From 
this most correct observation they draw the false conclusion 
that these rules in the world of Nature are absolutely 
“unalterable.” The regularity with which natural phenomena 
recur produces in our opponents, simply as a matter of habit, 
the expectation that that which has always till now been, must. 
repeat itself again to-morrow. 

Look at the following case: a child of five years is left alone 
on an island, having never heard of the possibility of the 
death of a human being. There he grows to be an old man of 
seventy. Could this old man, on the ground of the fact that 
he had consciously lived sixty-five years on the island, be sure 
that he would live to be seventy-one? There is no necessity 
for the fulfilment of his expectation. He might pass away the 
following day. Experience alone would inform hin. 

But the fallacy of our opponents is, scientifically considered, 
more short-sighted than the wild imagination of the old man. 
Our opponents forget that to scientific observation only an 
almost infinitesimal fraction of the universe is accessible. And 
their observation is still further lmited to a trifling period 
of time as compared with the time in which the universe has 
existed. , 

The advance of the dogma of the absolute unalterability of 
the Laws of Nature as known to us is thoughtlessly premature. 
It is an expression implying satiety of knowledge and a 
circumscribed dogmatism. 

We can therefore only ask our opponents to lay to heart the 
true utterance of Sigwart, the well-known logician, when he 
says in his Logik (1893): 

‘“‘Tt is but an empty, rhetorical phrase so to speak of the Laws of 
Nature as if the formulary itself operated with magic power on 

B 


50 DR. LUDWIG VON GERDTELL, ON 


phenomena, and to ascribe to such laws a somewhat which does not 
belong to them. Laws can never be reasons for actual happenings, 
they can only express the manner in which practical things con- 
stantly behave.” 


When our opponents, therefore, aver in relation to the 
miracles of early Christianity that they contradict all general, 
natural, and scientifically historical experience, they do not 
thereby in the least disprove their possibility. They do 
naught else by their objection than establish the true con- 
ception of a miracle. For what is a miracie? Answer: An 
occurrence that forms an absolute exception to all general 
experience. 

The first objection, consequently, stripped of its elegant 
phraseology, simply states the following absurdity—an occur- 
rence which has never been experienced, never can be. The 
scientific sentiment lying within this objection of our opponents 
would, if consistently practised, lead to the decline of all exact 
research. It would throw us back into the position of a 
Thomas Aquinas. Itis the negation of the spirit of modern 
science, which spirit we strenuously follow. And we have as 
moderns an interest in the radical and complete disproof of 
the first objection. 

Summarizing we add: 

Our opponents in their first two objections commit the 
following mistakes. They take a scientific working hypothesis, 
which should remain intact in its own sphere as a practical 
guide for the investigator, lift it out of its own place and con- 
fidently elevate it into a dogma of natural philosophy ; that is 
to say, from the hypothetical supposition of the investigator 
that every cause has an effect, and that the same cause pro- 
duces the same effect, they unconsciously evolve a dogma, 
which is to overmaster all experience, the dogma of the Law 
of Causation, all-controlling and absolutely unalterable. 

Considered logically, it is within the power of our opponents 
to raise the doubt as to whether the miracles of early 
Christianity were observed and reported with sufficient 
care to warrant their acceptance as facts. But our opponents 
have no right to play off against us, the adherents of Chris- 
tianity, who have examined these questions, and find ourselves 
compelled to accept the miracles of the apostolic age as facts, 
the Causal principle or any special law of nature; for thus to 
oppose a hypothesis to a fact is a medieval farce. If the 
miracles oi early Christianity—brilliantly, scientifically, his- 
torically attested as they are—really do form exceptions to the 


NATURAL LAW AND MIRACLE. 51 


unalterable Laws of Nature as known to us, then indeed it is 
high time that the genuine modern mind should afresh revise 
his ideas as to the “known and unalterable Laws of Nature,” 
and that he should adjust them to correspond with facts. 
Even then the orthodox Christian has possession of the fact of 
causality, which is only unalterable in the claim of modern 
science, and as its so-called fundamental principle. This 
fundamental principle, so called, is for the Christian thinker 
a postulate only, not a new dogma. We close, therefore, with 
the following thesis: the question of the credibility of the 
miracles of early Christianity is not philosophic but purely 
historic. These miracles may be considered as facts as soon 
as satisfactory proofs of their historic credibility have been 
furnished. 


Vote.—These proofs I have presented in a special study already 
translated into English, viz.: Dr. Ludwig von Gerdtell, Have we 
Satisfactory Evidence of the Miracles of the New Testament? Translated 
by Samuel Hinds Wilkinson. John Bale, Sons, and Danielsson, 83-91, 
Great Titchfield Street, London, W. Price, Ls. 


DISCUSSION. 


Dr. Woops SMyTH thought the interesting paper was particularly 
appropriate at the present time, and contrasted the views of the 
Rey. J. M. Thompson and other University teachers with those of 
Professor Huxley, for example, who sees no difficulty in the 
possibility of miracles, and recognizes that those of the Bible are 
rationally accredited. 

Mr. Martin L. Rouse thought it was a daring assumption that 
God was bound always to work by the common sequences of cause 
and effect, and all the more so because those sequences are subject 
to exceptions. He instanced the case of water differing from the 
general law of contraction with lowering temperature, when it 
reaches 39° Fahr., at which point it begins to expand ; and referred 
to a waterspout acting against the usual law of gravitation. In 
these cases, and many others, a higher law is introduced, and for a 
special purpose. Men, too, utilize higher laws in overcoming lower : 
what possible difficulty therefore could remain to prevent men’s 

E 2 


52 LUDWIG VON GERDTELL, ON 


belief that miracles have been wrought by God for the sustenance 
and deliverance of His people, or by Christ the Son of God for 
confirming the divine origin of His nature and His message ? © 

The Rey. C. L. DRAWBRIDGE said that success in man’s scien- 
tific achievements was in exact proportion to the extent to which he 
acted in harmony with, and not contrary to, God’s orderly govern- 
ment of the cosmos, and asked, “ Did Jesus Christ act in accordance 
with God’s normal government of the cosmos, or did He deliberately 
cut right across it?” and added :—We should also ask by which of the 
two modes of action would He be most clearly displaying His oneness 
with the Creator and Governor of the universe? Let us leave for a 
moment the various ancient and modern schools of theological 
opinion on the subject and get back to what the Master Himself 
said about His achievements. Our blessed Lord studiously avoided 
acquiring a reputation as a wonder worker. The records of His 
sayings and doings have come down to us in Greek, and the one 
word which comes nearest to, although it is by no means identical 
with, our word miracle, is tépara (terata), which means marvels. 
(The other words which are translated “ miracle” in the Authorized 
Version, onpeta (sémeia), dvvapers (dunameis), and €pya (erga), certainly 
do not mean miracle.) Well, Jesus Christ did not employ the 
word tépara (terata) when speaking of His own works, but only 
when referring to false Christs who would arise. And He implored 
His followers not to attach undue importance to such marvels. 
Marvellousness implies no abnormal divine action, but human 
surprise due to ignorance on the part of those who marvel. 
Savages marvel at balloons. The Authorized Version arbitrarily 
introduces the word miracle very frequently, because the Authorized 
Version was translated at a time when men looked for the evidence 
of Providence almost solely in exceptions to uniformity. The word 
miracle was largely left out of the Revised Version, partly 
because it does not occur in the Greek text, and partly because 
men had very wisely come to perceive God’s action in normal 
occurrences, as well as in what appear—at the present stage of our 
knowledge—to be abnormal phenomena of the universe. 

Personally I ascribe the Gospel phenomena to the great divine 
power possessed by Christ, working in accordance with the Creator’s 
usual habits of action, but in such a wonderful manner as to 
transcend—in many instances—our very finite and imperfect 


NATURAL LAW AND MIRACLE. 20 


knowledge of nature, 7.¢., of God’s orderly government of the 
cosmos. 

The CHAIRMAN: It is, in my judgment, important to decide what 
we understand by “miracle.” Assuredly we are not specially 
concerned with the ferata, that is, “‘ wonders,” or acts of prodigy, 
which Christ foretold would be performed by false prophets. Acts 
of a marvellous character, such as might be wrought by deceivers, 
may have their proper interest ; but it is not in order to an under- 
standing of such acts that Christian apologists are to-day devoting 
their earnest thought to the subject before us. Rather the enquiry 
is as to the sémeia, or “signs,” performed by Jesus Christ—not to 
signs in general, but to signs specifically attributed to our Lord— 
that thought is devoted. We are concerned to understand, and 
place in relation to questions of faith, deeds which, as claimed, were 
done by the exercise of divine power, and at length recorded in the 
Gospelsjwith the object of inducing men to accept Christ ; in other words, 
of leading them, although originally biased against Him, to believe on 
Him, to rely on Him, as the Son of God, according as we read in 
John xx, 30, 31, cp. v. 29. Strictly speaking, investigations 
regarding miracles pass by, or ignore, mere wonders, and concern 
themselves with deeds and performances which manifestly challenge 
a recognition of the hand of the Infinite. In this light, certain 
narratives recorded in the Old Testament assume an importance 
alongside those of the New, and, above all such miracles, alike in 
significance and influence, stands the victorious resurrection of 
Jesus Christ from the dead. 

Rev. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S., said that if we were to avoid 
confusion in our discussion we must have a little clearer definition 
of our terms. We must take care not to deny the reasonableness of 
the distinction between the natural and the supernatural. By the 
natural I suppose we mean all that belongs to the cosmos—the 
organized creation—which will include the subjects of all our 
sureness, whether physical or otherwise. But there is, of course, 
something beyond. The supernatural must have existed before 
the natural, and be the antecedent from which it has sprung. The 
cosmos must have had a beginning, but before that beginning there 
was the supernatural Creator, the Author of it. Again scientific 
knowledge must be distinguished from science properly so called. 
Science is a fixed quantity and cannot be added to until our Creator 


54 DR. LUDWIG VON GERDTELL, ON 


sees fit to create some new fact. But scientific knowledge is 
continually changing and growing. Hence, an occurrence cannot 
be described as a “miracle” because it does not come within the 
circle of our scientific knowledge. Dr. von Gerdtell’s definition of 
a miracle is inadequate, and, of course, he did not intend it to be 
taken as logically and scientifically sufficient. The freezing of 
water would not be a miracle to the King of Bantam, merely 
because he did not understand it. If I may venture to describe a 
miracle, I should say it is an effect produced in the sphere of the 
natural by a force in that of the supernatural. Our Lord’s miracles 
of healing the blind and restoring limbs to the maimed cannot be 
explained by natural laws, and could not have been an imposition 
upon the ignorance of the observers. It was the power of the 
supernatural breaking through into the sphere of the natural. 
There is nothing contrary to reason in this, although it may be 
above the sphere of reason. Our Creator, having given freedom to 
our wills, cannot be less free than we are, and if we are able to 
modify the operation of natural laws, surely we must allow to Him 
a still greater power. 

The miracles of our Lord were the exercise of the divine 
freedom to overrule and supersede mere natural law by the intro- 
duction of. supernatural power. 

A cordial vote of thanks to the Lecturer was put to the meeting 
and carried unanimously. 

Professor LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.Sc., wrote :—In this 
thoughtful and interesting paper the able author has established 
his contention that the ‘“‘laws of nature,” or uniform natural 
sequences, do not preclude the possibility of miracle. He might 
have carried the argument further, and shown that science affirms 
that miracles have actually taken place. We shall undoubtedly 
agree with his conclusion (page 45) that “a present system of 
natural law” can—“ strictly speaking—never pledge the past or 
future.” 

The value of the paper is impaired by what is, in my judgment, a 
serious misnomer. The reasoning process described by the author 
as springing up from the three roots of association, inquiry, 
experience, is a very different thing from “the causal principle” or 
“the law of causation.” This principle is innate to the mind. 
Being a primary intuition, it is the root of inquiry, and is 


NATURAL LAW AND MIRACLE. 5D 


independent of experience and of the association supplied by 
experience. Its formula is, “ Every effect flows from some cause, 
and like effects flow from like causes.” Without the causal principle 
science cannot advance a step—it is far more than a “ working 
hypothesis.” Were it really opposed to belief in miracle, we should 
have to “consider of it”; but, in reality, the belief in miracle finds 
in the (true) causal principle invincible support, complete justification. 

I cannot accept the definition of a “miracle” on page 50, which 
appears to include such things as radium, wireless telegraphy, etc. 

Colonel MACKINLAY writes:—I heartily agree with the con- 
clusions of Dr. von Gerdtell that miracles may be considered as 
facts, as soon as satisfactory proofs of their historic credibility have 
been furnished—and they have been furnished. 

Though our author’s definition of natural law, given on page 38, is 
excellent, he hardly seems to have adhered to it throughout his 
paper, as for instance, when he considers the astronomical ideas 
before the time of Copernicus (page 47). There is surely a great 
difference between the laws of nature and the theories or working 
hypothesis deduced from them, which are liable to constant change. 

Hume?* wrote of a miracle as ‘a violation of the laws of nature,’ 
and as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition 
of the Deity.” But these are very erroneous methods of expression. 

Augustinet wrote, ‘‘ How can that be contrary to nature, which 
takes place by the will of God, seeing that the will of the Great 
Creator is the true nature of everything created? So miracle is 
not contrary to nature, but only to what we know of nature.” 
Dr. Sanday,{ commenting on this remarkable passage, wrote, 
‘“‘ Miracle is not really a breach of the order of nature; it is only 
an apparent breach of laws that we know, in obedience to other 
and higher Jaws that we do not know.” ‘The late Duke of Argyll§ 
wrote, ‘Miracles may be wrought by the selection and use of 
laws of which man knows and can know nothing, and which, if he 
did know them, he could not employ.” 

Far from miracles involving violations of law, it would appear 
from scripture that they are performed in accordance with 1t— 


’) 


* Philosophical Works, vol. iv, pp. 93-105. 

+ De civitate Det, xvi, 8. 

t The Life of Christ in Recent Research, p. 216. (1907.) 
§ The Reign of Law, p. 16. 


56 DR. LUDWIG VON GERDTELL, ON 


though the law is in a higher plane from that which can be 
appreciated by mere human intellect. This is the deduction from 
the following passages: Matt. xii, 58; Mark ix, 23; Acts xiv, 10; 
Matt. ix, 29; Mark ii, 5, x, 52; Luke xvii, 42. 

In all these instances a law is evident, that certain miracles could 
only be performed when faith was present on the = of the 
recipient. 

The Victoria Institute is to be congratulated on the widespread 
sources from which its papers come. Within less than a year and 
a half we have a paper from an American judge, afterwards another 
from a Swiss professor, and now we are indebted to a distinguished 
German author for the present valuable essay. 

Mr. J. O. CoRRIE wrote: Inductive reasoning is, as the 
lecturer points out, not demonstration. But the presumption 
against miracle, that arises from observed causality in nature 
(notably in the domain of astronomy), is reinforced by the thought 
that an exceptional interference by the Creator in His own order 
of things would be derogatory to His wisdom and dignity. 

This is met by the observation that the state of things on earth, 
through all known history, cannot be regarded as being purely of 
His order. The villainies of mankind (to say nothing of the 
cruelties of nature) evince the action of some malign power. 

The deprivation of the divine order by such a power accounts 
for, and justifies, miraculous interposition. 

Mr. W. E. LEestre wrote: After carefully perusing Dr. Ludwig 
von Gerdteil’s interesting paper on Natural Law and Miracle I 
cannot but feel that he errs in his treatment of the principle of 
causation. 

Think for a moment of a few of the consequences of the denial 
of the necessity of causation. History disappears, and with it the 
historic Christ. The scriptures may have come into existence 
fortuitously—without writers. The New Testament miracles may 
have happened of themselyes—in other words, did not happen, fora 
fortuitous oypéov is a contradiction in terms. Nay, the philo- 
sophical basis of theism itself is destroyed. A first cause may be 
eis pean with in a universe which, “considered with critical 
accuracy,” may have come into existence by chance. 

I cannot enter into a detailed examination of Dr. von Gerdtell’s 
arguments, but would like to make one or two remarks on his three 


~ 


NATURAL LAW AND MIRACLE. i Wt 


psychological “roots” of the idea of causality. Before doing so may 
| suggest that his evident firm conviction that the causal principle 
must have a “root” is somewhat inconsistent with his theories :— 

(a) The exact nature of the first root is not clear. ‘The conten- 
tion appears to be that our constant consciousness of the 
mechanical operation of the association of our ideas gives 
rise to our idea of causation. Is not this equivalent to the 
assertion that our idea of causality is derived from our 
perception of the mechanical working of that principle. 
This may be true, but how does it help the Doctor’s 
argument ? 

(b) Surely the statement of the second “root” should be 
reversed. Is not the idea of causation the root of the 
instinct of inquiry? A child sees a railway engine go 
‘* puff, puff.” He feels there must be some adequate reason 
or cause for this. He yearns to know what that cause is— 
hence his inquiries. The idea of causality is necessarily 
presupposed by the query ‘“‘ Why ?” 

(c) The third “root” implies that the repetition of a given 
sequence causes me to become gradually convinced that the 
two phenomena constituting the sequence are causally 
related. If this be so, why do I not believe day to be the 
cause of night, and 12 o’clock of 1 o'clock? As a matter 
of fact, we do not experience this growing conviction. A 
chemist performs a new experiment. Though he performs 
it but once he is perfectly convinced that, on the conditions 
being reproduced, he will always obtain the same result. 

Dr. von Gerdtell next cites the belief of Homer and others in 
the intervention of gods and demons in the course of nature, as an 
evidence that they did not believe in the inviolability of the causal 
principle. But this is beside the mark. The ancients believed, not 
that these prodigies were wncaused, but that they were super- 
naturally caused. Even Epicurus or Aristotle would have found it 
difficult to believe that a field of wheat had sprung into being 
uncaused, 7.¢., without growth from seed sown, on the one hand, or 
the powerful intervention of some supernatural being, on the 
other. ' 

At the end of his first part Dr. von Gerdtell states that the 
causal principle ‘‘is the essential antecedent to all human thought 


58 DR. LUDWIG VON GERDTELL, ON 


and action.” If this be true must not every criticism of that 
principle rest upon the assumption of its truth ? 

I conclude in the words of Mill: 

“In every case of alleged miracle, a new antecedent is affirmed 
to exist; a counteracting cause, namely, the volition of a super- 
natural being. ‘To all, therefore, to whom beings with superhuman 
power over nature are a vera causa, a miracle is a case of the Law of 
Universal Causation, not a deviation from it.” 

Dr. VON GERDTELL, in a considered reply, writes: The Rev. 
John Tuckwell asserts that “ Dr. von Gerdtell’s definition of a miracle 
is inadequate, and of course he did not intend it to be taken as logi- 
cally and scientifically sufficient,” but Mr. Tuckwell gives no proof 
of his assertion. It has evidently escaped Mr. Tuckwell that I am 
discussing the actual possibility of miracles not with those who 
believe in God, but with atheists and agnostics. I can only argue 
with the latter on a basis that they recognize. 

I think, however, that any declared unbeliever would accept my 
definition of a miracle, and would reject Mr. Tuckwell’s; for he brings. 
the idea of ‘‘God” into the discussion, which the unbeliever would 
summarily reject as an extremely doubtful theological hypothesis. 
But Mr. Tuckwell’s definition of a miracle as “an effect produced 
in the sphere of the natural by a force in that of the supernatural” 
would not be sufficient even for a believer in God. According to 
the Biblical view, which I have fully dealt with in connection with 
the miracles ina German treatise, al] natural events are produced by 
the direct operation of God. From the Bible point of view, then, 
the characteristic distinction of the miracle as opposed to the ordin- 
ary, regular natural event would be annihilated by Mr. Tuckwell’s 
definition. Mr. Tuckwell’s point of view is the scholarly, not the 
Biblical point of view, when he says, “‘ the miracles of our Lord were 
the exercise of the Divine freedom {¢o overrule and supersede mere 
natural law by introduction of the supernatural power.” But this 1s. 
beside the point. The whole question in what relation God stands 
to the cosmos, and especially to the miracles, has nothing to do with 
out present subject. I shall deal very fully with this important. 
point in my pamphlet “ The Early Christian Miracles at the Bar of 
Modern Views,” which will be published this winter by Morgan and 
Scott in English. 

Professor Orchard touches upon one of the deepest questions of 


NATURAL LAW AND MIRACLE. 59 


philosophy, which for lack of space and time we cannot solve here. 
Professor Orchard—an Englishman—treats the origin of the causal 
principle in the German manner; whereas I, a German, treat it in 
the English manner—.e., Professor Orchard represents rather Kant’s 
view—and I, on the other hand, Hume’s view. Nevertheless, I do 
not identify myself with Hume by any means. In my view the 
causal principle is not innate in man; the spirit of inquiry only is 
innate and given to man before any experience. The causal 
principle, on the other hand, is the scientific decision to which 
civilized man has gradually worked his way in the course of history 
as the result of that spirit of inquiry which he has in reality always 
retained. The spirit of inquiry has exactly the same relation to 
the causal principle as the innate moral instinct in man has to his 
later moral maxims. The former is to be found in man before any 
experience, but the latter is avowed as the principle of his moral 
life at a later stage, as the result of the moral instinct together with 
the experience of the individual. 

Professor Orchard cannot seriously assert that the properties of 
radium or wireless telegraphy form an absolute exception to the 
whole of our scientific experience. Both are rather to be judged in 
accordance with the principles of chemistry and physics known to 
us. I have, of course, no intention of placing the Resurrection of 
the Lord Jesus on the same plane as wireless telegraphy. Radium 
always has the same properties, and wireless telegraphy always acts 
when the natural conditions are supplied. On the other hand, no 
man can supply the natural conditions which would cause every 
dead body to return to life. 

Mr. Lesle forgets that I make a distinction in my statements, 
as I have already shown in reply to Professor Orchard, between the 
instinct of inquiry and the principle of causation. Mr. Leslie 
confuses the two, or wrongly identifies the one with the other. The 
instinct of inquiry is innate and precedes all experience. It is the 
assumption of the possibility of knowledge. The instinct of 
inquiry is a powerful mental impulse that impels us to seek for a 
cause for every event. The principle of causation, on the other 
hand, is a methodical principle, which the civilized man has 
voluntarily accepted as the result of the instinct of inquiry that he 
has in reality always retained. ‘The principle of causation is the 
offspring of the instinct of inquiry and of experience. The instinct 


60 DR. LUDWIG VON GERDTELL, ON NATURAL LAW AND MIRACLE. 


of inquiry impels us to seek a cause for all we see. But the belief 
that everything that happens fas a cause is the outcome of 
experience exalted into a method. 

When we read the Biblical scriptures or contemplate the world, 
our instinct of inquiry impels us to ask, Who is the author of these 
scriptures? What is the cause of this world? The fact, however, 
that every document has an author and every work of art a maker, is 
a commonplace of experience. From this point of view Mr. Leslie’s 
suggestion that I am demolishing the foundation of theism and of 
Christianity is refuted. I ask, then, in complete logical harmony 
with these convictions of mine, on the basis of my instinct of inquiry 
and of my experience, What are the roots of the principle of 
causation? My instinct of inquiry impels me to ask the question 
as to the roots of the principle of causation, and all my experience 
leads me to expect confidently on the ground of the psychic 
mechanism of the association of ideas that the principle of causation 
itself has its “ roots.” 

To Mr. Leslie’s assertion that, according to my views, the day 
must be considered to be the cause of the night, my answer is: The 
night certainly does follow the day regularly, but it precedes the day 
with equal regularity. By the term “cause” I understand only an 
event which always follows the cause, and never precedes it. When 
a chemist makes a new experiment he expects that in accordance 
with his general experience the experiment will succeed in all future 
repetitions, as all the previous experiments have done. 

Finally, Mr. Leslie asserts that in my view the ancients (Homer, 
etc.) did not believe in the inviolability of the principle of causation, 
as they supposed their gods to intervene in the course of nature 
and history. As a matter of fact, they believed that the supposed 
miracles were caused, though supernaturally caused. 

I assert, therefore, on page 43, only that Homer “ knows nothing 
of an absolutely inviolable natwral causation.” 

Aristotle and Ipicar no doubt did not go so far as to suppose 
that a field of corn grew up without any cause. But my statements 
above about them are nevertheless simply historical facts, which we 
have to accept. 


524TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING, 
HELD (BY KIND PERMISSION) IN THE 


LECTURE HALL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS, 
MONDAY, JANUARY 8ru, 1912, AT 4.30 Pm. 


THE CHAIR WAS TAKEN BY THE REV. CANON GIRDLESTONE, M.A. 


The Minutes of the last Meeting were read and confirmed, and the 
following elections were announced :— 


Memper.— Walter Henty, Esq. 


AssociaTES.—The Dowager Lady Pearce and Rev. J. Stuart Holden, M.A. 


The CHAIRMAN in introducing the lecturer, the Rev. George 
Milligan, D.D., Professor of Biblical Criticism at Glasgow University, 
said: There are two things that are interesting to all housekeepers, 
one is pottery and the other is paper. Even the children are interested 
in paper about Christmas time because it so often wraps up their 
Christmas presents, but very few people know the ancestry of paper 
or pottery. Now, however, archeological science has fixed its 
attention on broken pottery and fragments of paper; pottery as old 
as the days of the Roman Emperors and paper older still. I think 
when we regard the records of the Palestine Exploration Fund we 
find that the study of broken pottery is becoming a science, and that 
there are strata in pottery as in the earth’s surface. When you go 
from pottery to paper you do not find strata, but you find matters 
of great interest. Two things which we have taken the most interest 
in in this connexion are the census taken by the old Roman Emperors, 
and the language in which the old papyri are written. You get 
there the language of some of the earliest days of Christianity. 
Dr. Deissmann’s enthusiasm has so carried him away that he almost 
refuses to recognize anything which should be called Hellenistic, 
because he knows what we call Hellenistic should be called the 
popular language of the people. After all, however, we cannot forget 
that Judeo-Greek, which is another name for Hellenistic, means 
Jewish thought in the Greek language. As Rabbi Duncan said, the 


62 REV. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D., ON THE GREEK PAPYRI. 


Jews thought in Hebrew but talked in Greek, so that you must 
interpret their Greek language with the aid of Hebrew. I have 
the very great pleasure of introducing Dr. Milligan, from Glasgow, 
Professor of Biblical Criticism in that great City and University, 
who has come down from his northern regions to give us a little 
light on this most intricate question. 


The following paper was then read by the author :— 


THE GREEK PAPYRI: with special reference to their value for 
New Testament study. by the Rev. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D. 


HE most significant fact in the modern study of the New 
Testament is the recognition that it has a history, and con- 
sequently that its several books can only be fully understood in 
connexion with their surroundings or the special circumstances 
that called them forth. Everything, therefore, that throws hght 
on the outward conditions of the New Testament writers is of 
value. And it is just here that we are in a peculiarly favourable 
position to-day. In the past, archeological discovery has been 
mainly concerned with the Old Testament, but now the light it 
sheds has been extended to the New Testament, and is largely 
derivable from the immense number of texts on stone, on earthen- 
ware, and on papyrus which recent discoveries have brought 
within our reach. 

It is only with the papyrus texts that we are at present 
concerned, and for their preservation we have to thank the 
marvellously dry climate of Egypt. The first finds were made 
at Gizeh as far back as 1778, but it was not until 1877, when 
several thousands of papyri were unearthed at Crocodilopolis, or 
Arsinoé, the ancient capital of the Fayim district, that public 
interest was fully aroused. The work of exploration was after- 
wards extended to Tebtunis, Oxyrhynehus, and other likely sites, 
with the result that we have now thousands of these texts in our 
hands. 

Some were discovered in the ruins of old temples, others 
in the cartonnage ef munimies; but the greater number were 
found in what were literally the dust or refuse heaps on | 
the outskirts of the towns or villages. The old Egyptians, 
instead of burning their waste-papers, as is the custom amongst 
ourselves, were in the habit of tearmg them up and throwing 
them out on these heaps, where, thanks to a covering of desert 
sand, they have lain in safety all these years. 

Of the character of these papyri I shall have something to 


REV. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D., ON THE GREEK PAPYRI. 63 


say directly, but it may be well to explain first what papyrus is, 
and how it was prepared. It was the ordinary writing material, 
the paper of the time, and was made from the papyrus plant 
which then grew in great profusion in the Nile. The pith of 
the stem was cut into long strips, and a number of these were 
laid down vertically to form an outer layer. Over this a second 
layer was placed horizontally. And then the two layers were 
hammered or pressed together to form a single sheet, which, 
when it had been smoothed over with ivory ora shell, was ready 
for use. If more space than a single sheet afforded was required, 
a roll, which might be of any length, was formed by fastening a 
number of single sheets together. 

Of the papyri now available a considerable number contain 
literary texts, both of works previously known, and of others, of 
which hitherto we have possessed only the titles. Amonest 
these new texts are fragments of Sappho and Pindar, the 
Constitution of Athens by Aristotle, the Mimes of Herodas, and 
the Hypsipyle of Euripides. But the great bulk of the papyri 
are non literary, and their contents are of the most miscellaneous 
character, reports of legal proceedings, wills, contracts, accounts, 
and so forth, and in addition a large number of private letters, 
often of the most artless and self-revealing character. 

Let me give you an example, a letter* written in 1 B.c. by a 
certain Hilarion to Alis, his sister, and also, probably, according 
to the custom of the period, his wife. It runs as follows :— 


‘Hilarion to Alis, his sister (wife), heartiest greetings, and to my 
dear Berous (Bepotri ty Kvpia pov) and Apollonarion. Know that we 
are still even now in Alexandria. Do not worry if, when all the 
others return, I remain in Alexandria. I beg and beseech of you 
(epwT® oe kai Tapakaho ce) to take care of the little child, and as 
soon as we receive wages (ofaviov AaBwper, cf. 1 Cor. xi, 8) I will 
send them to you. Ii—good luck to you!—you bear offspring, if it 
is a male, let it live; if it is a female, expose it. You told 
Aphrodisias, ‘Do not forget me.’ How can I forget you? I beg 
you, therefore, not to worry. 


“The 29th year of Cesar, Pauni 23.” 
(Addressed) “Hilarion to Alis, deliver.” 


Simple though this letter is, it is very significant. To the 
palzographer its value is undoubted, seeing that it is exactly 


* Full particulars regarding this, and most of the other documents 
quoted in this lecture, will be found in the lecturer’s Selections from the 
Greek Papyri, published by the Cambridge University’Press. 


64 REV. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D., ON THE GREEK PAPYRI. 


dated by year and month. To the historian it throws a sad 
side-light on the social customs of the time. And even to the 
New Testament student it, along with similar documents, 
presents indirectly not a few points of great interest and 
importance. Before, however, proceeding to these, let me 
indicate some of the direct contributions which the new 
discoveries have made to our knowledge of the sacred writers 
and their times. | 

Amongst these must be reckoned the recovery of a large 
number of fragmentary texts of our Biblical writings, some of 
which are older in point of date than any previously available. 
This, in the Old Testament field, the famous Papyrus Nash, now 
in the Library of Cambridge University, presents us with a 
manuscript text of the Decalogue, which must have been 
written five or six hundred years before the oldest Hebrew 
manuscript now in our possession, and which, with certain 
variations, in the main confirms the accuracy of the text we 
find in our Hebrew Bibles. Similarly, when we pass to the 
New Testament, we have now recovered fragmentary portions 
of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke belonging to the 
end of the third century, and a papyrus roll containing a 
considerable part ot the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is 
generally assigned to the early years of the fourth century. Of 
much the same date is a leaf with the first seven verses of 
Romans, written in large rude uncial characters, which the 
discoverers, Dr. Grenfell and Dr. Hunt, pronounced to be a 
schoolboy’s exercise. Dr. Deissmann, however, in his Light 
Jrom the Ancient East (p. 232), adopts the view that the papyrus 
really served as an amulet for the Aurelius Paulus who is 
named in the cursive writing beneath the New Testament 
text. We know from other sources how widely the early 
Christians used amulets as a protection against harm, and this 
may well be an additional example of the practice. In any case 
the simple and rude character of the writing is of interest as 
showing how widely by this time the New Testament writings 
had penetrated amongst all classes cf the population. And in 
this same connexion we may note in passing the recent recovery 
of certain leaves of such small dimensions that they point to 
the existence of pocket editions of various parts of the canonical 
and uncanonical writings of the day. 

Amongst these uncanonical writings, special mention may be 
made of the so-called Logia or Sayings of Jesus. In 1897, 
Dr. Grenfell and Dr. Hunt discovered at Oxyrhynchus the leaf 
of a papyrus-book containing eight Sayings, several of which 


REV. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D., ON THE GREEK PAPYRI. 65 


closely resembled certain Sayings of Jesus recorded in 
the Gospels. Others, however, were new, such as the famous 
fifth Saying—‘ Jesus saith, Wherever there are (two), they are 
not without God (a@eov),and wherever there is one alone, I say, 
I am with him. Raise the stone, and there shalt thou find me ; 
cleave the wood, and there am I.” Six years later a similar leaf 
from a papyrus-book was found, this time containing five 
Sayings, of which it must be sufficient to quote the first. “ Jesus 
saith, Let not him who seeks . . . cease until he find, and when 
he finds he shall be astonished ; astonished he shall reach the 
Kingdom; and having reached the Kingdom, he shall rest.” 
The exact amount of authority to be attached to these Sayings 
is still a matter of eager discussion amongst scholars; but, in 
the main, they may be regarded as embodying a more or less 
genuine account of certain words of our Lord, which had been 
banded down by tradition, and had been collected for purposes 
of devotion or instruction. 

Other documents which have awakened a_ wide-spread 
interest are the census returns, or house-to-house enrolments, 
of which a large number have been recovered. As these returns 
are dated, it can now be conclusively established that the enrol- 
ments followed a cycle of fourteen years, and though no return 
has yet come to light earlier than the year a.p. 19-20, it is 
generally agreed that the whole system was originated by 


ro) 
Augustus as early as 10-9 B.c. Let me give you an example 
of one of these returns. i shall take it from the year 
A.D. 48, as we have a very complete example belonging to that 


- year. 


‘To Dorion strategus . . . from Thermoutharion, the daughter 
of Thoonis, with her guardian Apollonius, the son of Sotades. There 
are living in the house which belongs to me in South Lane 
Thermoutharion, a freedwoman of the above-mentioned Sotades, 
about 65 years of age, of medium height, dark complexioned, long 
visgged, a scar on the right knee. Total, three persons. 

1, the above-mentioned Thermoutharion, along with my guardian, 
the said Apollonius, swear by Tiberius Claudius Cesar Augustus 
Germanicus Emperor, that assuredly the preceding document makes 
a sound and true return of those living with me, and that there is no 
one else living with me, neither a stranger, nor an Alexandrian 
citizen, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian, in 
addition to the aforesaid. If I am swearing truly, may it be well 
with me; but if falsely, the reverse. 

In the ninth year of Tiberius Claudius Cesar Augustus Germani- 
cus Emperor, Phaophi 4 

F 


66 REY. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D., ON THE GREEK PAPYRI. 


Closely connected with these returns, and of still greater 
interest for the New Testament scholar, as one of the many 
proofs which are accumulating from all sides to confirm the 
accuracy of St. Luke as an historian, is an extract from a 
rescript by a Roman Prefect in Egypt in the year ap. 104, 
ordering all persons to return to their homes in view of the 
census about to be held in the seventh year of Trajan. The 
original document, which is now preserved in the British 
Museum, is unfortunately much mutilated, but there can be 
little doubt as to the correct reading of the passage which 
concerns us. It runs as follows :— 


“Seeing that the time has come for the house-to-house census, it 
is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatever are 
residing out of their nomes to return to their own homes, that they 
may both carry out the regular order of the census, and may also 
attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments.” 


The analogy here presented to Luke ui, 1-4, is obvious, and 
shows that Herod, when he issued his command, was acting 
under Roman orders. 

I can only refer to one other of the new finds as throwing 
light on the history of early Christianity All have heard of 
the great Decian Persecution in 4.D. 250, in which, in order to 
save their lives, certain recusant Christians obtained certificates, 
or Jibelli, as they were called, from the magistrates to the effect 
that they had sacrificed in the heathen manner. Of these libella 
no fewer than six have been found, and it is deeply touching to 
be able to look upon these frail papyrus leaves, with their direct 
evidence of the human weakness of those to whose acts they 
bear witness. The one which I am about to quote has been 
published by Dr. Hunt among the f&ylands Papyri, and the 
different handwritings of the different parties concerned are 
still clearly discernible on the original document. Here it is 
in Dr. Hunt's translation :— ‘ 

“To the commissioners of sacrifices from the Aurelia Demos, who 
has no father, daughter of Helene and wife of Aurelius Irenzus, 
of the Quarter of the Helleneum. It has ever been my habit to 
sacrifice to the gods, and now also I have in your presence, in 
accordance with the command, made sacrifice and libation and 
tasted the offering, and I beg you to certify my statement. 
Farewell. 

2nd hand.) I, Aurelia Demos, have presented this declaration. 
I, Aurelius Irenzus, wrote for her, as she is illiterate. 


Loa 2) 


REV. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D., ON THE GREEK PAPYRI. 67 


(3rd hand.) I, Aurelius Sabinus, prytanis, saw you sacrificing. 
(1st hand.) The first year of the Emperor Cesar Gaius Messius 
Quintus Trajanus Decius Pius Felix Augustus, Pauni 20.” 


From this, the direct value of the new discoveries in 
supplying us with new and original documents, it is more than 
time that we turned to their indirect significance for the New 
Testament student. This comes out in many ways. I can only 
indicate a few of the more important :— 


1. The papyri help us to picture to ourselves what must 
have been the outward appearance of our New Testament 
autographs. 

A short Pauline epistle, such as the Epistle to Philemon, 
would occupy a single sheet of papyrus, measuring from 5 to 
54 inches in width and 9 inches to 11 inches in height; 
while in the case of the longer epistles, a number of these 
sheets would be fastened together to form a roll. When 
finished, the roll would be rolled round upon itself, fastened 
with a thread and sealed, and then the address was written on 
the back. If the general practice of the time was followed, 
that address in the case of the New Testament writings would 
be of the briefest, all the more so because the private mes- 
sengers to whom they were entrusted would be fully informed 
as to writers and recipients. For preservation, rolls, after being 
read, were fastened together in bundles, and laid in arks or 
chests. And it will be readily seen how unsigned rolls, laid in 
the same place and dealing with cognate subjects, would in 
some cases come to be afterwards joined together as if they 
formed parts of one work, while in the case of others questions 
of authorship and destination might readily arise. 

In accordance again with the ordinary custom of the day, and 
various hints thrown out in themselves, there can be little doubt 
than many of the New Testament writings were in the first 
instance written to dictation. 

Just as in innumerable papyrus letters we find the statement 
“T, So and So, wrote on behalf of So and So,” because he was 
too illiterate to write for himself, or could only write slowly, so 
we can understand how St. Paul, burdened as he was with 
daily work and innumerable other cares, would gladly avail 
himself of the assistance of some friend or follower in the 
actual labour of transcribing his Epistles. And once we have 
realized this, it becomes a further very important question, 
What was the method of the Apostle’s dictation? Did he 
dictate his letters word for word? Or was he content to supply 

F 2 


68 REV. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D., ON THE GREEK PAPYBRI. 


a rough draft, leaving the scribe to throw it into more formal 
and complete shape? In all probability his practice varied, 
and it may well be that the differences in diction and style in 
the Pauline writings, which a certain school of critics are apt to 
make so much of, are due in part at least to the employment of 
different scribes, and the amount of liberty that was left to 
them. 

Of the variety of readings that soon arose in connection with 
the New Testament writings I shall say only this, that it can 
be explained to a great extent by the very nature of the 
material on which the original writings and the early copies 
were written. Papyrus, if a very durable, is also a very brittle 
substance. And as the result of frequent handling, many 
breaks or /acune would arise, which the copyists would have to 
fill up by conjecture or by an appeal to the context. And 
when we add to this consideration the fact that these copyists 
were not professional scribes, and that the writings themselves 
were not at first regarded as of so sacred or authoritative 
character as to make even deliberate changes of text impossible, 
it is easy to understand how the worst corruption of the text 
of our New Testament writings can be traced to the first 
century of their transmission. 

2. Passing trom the outward form of the New Testament 
writings to their literary character, we are at once met withthe fact 
that by far the greater part of these consist of epistles or letters. 
It was a mode of writing which at the time had come to be 
widely used for purposes of instruction and edificatien, and in 
which St. Paul and other of our New Testament writers found 
a vehicle ready to their hands admirably adapted for the 
personal and practical ends they had in view. 

We are not surprised, therefore, to find that the general plan 
of the Pauline Epistles is often closely moulded on that of the 
simple, homely letters which the desert sands have restored to 
us. An example will again make this clearer. Let me read 
to you a letter written in the second century after Christ by 
a soldier to his father, to announce his safe arrival in Italy, 
and to tell those at home how he is faring. 


“ Apion to Epimachus, his father and lord, heartiest greetings. 
Above all, I pray that you are in health and continually prosper, 
and fare well with my sister and her daughter and my brother. I 


thank the lord Serapis that when I was in danger at sea he 


straightway saved me. When I entered Misenum I received my 
travelling money from Czesar—three gold pieces. And lam having 
a good time. I beg you, therefore, my lord father, write me a few 


a FF — -— ia. 


REV. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D., ON THE GREEK PAPYRI. 69 


lines, first regarding your health, secondly regarding that of my 
brother and sister, thirdly that I may kiss your hand, because you 
have brought me up well, and on this account I hope to be quickly 
promoted, if the gods will. Give many greetings to Capito, and to 
my brother and sister, and to Serenilla, and my friends. I send 
you a little portrait of myself at the hands of Euctemon. My 
(military) name is Antonius Maximus. I pray for your good health. 
The Athenian Company . . . Give this to (the office of the) 
first cohort of the Apamzans to Julianus, paymaster from Apion, 
so that (he may forward it) to Epimachus his father.” 


Now, when we leave out of sight the wholly different 
character of the contents, you will notice that the general plan 
of his letter-—(1) Address and Greeting, (2) Thanksgiving and 
Prayer, (3) Special Contents, (4) Closing Salutations and 
Benediction—is exactly the plan which as arule St. Paul follows 
in his Epistles. And the point is of importance, as I have 
already indicated, as emphasizing that in these epistles we are 
dealing with living documents, written to meet immediate and 
pressing needs. And consequently that, in order to understand 
them, we must do our utmost to picture to ourselves the persons 
alike of their writers and first readers. 

3. This same point comes out again very clearly in the light 
which our new discoveries throw on the language of our New 
Testament writings. It has now been conclusively established 
that this language is in the main the ordinary vernacular Greek 
-of the day, and consequently these humble papyrus documents 
and letters often give a fresh reality and significance to many 
well-known New Testament words and phrases. A good 
example is afforded by the word which St. Paul uses to describe 
the attitude of his Thessalonian converts in view of the 
Parousia of Christ. He speaks of them, according to our English 
version, as “behaving themselves disorderly” (11 Thess. 11, 7), 
and some commentators have thought that he was pointing to 
serious moral misconduct on their part, but the use of the same 
verb in a contract of apprenticeship of the year A.D. 56 in the 
sense of “playing truant,” shows that what the Apostle has 
really in view is a neglect of daily work and duty. The 
Thessalonians were so excited over the thought of the Parousia, 
which they believed to be close at hand, that they were failing 
to show that quiet attitude of confidence and work which their 
Lord would expect of them when He came. And similarly it 
is interesting to learn that the very word Parousia, which we 
have come to use as a kind of technical term for that Coming, 


70 REV. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D., ON THE GREEK PAPYRI. 


was in use at the time to describe the “ visit” to any district of a 
king or great man. Consequently it points to Christ’s Parousia not 
so much as a Return, but as a Coming, a Presence, which not even 
His absence from sight for a little while had been able really to in- 
terrupt, and which, when fully re-established, would last for ever. 

So, again, Bishop Lightfoot’s graphic translation of Gal. iii, 1, 
“Q foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes 
Jesus Christ was posted up, placarded before you,” receives fresh 
confirmation when we find the parents of a wayward son 
giving orders that an order or proclamation should be placarded 
(zpoypadjvac) to the effect that no one any longer should lend 
him money, while the verb used to describe the conduct of the 
lad in the body of the document, “living riotously ” (a4e@tevo- 
fevos), at once recalls the corresponding description of the 
prodigal in the Gospel, who wasted his substance “ with riotous 
living” (Cav aow@tas, Luke xv, 13). 

Examples might easily be multiplied, but these are sufficient 
to show how much may be learned from the most unexpected 
quarters regarding our New Testament vocabulary. 

4. The same applies to the help which the papyri afford in 
restricting the general surroundings of those to whom in the 
first instance our New Testament writings were addressed. 

From no other source can we gain so clear an idea of the 
conditions under which Christianity arose with reference to the 
humbler classes of the population. These—among whom the 
new teaching found many of its earliest and warmest ad- 
herents—are deliberately ignored by the historians of the 
time. But now it is just the life of these common people 
which these frail papyrus leaves, written with their own hands, 
bring before us with almost startling vividness. 

Notices of birth, of death, contracts of marriage, deeds of 
divorce, actions for assault, arrangements for village festivals, 
etc., all let us see the men and women of the day, as it were, in 
the flesh; while their letters of repentance and mourning, 
their inquiries for help from oracles and dreams, show that, 
even if they were “much addicted to religion,” the religions 
of the day were powerless to meet their deepest needs. 

To prove this, I cannot do better than read to you one or two 
of these documents. I have referred already to one poor 
prodigal son, here is the actual letter of another (see p. 76), in 
which he pours out his sorrow and repentance to his mother. 
The last part of the letter has been torn across, and yet I think 
you will feel that these broken lines and sentences are almost 
more pathetic than if they were complete. 


REV. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D., ON THE GREEK PAPYRI. 71 


‘‘ Antonis Longus to Nilis his mother, heartiest greeting. Con- 
tinually I pray that you are in health. Supplication on your behalf 
I direct each day to the lord Serapis. I wish you to know that I[ 
had no hope that you would come up to the metropolis. On this 
account neither did I enter into the city. But I was ashamed to 
come to Karanis because I am going about in a disgraceful state 
(campos). I wrote you that I am naked (yvpvos). I beseech you, 
therefore, mother, be reconciled to me (d:zAaynri wor). Furthermore, 
I know what I have brought upon myself. Punished I have been, 
in any case. I know that I have sinned (ofda, dru judprnka). I 
heard from Postumus, who met you in the Arsinoite nome, and 
unreasonably related all to you. Do you not know that I would 
rather be a cripple than be conscious that I am still owing anyone 


an obolus . . . come yourself . . . I have heard that 
I beseech:you .-... J almost <=. J beseech you 
Pwilen../ . hot = +. x! otherwise ss 


Or take this letter, in which a woman named Irene seeks to 
comfort a friend who has lost a son :-— 


‘‘Trene to Taonnophris and Philo, good cheer! I was as much 
grieved and wept over the blessed one as I wept for Didymas, and 
everything that was fitting I did and all who were with me : 
But truly there is nothing anyone can do in the face of such things. 
Do you therefore comfort one another.” 


Apparently a bereavement she herself had sustained leads 
Irene thus to mourn with those who mourn. But how sadly 
-conscious she is of the little she can do! Nothing of the 
consolation of I Thessalonians iv, 14-18. Nothing of “the 
comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God” (see 
1m Corinthians 1, 4). 

A sidelight of a different character is afforded by a specimen 
of one of the amulets which, as we have seen, the early 
Christians were in the habit of wearing. This one was dis- 
covered by Professor Wilcken, of Leipzig, at Heracleopolis 
Magna in the year 1899, and is assigned by him to the sixth 
century after Christ. It was apparently worn round the neck, 
and may be translated as follows :— 


“Q Lord God Almighty, the Father of our Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ, and thou, O holy Serenus. I, Silvanus, the son of 
Sarapion, pray and bow my head before Thee, begging and beseeching 
that Thou mayst drive from me Thy servant the demon of witch- 
craft . . . and of enmity. Take away from me all manner of 
disease and all manner of sickness, that I may be in health 
to say the prayer of the Gospel (thus): Our Father, who art in 


72 REY. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D., ON THE GREEK PAPYRI. 


heaven, hallowed be Thy name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will 
be done, as in heaven so on earth. Give us to-day our daily bread, 
and forgive us our debts, even as we also forgive our debtors. And 
lead us not into temptation, O Lord, but deliver us from evil. For 
Thine is the glory for ever. . . . O Light of light, true God, 
graciously give Thy servant light. O holy Serenus, supplicate on 
my behalf, that I may be in perfect health.” 


These, then, are specimens of our new discoveries. And 
enough, I hope, has been said to show of what living and 
varied interest they are. If they do nothing else, they at least 
make the past live, and show us in the flesh the men and 
women amongst whom Christianity found its earliest converts. 
There may not unnaturally, in view of their romantic character, 
be a tendency in certain quarters to exaggerate the importance 
of the new discoveries. At the same time I am convinced that 
they have a very real message for us, and that the more they 
are studied the more will they be found to throw hght of a 
very clear and enduring kind on the outward circumstances 
and conditions under which our New Testament books were 
written. 


DISCUSSION. 


The CHAIRMAN after the address said: Ladies and Gentlemen, 
we have had a great treat. We have all learned many things. We 
have learned what a treasure may be in a broken piece of pottery, 
and it is a curious thing that the Palestine Exploration Magazine, which 
came out to-day, shows the connection between papyri and ostraka. 
Mention has been made of a lady’s “ marriage lines,” and all the 
presents made to her by her expectant husband are named; along- 
side of this we read of some kindred discoveries made in Gezer in 
the way of pottery. Jam very glad that Dr. Milligan spoke of the 
‘so-called Logia,” and emphasises the “ so-called.” 

Lieut.-Colonel ALVES asked if the Greek of the New Testament, 
commonly called ‘ Hellenistic,” and which he had seen described as 
‘Greek with three centuries of a Hebrew education,” was that of 
ordinary daily use, as contrasted with that used by the great Greek 
classic writers. 

Archdeacon POTTER asked if the extracts from the Epistle to the 
Romans and other New Testament writings found in the Papyri 
supposed to date from the third century have on comparison with 
our existing MSS. dating from the fourth century, the Sinaitic and 


REV. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D., ON THE GREEK PAPYRI. 73 


Vatican, been found to agree with them in the main, or are there 
any important variations ? 

Mr. E. R. P. Moon: What were the proportions of literary or 
non-literary output written, at the period under review, upon vellum 
and parchment on the one hand, and on papyrus on the other, in 
Egypt?” 

Mr. Martin Rouse asked if the Lecturer thought St. Paul’s 
large letters were due to his weakness of sight or tendency to 
blindness. 

In proposing a vote of thanks, Colonel MACKINLAY said: 
It is my pleasing duty to propose a hearty vote of thanks to our 
learned lecturer. The Council of the Victoria Institute frequently 
find a difficulty in obtaining subjects for papers, which are fully 
in accord with its chief objects and aims, which are to make use 
of all the available results of science and investigation in the 
elucidation of the Holy Scriptures. 

But the subject this afternoon is most suitable, the handling of it 
has been extremely interesting and instructive, and we owe a debt 
of gratitude to Professor Milligan for the great help he has given us. 
I have much pleasure in moving that we offer him our sincere 
thanks. 

Dr. THIRTLE said: It affords me great pleasure to second the 
resolution. If in regard to such researches as have been explained 
this afternoon our obligation to the German scholar, Dr. Deissmann, 
is great, none the less is it true—and beyond question true—that, 
as English scholars or students, we owe a heavy debt to Professor 
Milligan. Possibly some who have heard to-day’s lecture may not 
be aware of the devotion with which Dr. Milligan has pursued this 
subject for many years past. ‘To such, and indeed to all, I earnestly 
commend his volume, recently issued, Selections from the Greek 
Papyrt (Cambridge University Press), a work which should be in 
the hands of any who require a manual introductory to the important 
subject now before us. I may also remark that, in collaboration 
with Dr. J. Hope Moulton, of Manchester University, the Professor 
has, for several years past, been contributing to The Expositor a 
series of ‘‘ Lexical Notes from the Papyri”; and thus he has done 
much to place within reach of students a profoundly interesting 
body of material, supplemental in a rich degree to that supplied by 
the best modern Lexicons of the Greek New Testament. 


74 REV. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D., ON THE GREEK PAPYRI. 


As one who has followed these matters with some diligence, I 
must confess to a feeling that, in regard to this phase of New 
Testament study, the present are really good days in which 
to live! From the most unexpected quarter there has come 
to us light which invests the study of the New Testament with 
a new and lively interest—in fact, in some respects, a quite 
surprising interest. We are now able to lay aside certain lexical 
helps of a generation ago, which, though ingenious, were largely 
speculative and far from satisfying, and we have the comfort 
of placing our feet on the rock-bottom of linguistic assurance. Now, 
as never before, we are able to study the words of Christ and 
His Apostles in the light of the every-day life and feelings of the 
common people to whom their ministry meant so much, And, more- 
over, we are ever expecting an increase of knowledge from the same © 
quarter—a zest-giving experience to which our fathers and grand- 
fathers were utter strangers. 

May I hazard a brief reflection? Surely one message of the 
Papyri is that the New Testament is a living book—a book of 
divine instruction, given in human words and phrases. ‘Though there 
is nothing commonplace about the Gospel, yet it was assuredly pro- 
mulgated in commonplace conditions. Hence the constituent books 
of the New Testament were not written by professional scribes and 
given to the world on material of great commercial value ; but rather 
they were written by men of practical feeling and religious purpose, 
who sent their thoughts abroad in the simple speech of the people, 
written on material such as served the work-a-day purposes of non- 
literary communications. In a word, the New Testament shows 
itself to be essentially a book for the people—not so much a volume 
for the library shelf, as a budget of reading for the hands of men 
and women, to be copied and circulated, to be translated and 
diffused, even as these operations continually engage the energies of 
our modern Bible Societies. 

Dr. MILLIGAN, in reply, said: I feel that it is I who owe you 
thanks for listening to me for such a long time. With reference to 
the questions that have been asked, I may say that Hellenistic 
Greek is a somewhat vague term, but, generally speaking, it refers 
to the later Greek that was in use throughout the Greco-Roman 
Empire at the beginning of the Christian Era. And the important 
point for our present purpose to notice is, that recent discoveries 


REV. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D., ON THE GREEK PAPYRI. 79 


have conclusively proved that it was this Greek, not in its literary, 
but in its more colloquia] or popular form, that, as a rule, was used 
by our New Testament writers. As regards Archdeacon Potter’s 
question, it is the case that our new fragments, so far as they go, 
in the main confirm the text which we find in the Vatican and 
Sinaitic Codices. Again, to pass to Mr. Moon’s question, I 
must content myself with saying that, during the period under 
review, papyrus was undoubtedly the principal writing material in 
use in Egypt for literary and non-literary purposes. Parchment, 
though already long in use in a rough form for scribbling and other 
purposes, does not appear to have been generally employed for 
literary works till about the fourth century. As to what we are to 
understand by the “large letters” of Gal. vi, 11, it seems to me that 
they may be very readily explained as the ruder, less practised 
writing of the man who wrote but little, as compared with the more 
cultured hand of the scribe who wrote the body of the Epistle. We 
have no evidence that St. Paul suffered permanently from defective 
eyesight. Acts ix, 18, seems to point to a complete cure of the 
blindness caused by the Damascus vision, and the thorn in the 
flesh from which he afterwards suffered need not, notwithstanding 
Gal. iv, 15, have had anything to do with the actual state of the 
Apostle’s own eyesight. 


REV. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D., ON THE GREEK PAPYRI. 


76 


OF THE SECOND 


TTER FROM A PRODIGAL SON TO HIS MOTHER, 


LE 


oii 


TURY A.D. See p. 


CEN 


indebted to 


the Director of the Royal Museums, Berlin, to whom our thanks are 


cordially extended.—Ep. 


is produced we are 


1s 


h th 


For the photograph from whic 


525TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 


HELD IN THE ROOMS OF THE INSTITUTE ON MONDAY, 
JANUARY 22np, 1912, AT 4.30 P.M. 


Mr. E. J. SEWELL, MEMBER OF COUNCIL, PRESIDED. 


The Minutes of the last Meeting were read and signed, and the 
SECRETARY announced the following elections :— 


Memeser: Rev. Evan H. Hopkins. 


Associates : Herman R. Wyatt, Esq., Vernon Roberts, Esq., Miss 
Sophia M. Nugent, Mrs. C. 8S. Hogg, Miss Grace D. Gardiner. 


The CHAIRMAN in calling upon Mr. MAUNDER to read his paper 
said: It would be ridiculous for me to propose to introduce 
Mr. Maunder to any meeting at the Victoria Institute. He is so 
well known to us all as an active member of the Council and as an 
untiring and interesting lecturer for the Institute that any 
introduction is quite superfluous. 

The subject on which he is to read a paper is in itself very 
interesting. But we are accustomed to seeing it dealt with in 
newspapers and magazines by writers who only half-know what 
they are talking about and who, consequently, very often much 
misunderstand the information which they pass on in their articles. 
It is, therefore, an intellectual treat to have the subject dealt with 
by a writer who not only thoroughly knows his subject but, as 
many audiences can testify, has the art of making what he says 
thoroughly intelligible to people who are unacquainted, or only 
moderately acquainted, with the technicalities of astronomy and 
astro-physics. 


78 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON THE 


On subjects such as the conditions of existence on planetary 
bodies altogether inaccessible to direct observation it is imperative 
that we should distinguish between (1) known and established facts, 
(2) inferences of high probability, based on established facts, but still 
made subject to various assumptions, and (3) speculations as to facts 
which may possibly be the result of highly hypothetical conditions. 
Most of those who deal with this subject are unable to keep these 
three categories distinct, and stumble in the half-light of imperfect 
knowledge. Mr. Maunder walks with a sure step in the light of 
clear and definite knowledge, and we are therefore fortunate in 
having him for our guide. 


The following paper was then read by E. WaLtTER Maunprr, Esq., 
F.R.A.S. :-— 


THE CONDITIONS OF HABITABILITY OF A PLANET ; 
with Special Reference to the Planet Mars. 


NHE first thought which men had concerning the heavenly 

bodies was an obvious one: they were lights. There was 

a greater light to rule the day, a lesser light to rule the night, 
and there were the stars also. 

But with the acceptance of the Copernican theory, this world 
on which we live, while losing its pride of place as the centre 
of the universe, from another point of view received a pro- 
motion, in that itself it became a heavenly body of the same 
order as some of those that shine down upon us. And, as the 
earth is an inhabited world, the question naturally arises “ May 
not these bright lights of heaven also be, lke it, inhabited 
worlds?” There is a strong and natural desire to obtain an 
affirmative answer to the question; all men would greatly 
delight to be able to recognize the presence of races similar to 
our own upon other worlds in the depths of space. 

What do we mean by an “inhabited” world? We know 
quite well what we mean by an “ inhabited” island. When an 
explorer in his voyage lights upon a land hitherto unknown, no 
richness of vegetation, no fullness and complexity of animal life 
will warrant him in describing it as inhabited. He can only 
give it that title if he should find men there. Similarly, if we 
speak of a planet as being habitable, we mean that it is suitable 


CONDITIONS OF HABITABILITY OF A PLANET. 79 


for the presence of beings that we could recognize as being 
essentially of the same order as ourselves, possessing an intelli- 
vent spirit lodged in an organic body. Animals without 
intelligence could not be dignified by the title of “inhabitant,” 
nor could disembodied intelligences, such as men have fabled to 
live in rocks, or streams, or trees—fairies, nymphs and elves 
and the like—be accurately described by the same term. We 
may readily imagine that in outward form the inhabitants of 
another world might differ very greatly from ourselves, but, like 
us, they must be possessed of intelligence and self-consciousness, 
and these qualities must be lodged in and expressed by a living, 
material body. Our inquiry is a physical one; it is the necessi- 
ties of the living body that must guide us in it; a world 
unsuited for living organisms is not, in our sense, a habitable 
world. 

What constitutes a living organism ? It is almost impossible 
to give a comprehensive and satisfactory definition, yet we all 
know some of the chief characteristics of an organism. In the 
first place it is a machine. Like man-made machines it is a 
storehouse of energy, but it differs from artificial machines in 
that, of itself and by itself, it is continually drawing non-living 
matter into itself, converting it into an integral part of the 
organism, and so endowing it with the qualities of life, and it 
derives from this non-living matter fresh energy for the 
carrying on of the work of the machine. The living organism, 
therefore, is continually changing its substance, while it remains 
as a whole essentially the same. As Professor 8. J. Allen has 
remarked: “The most prominent and perhaps the fundamental 
phenomenon of life is what may be described as the energy 
tragic, or the function of trading in energy. The chief physical 
function of living matter seems to consist in absorbing energy, 
storing it in a higher potential state, and afterwards partially 
expending it in the kinetic or active form.” 

Here is the wonder and mystery of life, the power of the 
living organism to assimilate dead matter, to give it life, and 
bring it into the law and unity of the organism itself. But it 
cannot do this indiscriminately; it is not able thus to convert 
every dead material; it is restricted, narrowly restricted, in its 
action. 

First of all, living organisms are not built up out of every 
element; four elements must always be present and be 
predominant; the four being hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and 
carbon. The compounds which these four elements form with 
each other in living organisms are most complex and varied, 


80 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON THE 


and they also admit to combination, but in smaller proportions, 
a number of the other elements, of which we may take sulphur 
as an example. 

This fact disposes at once of the vague plea which is some- 
times raised, “Is it not possible that there may be life upon 
other worlds under physical conditions totally different from 
those which prevail here?” We cannot think it, for the 
evidence of the spectroscope has shown us that the same 
elements that are familiar to us here are present, not only in 
our sun, but in the most distant stars. And more than that, 
the elements have the same properties there as here. For the 
evidence of the spectrum of a body is evidence of its essential 
structure, far more searching than any chemical analysis could 
possibly give; it reveals to us the qualities of its ultimate 
molecules. 

The same elements therefore exist throughout space, and exist 
with the same qualities. Nor are we able to call into imagined 
existence other elements of which we know nothing with 
properties quite unrelated to those of the known elements. 
For the Periodic Law has shown us that the elements do not 
exist as isolated phenomena, to which we could in imagination 
add indefinitely in any direction, but that they are strictly 
related to each other in all their properties. If, therefore, 
organic life on another world could be built up of elements 
other than the four which form its chief basis here, we should 
have the same phenomenon occurring within our own experi- 
ence. We may therefore dismiss, as a wholly chimerical 
hypothesis, the suggestion that the conditions of life as we find 
them here may be abrogated elsewhere. 

What are the conditions of habitability here on this world ? 
They have never been more happily stated than by Ruskin ir 
his Modern Painters. 

“ When the earth had to be prepared for the habitation of 
man,a veil, as it were, of intermediate being was spread between 
him and its darkness; in which were joined, in a subdued 
measure, the stability and the insensibility of the earth and the 
passion and perishing of mankind. 

“ But the heavens also had to be prepared for his habitation. 
Between their burning light—their deep vacuity—and man, as 
between the earth’s gloom of iron substance and man, a veil had 
to be spread of intermediate being—which should appease the 
unendurable glory to the level of human feebleness, and sign 
the changeless motion of the heavens with the semblance of 
human vicissitude. Between the earth and man arose the 


CONDITIONS OF HABITABILITY OF A PLANET, 81 


leaf. Between the heaven and man came the cloud. His life 
being partly as the falling leaf and partly as the flying 
vapour.” 

The leaf and the cloud are the signs of a habitable world. 
The leaf, that is to say, plant life, vegetation, is necessary 
because animal life is not capable of building itself up from 
inorganic material. This step must have been previously taken 
by the plant. The cloud, that is to say water-vapour, is neces- 
sary because the plant in its turn cannot directly assimilate to 
itself the nitrogen from the atmosphere. The food for the plant 
is largely brought to it by water, and it assimilates it by the 
help of water. Life on a planet therefore turns upon the 
presence of water, the great neutral liquid and general solvent, 
the compound of the two most abundant elements, hydrogen 
and oxygen. There is no other compound of like properties 
and simplicity of constitution that could take its place, or that 
the elements could supply in such abundance. We cannot 
imagine a world wherein bisulphide of carbon or hydrochloric 
acid or any other such compound could discharge the functions 
which water fulfils here. It is, therefore, upon the question of 
the presence of water that the question of the habitability of 
a given world chiefly turns. In the physical sense man is 
“born of water,” and any world fitted for his habitation must 
“stand out of the water and in the water.” 

Where shall we find such another world? There were two 
bodies whose surfaces men could study to some extent, even 
before the invention of the telescope—the sun and the moon. 
But we are able now to determine the temperature of the sun 
with some approach to precision, and we know that not only is 
it far too hot for the presence of vegetation, but it is so hot that 
oxygen and hydrogen would usually refuse to combine there. 
The components of the molecules of water would be driven 
asunder ; water would be dissociated. And as with the sun so 
with all the stars, for they, in various measures and degrees, are 
all suns. The moon also is without the leaf and the cloud; its 
surface has been drawn, photographed and measured over every 

_square mile, until the side visible to us has been more thoroughly 
surveyed than our earth, but it shows us only bare unchanging 
rock. A man placed there could draw no nutriment from the 
atmosphere around him, or the soil beneath; no vapour would 
ever soften the hardness of the heaven above, no leaf the 
hardness of the rock below. 

But what of planets? There may be planets circling round 
the stars, or there may not be; we have no means of knowing, 

G 


82 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON THE 


and we cannot discuss that about which we are totally ignorant. 
Our survey, therefore, is confined to the planets of the solar 
system and we turn naturally to Mars, the one that is next 
beyond us in distance from the sun, because its position enables 
it to be easily observed from time to time, and its surface is 
the one that we know best. 

But Mars at its average distance is 140,000,000 miles from 
us ; 34,000,000 miles even at its nearest approach. The mere 
mention of distances so great, so far beyond our power to 
appreciate, seems at once to put it out of the question that Mars 
should be able to offer us any evidence, one way or the other, as 
to whether it is inhabited by intelligent beings. That we should 
be able to gather any evidence at all, for or against, is a 
remarkable achievement. 

It is more remarkable still that an able and experienced 
astronomer should have convinced himself that he has obtained 
evidence of the actual handiwork upon Mars of highly intelligent 
and capable beings. This discovery—if discovery it be—is 
asserted by Mr. Percival Lowell, a wealthy American, who for 
the last eighteen years has been studying the surface of Mars 
with the most admirable diligence and skill. According to him, 
the surface of the planet is covered by a network of very fine 
lines, looking like the meshes of a spider’s web. These lines, 
popularly known as “ canals,” are, as Mr. Lowell describes them, 
so narrow, hard, regular and straight that he considers we are 
shut ap to believe them to be artificial constructions, the work 
of very intelligent engineers. The points, too, where the 
“canals” intersect are often marked by dots, usually known as 
“ oases,’ which are just as regular in their way, being, according 
to Mr. Lowell, truly circular. And he claims that the object 
of these two types of structure is quite clear. Five parts out of 
seven of the surface of our own globe are occupied by our 
oceans, but on Mars there are no great oceuns, and at best only 
two or three small seas. The store of water on Mars has run 
low, and Mr. Lowell’s theory is that the inhabitants have 
constructed vast irrigation works, by which the water from one 
polar cap or the other is brought, as it melts, to lower latitudes. 
The long, dark lines seen on the planet are not, according to 
him, the actual “canals” themselves. but the straths of vegeta- 
tion springing up along their banks. Where several “canals ” 
meet, there a circular area of considerable size is brought under 
cultivation, and these are the “oases.” Clearly such vast 
engineering works, extending, as they do, to every portion of the 
planet, could not be carried out without the ordered co-opera- 


CONDITIONS OF HABITABILITY OF A PLANET, 83 


tion of its entire population. Accepting the argument that the 
regularity of the “canals” and “oases” proves that they are 
artificial, we reach the conclusion not only that there are 
intelligent beings on Mars, but that they must have achieved 
a complete political unity, and have developed intellectual 
powers and a command over the forces of nature which far 
outstrip anything that we as yet have been able to accomplish 
here. 

The study of the surface of Mars goes back almost to the 
time of the invention of the telescope, the earliest drawing 
extant having been made in the year 1636. In 1666, Robert 
Hooke, the Gresham Professor of Astronomy, and Secretary to 
the Royal Society, detected several dark spots on the planet, 
and in the same year Cassini discovered that Mars rotated upon 
it axis in a period of about twenty-four hours forty minutes. 
The next great advance was made by Sir William Herschel, 
who during the oppositions of 1777, 1779, 1781, and 1783, 
determined the inclination of the axis of Mars to the plane of 
its orbit, measured its polar and equatorial diameters, and ascer- 
tained the amount of the polar flattening. He paid also special 
attention to two bright white spots upon the planet, and he 
showed that these formed round the planet’s poles, and increased 
in size as the winter of each several hemisphere drew on, and 
diminished again with the advance of summer, behaving there- 
fore as the snow does in our own polar regions. 

The next stage in the development of our knowledge of 
Mars must be ascribed to the two German astronomers, “Beer 
and Madler, who made a series of drawings in the years 1830, 
1832, and 1837, by means of a telescope of four inches aperture, 
from which they were able to construct a chart of the entire 
globe. This chart may be considered classic, for the features 
which it represents have been observed afresh at each 
succeeding opposition. The surface of Mars therefore possesses 
permanent features, and some of the markings in question can 
be identified not only in the rough sketches of Sir William 
Herschel, but even in those of the year 1666, made by Hooke 
and Cassini. In the forty years that followed, the planet was 
studied by many of the most skilled observers, and in 1877 the 
late Mr. N. E. Green, Drawing Master to Queen Victoria, and 
a painter in water-colours with a most delicate appreciation 
of colouring, made a series of sketches of the planet from a 
station inthe island of Madeira, 2,000 feet above sea level. 
When the opposition was over, Mr. Green collected together a 
large number of drawings and formed a chart of the planet 

G 2 


84 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON THE 


much richer in detail than any that had preceded it, and from 
his skill, experience and training as an artist he reproduced the 
appearance of the planet with a fidelity that had never been 
equalled before and has not been surpassed since. At this time 
it was generally assumed that Mars was a miniature of our own 
world. The brighter districts of its surface were supposed to 
be continents, the darker, seas) As Sir William Herschel 
had already pointed out, long before, the little world evidently 
had its seasons, its axis being inclined to the plane of its orbit 
at much the same angle as is the case with the earth ; it had its 
polar caps, presumably of ice and snow; there were occasional 
traces of cloud; its day was but very little longer than that of 
the earth; and the only important difference seemed to be that 
it had a longer year, and was a little further off the sun. But 
the general conclusion was that it was so like the earth in its 
general conditions that we had practically found out all that 
‘there was to know; all that seemed to be reserved for future 
research was that a few minor details of the suriace might be 
filled in as the power of our telescopes was increased. 

But fortunately for progress this sense of satisfaction was 
rudely disturbed. As Mars, in its progress round the sun, 
receded from the earth, or rather as the earth moved away irom 
it, the astronomers who had observed so diligently durimg 
the autumn of 1877 turned their attention to other objects, but 
one of them, Schiaparelli, the most distinguished astronomer on 
the continent of Europe, still continued to watch the planet, 
and as the result of his labours he published some months later 
the first of a magnificent series of Memoirs, bringing to light 
what appeared to be a new feature. His drawings not only 
showed the “lands” and “seas,” that is to say the bright and 
dark areas, that Green and his predecessors had drawn, but aiso 
i: number of fine, narrow, dark lines, crossing the “lands” in 
every direction. These narrow lines are the markings which 
have been so celebrated, I might say so notorious, as the “ canals 
of Mars.” The English word “canal” gives the idea of an 
artificial watercourse, an idea which Schiaparelli himself had 
no intention of creating ; he had called them canali or “ channels,” 
and it is quite possible that the controversy as to their nature, 
which has been carried on for so many years, would never have 
arisen but for the unfortunate mistranslation into English of the 
canali as “canals.” 

Yet the controversy itself has not been unfortunate, for it has 
focussed attention upon Mars in a way that perhaps nothing 
else could have done, and since 1877 the most powerful telescopes 


~ 


CONDITIONS OF HABITABILITY OF A PLANET. 85 


of the great public observatories of the world have been turned 
upon the planet, and the most skilful and experienced astronomers 
have not been ashamed to devote their time to it. 

There is no need to attempt to review the immense mass of 
observations that have been accumulated in the last thirty-five | 
years. We may take as representative of the two parties in the 
controversy Mr. Lowell himself, who has observed Mars with 
such perseverance for the last eighteen years, on the one side, 
and on the other, M. Antoniadi, an architect by training and 
an astronomer by genius, who has even a longer record to show. 

In the opposition of 1909, Mr. Lowell was observing Mars 
from his observatory at Flagstaff, Arizona, a site carefully chosen 
by himself for the good definition obtained there, while 
M. Antoniadi had the use of the great 33-inch refractor of the 
Meudon Observatory, near Paris. The former showed the planet 
as covered with a perfect network of “ canals,” which he describes 
as “narrow regular lines of even width throughout, running 
with geometric precision from definite points to another point 
where an oasis is located.” These canals are drawn as following 
the arcs of great circles, and sometimes extend almost half 
round the planet, disregarding all inequalities of surface, and 
Mr. Lowell speaks of them as being so straight that in a 
drawing they have to be put in by the aid of a ruler, a freehand 
line not being straight or uniform enough. M. Antoniadi, on 
the other hand, though he shows “canals” of a kind, shows 
them as streaks, that is to say, they have not the hardness, the 
narrowness, or the uniformity of Mr. Lowell’s representations. 
They are not mere geometrical lines, but have characteristics of 
their own; there is no trace of any geometrical network, looking 
like the figure of a proposition in Euclid, and M. Antoniadi is 
quite clear that such network does not exist. Yet his drawings 
show an immensity of fine detail, much of which escaped the 
scrutiny of Mr. Lowell. 

Within the last few years it has been found possible to 
enlist the services of photography in this connection. The 
difficulties of doing this can only be appreciated by those who 
have actually attempted it. First of all, the size of the image 
of the planet depends upon the focal length of the telescope, 
and at a good opposition the diameter of the image of Mars 
formed by a mirror or object glass is just one ten-thousandth 
part of that focal length. In other words, a telescope one 
hundred inches long, that is 8 feet 4 inches, would give an 
imave only one-hundredth of an inch in diameter, a mere 
pinpoint. If, however, we desire the image to be only one- 


86 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.B.A.S., ON THE 


fifth of an inch in diameter, the telescope would have to be 
167 feet in length. At Mount Wilson a telescope has actually 
been constructed with an equivalent focal length of 150 feet; 
if this were mounted like an ordinary telescope, it would be 
impossible to give it the necessary rigidity, and any wind would 
set up tremors in it which would be fatal to the chance of 
securing good photographs. But by firmly fixing the telescope 
and reflecting the light irom the planet into it, from a mo 
mirror, this “difficulty has been overcome. At the Yerkes 
Observatory and at Mr. Lowell’s smaller telescopes have been 
used and the image of Mars has been enlarged afterwards. But 
though a wonderful success has attended these efforts of 
Mr. Lowell and of Professors Barnard and Hale, the photographs 
have not settled the controversy. Mr. Lowell finds “canals” 
on his photographs, though it must be added that in appearance 
they are more like M. Antoniadi’s representations than Mr. 
Lowell’s own drawings. Professor Barnard’s photographs, 
which appear to be the best that have yet been secured, show, 
on the other hand, nothing that is canaliform, but they 
reproduce most closely the beautiful paintings made by the 
late Mr. Green, thirty-five years ago. 

The actuality of the “geometrical network” is, therefore, 
still in dispute; is there anything about the planet that is not 
in dispute ? 

Two facts about the planet had been ascertained long before 
the invention of the telescope; its distance from the sun as 
compared with that of the earth was known to be more than 
half as much again. This implies that it receives from the sun 
only three-sevenths the amount of light and heat, suriace for 
surface, that the earth does. The length of its year was also 
known ; it is much longer than that of the earth, being only 
six weeks short of two full terrestrial years; expressed in days. 
it is 687 as compared with our 565} days. 

Since the invention of the telescope the distance of Mars 
from the sun has been measured, not only relatively, but in 
miles, and the size and weight of the planet have been deter- 
mined. The latter was inferred from the movements of the 
two tiny satellites discovered in 1877. We know that Mars is 
but little more than half the earth in diameter ; in volume it is 
only about one-seventh ; and in mass only one-ninth that of the 
earth. Its density, therefore, is about five-sevenths of the 
earth, and the attraction of gravitation at its surface is not 
much more than one-third as much as it is here. On the eartha 
falling weight will pass through sixteen feet in the first second ; 


CONDITIONS OF HABITABILITY OF A PLANET. 87 


the same object on Mars would only pass through six feet in the 
same time ; consequently, all movements on Mars that are the 
effect of gravitation are much slower than they are here, and 
this implies that its atmospheric circulation must be sluggish. 
The late R. A. Proctor, unequalled in his day as a popular 
writer on astronomy, made one of his few mistakes when he 
described Mars as a planet swept by hurricanes. The less the 
attractive power of the planet the more languid must the 
movements of its atmosphere be; we know with certainty that 
there are no hurricanes on Mars. 

The feeble action of gravity has another effect. On the earth 
if we ascend some three and a third miles, say about as high as 
the top of Mont Blanc, we find that the barometer reads just 
half of what it does at the sea level; half the atmosphere has 
been passed through. At double that height the pressure would - 
be halved again; it would be only one-quarter of that at sea 
level. On Mars the level of half pressure will be at nearly 
nine miles from the surface, and of quarter pressure at nearly 
eighteen miles. This relation we may briefly express by saying 
that the barometric gradient is much steeper for the earth than 
for Mars, and it follows that however thin and rare the atmos- 
phere may be at the surface of Mars, yet at only a few miles 
height the pressure must be the same for the two planets, and 
above that height the pressure for Mars would be the greater. 

It is quite clear that Mars has not much atmosphere ; its 
surface markings are seen far too distinctly for it to be 
possible to suppose that we view them through anything like 
the amount of air that exists above the earth; indeed it is very 
doubtful whether an observer on the planet Venus could make 
out anything of our geography through the veil that our atinos- 
phere spreads round us. It is generally supposed that the 
atmospheric pressure at the surface of Mars may be about 
one-seventh of that on the earth, equivalent to the sort of 
atmosphere that we should find about nine miles high above 
the earth. This would be about the atmospheric density that 
Mars might claim if atmospheres were dealt out to planets in 
proportion to their masses. But it appears probable that with 
planets as with people, the strongest get the lion’s share; to 
those that have it is given, and from those which have not, 
even that which they seem to have is taken away. The above 
estimate, therefore, must be taken as the highest possible, 
probably much higher than the fact; for a little planet like 
Mars cannot have the power of acquiring or retaining an atmos- 
phere possessed by so much heavier a globe as the earth. 


88° E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON THE 


These are the two chief factors regulating the condition 
of a planet; the amount of light and heat received by it, and 
the density and distribution of its atmosphere. Within the limits 
of the solar system the first depends upon its distance from 
the sun ; the second upon the size and density of the planet 
itself. 

There is a simple way by which we may take a first step 
towards appreciating the result of the greater distance of Mars. 
If we take the earth at one of the equinoxes we shall find that 
as much light and heat from the sun falls upon three square 
yards at the equator as falls upon seven in latitude 644°. 
This difference is, of course, due to the angle on which the 
higher latitude is presented to the sun, and we find that while 
the mean temperature at the equator is about 80 degrees Fahr. 
that of latitude of 643° is quite 50 degrees lower. As the 
mean temperature of the earth as a whole is about 60 degrees, 
we should from this way of looking at the problem take the 
mean temperature of Mars as about 10 degrees, that is to say, 
22 degrees below freezing point. So far then Mars would seem 
to be as much worse off than the earth, as a place within the 
Arctic Circle is worse off than the equator, but we have to add 
the further drawback «that, owing to the thinness of the 
atmosphere of Mars, we should have to select within the 
Arctic Circle the top of a mountain ten miles high to compare 
with a station on the sea level at the equator. 

But we have omitted as yet a number of considerations all 
of which tend in the same direction, and all against the 
habitability of the planet. Five-sevenths of the surface of the 
earth is covered with water, and water is the great equaliser 
of temperature. The atmospheric circulation of the earth, too, 
is quick and efficient, so that our equatorial regions are much 
cooler, our polar regions much warmer than they would be if 
the air and water of the earth were stagnant. It is probable 
that the difference in temperature between the equator and 
latitude 643° would be quite doubled if it were not for the 
equalising influences of our atmosphere and seas, aud that we 
ought to put the mean temperature of Mars as 100 degrees 
below that of the earth. Professor Poynting, by another 
method, has reached the same figure, and puts it as 40 degrees 
below zero, the freezing point of mercury. 

Hardly less important than the mean temperature of a planet 
is the range of temperature. At Greenwich the mean maximum 
(lay temperature for the middle of July is about 75 degrees, the 
mean minimum night temperature for the middle of January is” 


CONDITIONS OF HABITABILITY OF A PLANET. 89 


about 35 degrees, a range of 42 degrees. This range is not that, 
between the ver y highest and lowest temperatures ever recorded, 
but the average range between the hottest part of the day in 
summer and the coldest part of the night in winter. Britain 
is however an island, and the surrounding ocean tempers our 
climate and contracts the range of temperature very greatly. 
A continental climate in the same latitude would show a range 
about twice as great. 

This range of temperature is, on the average, smallest at the 
equator, greatest at the poles; the length of the day and night 
being invariable at the equator, while at the poles there is but 
one day and one night in the whole year. The range therefore 
increases with the latitude. On Mars, where the year is nearly 
twice the length of ours, the range from equator to pole must 
be much greater than on the earth; the more so that the absence 
of oceans and the sluggishness of tle atmospheric circulation 
would leave unmodified the full effect of a polar day anda 
polar night each almost as long as a complete terrestrial year. 

The range in any particular latitude would also be greater 
than on the earth. We know that during the night the earth 
radiates into space the heat which it has received from the sun 
on the previous day, and the rarer and drier the air, the more 
rapid the fall of temperature. But the Martian air is so thin 
that during the day it offers no hindrance to the heating effect 
of the sun’s rays upon the soil, and during the night little or 
_ no hindrance to radiation; it cannot play the part fulfilled by 
the earth’s atmosphere of imparting heat that it has gathered 
during the day to the soil during the night. The conclusion 
therefore reached by the late Professor Newcomb is generally 
accepted by astronomers, that “during the night of Mars, even 
in the equatorial regions, the surface of the planet probably 
falls to a lower temperature than any we ever experience on 
our globe. If any water exists it must not only be frozen but 
the temperature of the ice must be far below the freezing 
point.” During the night of the polar regions, the temperature 
of Mars must closely approach the absolute zero. 

But though this is the case, and the mean temperature of 
Mars even in the equatorial regions is below the freezing point 
of water, yet, owing to the wide range of temperature, due to 
the rarity of the atmosphere, it is probable that the maximum 
temperature at noonday in summer time for any particular 
latitude does not differ very greatly from that experienced in 
similar latitudes here. And it is just those regions of the 
planet which are enjoying noontide in summer which are most 


90 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON THE 


favourably presented for our inspection. We see that part of 
Mars which is at its best. 

But, as we have seen, the habitability of a world turns upon 
the presence and abundance of the compound water in the 
liquid state. Here water melts at 32 degrees and boils at 
212 degrees; through a range of 180 degrees it is in the liquid 
state. And the mean temperature of our planet, and of all 
latitudes outside the polar circle, is above the freezing point 
and far below the boiling point. Water with us, therefore, is 
normally a liquid. On Mars the boiling pomt can only be 
about 80 degrees above freezing point, so that the range within 
which water can exist as a liquid is very small. But the mean 
temperature of the planet as a whole, and of every latitude in 
particular, is much below the freezing point; the normal con- 
dition of water there is that of ice, and it is impossible for it 
to fulfil its great function of enabling organic life to receive 
nutriment. The noonday temperature may indeed rise high 
above the freezing puint; may even reach the boiling point; 
but this can only suffice to melt a thin film of the surface ice. 
As Professor Newcomb puts it; “The most careful calculation 
shows that if there are any considerable bodies of water on our 
neighbouring planet they exist in the form of ice, and can 
never be liquid to a depth of more than one or two inches, and 
that only within the torrid zone. and during a few hours each 
day.” 

Since the atmosphere is so thin and so little water is at any 
time above the freezing point, there can at no time be any 
great depositions of snow or rain. The polar caps, therefore, 
cannot be vast accumulations of snow, but at the best a thin 
deposit of hoar frost. The winters on Mars are seasons of what 
we should call “ black frost” ; intense cold with but a very slight 
precipitation of water vapour. 

It is doubtful, therefore, if there can be organic life of any 
kind ; certainly, no life so highly organized as to deserve the 
title of “inhabitant.” But it is conceivable that there may be 
some low form of plant, or perhaps even of animal life, capable 
of coming into activity, maturing and reproducing itself within 
the warmer hours of a Martian day, and of passing the night m 
the form of spores. During the iron nights of Mars, even in 
the tropics, it is not possible to conceive of life existing except 
in embryo. 

And since there is no water to flow, there can be no water- 
courses, natural or artificial. How is it then that Mr. Lowell 
and his supporters see and draw this network of lines that looks 


CONDITIONS OF HABITABILITY OF A PLANET. 91 


so artificial ? And why is there this discordance between his 
observations and those of other astronomers at least as skilful 
and experienced, and with equipment certainly not inferior ? 

The “ Ancient Mariner,’ in Coleridge’s poem, describing the 
approach of the phantom ship to the ‘ Wedding Guest,” says : 

“ At first it seemed a little speck, 
And then it seemed a mist, 
It neared and neared, and took at last 
A certain shape, I wist. 
A speck, a mist, a shape.” 

There could scarcely be a neater way of stating the solution 
_of the problem. When the phantom ship was first detected on 
the horizon it was too far off to give any idea of form or 
outline. It was unmistakable that something was there, but 
the Ancient Mariner could see nothing but a “ speck,” a round 
dot ; it was too far off to show any detail; the details were all 
averaged out, and it formed a minute circular spot. 

And then it neared, and it was clear that it had details, but 
what they were the Mariner could not say; it was an ill- 
defined, shapeless object, “a mist.” And again it neared, and 
then it began to take a “certain shape”; he could recognize the 
hull, the mast, the spars. 

In 1830, the two German astronomers, Beer and Madler, 
observing Mars with a telescope of 4 inches aperture, 
freguently drew two round spots on the planet, exactly the 
same size and exactly the same shape. Thirty-four years after- 
wards those spots were drawn by Sir Norman Lockyer with a 
telescope of 8 inches aperture, but neither of them was round, 
and they bore no resemblance to each other. A few years 
later Schiaparelli drew them with a telescope of 18 inches 
aperture, and both spots were then full of minute detail, and 
more unlike each other than ever. In 1909, M. Antoniadi 
observed both regions with a telescope of 33 inches aperture 
and added yet more detail and further increased their unlike- 
ness. Now these changes in the representation of the planet 
are not due to any change on the planet itself. An observer 
coming fresh to its study and having a telescope of only 
4 inches aperture, will see exactly what Beer and Madler did 
under the same conditions—two round dots exactly alike. But 
if he carefully train himself, and increase the size of his 
telescope, then, granted he possesses the eyesight and skill of 
the astronomers I have mentioned, he will give us in succession 
views that practically correspond with those of Lockyer, 
Schiaparelli and Antoniadi. The increase in telescopic power 


92 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON THE 


has produced a change equivalent to the planet having “neared 
and neared.” 

A telegraph wire against the background of a dull sky can 
be perceived with certainty at an amazing distance, the limit 
being reached when the wire subtends a second of arc, or in 
other words when its distance from the observer is two hundred 
thousand times the thickness of the wire. But though this is 
quite unmistakable perception, it is not a defined image that 
is formed. Ifa bead be put upon the telegraph wire, the bead 
must be more than thirty times the breadth of the wire to be 
perceived, and some sixty or seventy times the breadth of the 
wire before it could be fully defined, so that the observer could 
distinguish between a bead that was square, round or any other 
shape, the area of its cross-section being supposed to be the same 
in each case. But between the limits of one second of are and 
sixty seconds of arc, all minute objects, whatever their shape or 
discontinuity, must take on, in the observer’s eye, the two 
suuplest possible geometrical forms, the straight line and the 
round dot. Here, and not in any gigantic engineering works, 
is the explanation of the artificiality of the markings on Mars as 
Mr. Lowell sees them: their artificiality disappears under 
better seeing with more powerful telescopes. 

The existence of water in the liquid state is the chief 
condition for habitability of a pianet; and this we have seen 
depends upon the size and density of the planet, on the one 
hand, and its distance from the sun, on the other. Applying 
the criterion to the planet Mercury, we find that on the average 
if, recelves six and a half times as much heat from the sun as 
the earth does, but from its small size, its atmosphere must be 
rarer even than that of Mars. The range in temperature from 
day to night must be extreme, and water can usually only 
exist as vapour on the side turned to the sun, and as ice on the 
side turned from it. But there is little doubt that Mercury 
always turns the same face to the sun, even as the moon 
turns the same face to the earth, and this condition alone is 
sufficient of itself to render Mercury uninhabitable. 

In the case of Venus we have a world not very much smaller 
than our own. The force of gravity is about seven-eighths that 
on the earth, and the atmospheric density probably about three- 
quarters. These are not important differences, and though 
Venus receives almost twice as much light and heat per unit of 
surface, it is possible that the immense amount of cloud with 
which its atmosphere is filled may make a sufficient screen. The 
probability is that ice is comparatively rare on Venus, but that 


CONDITIONS OF HABITABILITY OF A PLANET. 93 


its atmosphere is heavily charged with water vapour, and that 
its climate may not greatly differ on the average from those of 
certain moist climates within the torrid zone of the earth. 

But the cloudy atmosphere of Venus renders it practically 
impossible for astronomers to be sure that they have ever seen the 
permanent markings of its surface, and one great question 
remains without any certain answer as yet. This is whether 
Venus, like Mercury, rotates in the same time as it revolves 
round the sun, or like the earth in about twenty-four hours. 
In the former case one hemisphere would be perpetually 
exposed to unendurable heat and the other to unendurable 
cold, and Venus would be as uninhabitable as Mercury. Yet 
Schiaparelli and many of our best observers are convinced that 
this is the condition that actually prevails. Personally I doubt 
if the evidence is as yet sufficient to warrant us in drawing an 
assured conclusion, and I am inclined to think that Venus may 
be rotating in much the same period as the earth. If this be 
so, then so far as we know, Venus may be a habitable world. 
Whether it is actually inhabited is a matter entirely beyond 
our knowledge. 

The outer planets need not detain us. The spectroscope 
shows us distinctly that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and N eptune 
all have a considerable amount of native heat, and our observa- 
tions of Jupiter make it clear that it is still in a condition of 
constant commotion, Of all these four planets it is improbable 
that a solid crust has yet begun to form, or water to deposit in 
the liquid state. They may be better described as small, 
undeveloped suns than as great, highly developed earths. As 
for their satellites, though several are larger than the moon, 
they are all smaller than Mars, and therefore cannot come up 
to the standard required of a habitable world. | 

So in our own system we have found that there is one 
planet, our earth, that is inhabited, and one other that may 
perchance be habitable; the others may with certainty all be 
ruled out of court. 

We have learnt more. In any system where there are 
planets revolving round a central sun, the range of distance 
from that central sun, within which a world must revolve to be 
habitable, is very restricted, and even within that range of 
distance the size and density required for that world is very 
restricted also. The probability, therefore, in any particular case 
is against a given system containing a habitable world. But 
systems of two suns or of more, as so many of the stellar 
systems are, seem quite unfitted to sustain life on their 


94 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON THE 


attendant planets. The conditions which would result would be 
far too unstable and irregular for the nurture and maintenance 
of living organisms. 

Under the Ptolemaic theory the earth was regarded as the 
eentre of the universe. The work of Copernicus deprived it of 
this pride of place, but exalted it to the rank of a heavenly 
body. There it seemed to be one of the smallest, most imsig- 
nificant of its compeers. But I think if we have reasoned 
aright this afternoon we see that it has a claim to a higher 
distinction than size or brightness can possibly give it; it is 
almost certain that it is unique amongst the heavenly bodies 
that are visible to us, and amongst those that are unseen and 
unknown there can only be a small proportion, at best, so well 
favoured. It is the home of life, carefully fitted and prepared 
for that purpose by its position and its size. 

That it has been built upon this scale, that it has been given 
this place, are not these tokens of purpose and design? 
And though it be little amongst the worlds, a little member of a 
comparatively little system, can we doubt what that design 
and purpose was? The Wisdom of God Who was with Him 
“when He prepared the heavens, when He set a compass upon 
the face of the depths, when He established the clouds above, 
when He strengthened the fountains of the deep, when He gave 
to the sea His decree that the waters should not pass His 
commandment, when He appointed the foundations of the earth,” 
desired that, as “the Word made flesh,” He might “rejoice in 
the habitable part of His earth. and have His delights with the 
sons of men.” 


DISCUSSION. 


The CHAIRMAN said: As regards the very much debated point of 
the markings on Mars, which have been called by the question-begging 
name of “canals,” Mr. Maunder’s proof that the name is due to a 
mistranslation of Schiaparelli’s Italian word “canali” is only 
another instance of the influence of names over thought. 

It is impossible to doubt that much of the speculation as to the 
nature of these markings would either never have come into 
existence, or would have taken an entirely different line, if they had 
been called simply “ markings ” instead of “canals.” 


CONDITIONS OF HABITABILITY OF A PLANET. 95 


As he tells us, the measurement of these markings shows them to 
be many miles in width, and thousands of miles in length; the 
explanation that the sharp edges of the markings show them to be 
channels of artificial construction must therefore be abandoned, and 
has been abandoned. As Mr. Maunder tells us they are now 
explained as “straths of vegetation springing up along the banks” 
of such channels. But this second explanation of the markings 
seems to me plainly inconsistent with the observed facts. These 
are that the edges of the markings are (1) sharp, and (2) parallel. 
But anyone who has seen, in India, cultivation carried on along the 
- banks of channels by means of the water contained in them must have 
observed that the edges of such cultivation are not sharp, but very 
ill-defined; and are never parallel. The reasons are plain: there is 
always water enough for keeping the crop alive close to the bank, 
but as you go further back from the bank the supply of water 
diminishes, and it more and more frequently happens that the 
cultivation at the outer edges has water enough to begin with and 
therefore starts to grow, but as the season goes on and the water 
supply falls, the growth at the other edges withers and dies for 
want of water. In the second place, unless the supply of water at 
the head of the channel is absolutely uniform from year to year, the 
strip of cultivation is wider in a year of abundant supply and 
narrower in a year when the supply is smaller. But the supply of 
water produced by melting snow-caps at the poles of Mars is very 
unlikely to be absolutely uniform from year to year, and if the 
markings were due to cultivation (or vegetation) produced by such 
melting snow, we ought to see the markings vary in width from year 
to year. This has never been observed. 

Finally, the edges of such cultivation (or vegetation) are never 
parallel. The reason is quite plain. Near the source of supply, at 
the head of the channel, the water is abundant, and owing to the 
fall of the ground along the banks can be carried by the necessary 
subsidiary channels to a great distance. As you go lower down the 
channel, the drawing-off of much of the water has greatly diminished 
the supply to start with, and the decrease in level of the point from 
which the subsidiary channels start greatly diminishes the distance 
to which the water can be got to flow along them. The consequence 
must be (and, as every observer can testify, actually is) that the 
cultivation (or vegetation) along the banks of a channel tapers down 


96 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON THE 


from a considerable width near the head (or source of supply) to a 
very narrow strip at the end of the channel where the water has 
all been used up above. And again, for the reason mentioned 
before, the length of such a strip of cultivation will vary from year 
to year. Ina year of abundant supply the water will suffice for 
cultivation further down the banks of the channel than in a year of 
short supply, so that such a strip of cultivation will shrink, in length 
as well as in width, from year to year. 

This also is not in accordance with the observed behaviour of the 
“canals” of Mars. 

I think, therefore, that the explanation of these markings as a 
strip of cultivation (or vegetation) due to the channel water does 
not at all fit the observed facts. 

Mr. Martin Rouse said: With illustrations as ample and con- 
vincing as they were beautiful and with the very clearest logic Mr. 
Maunder has proved that men and animals with organization and 
natural functions like those we know upon the Harth cannot exist 
in Mars. And yet the objection arises, for what purpose have Mars 
and other planets been provided with satellites and other devices 
which must supplement the light that they receive from the sun, 
and perhaps equalize the heat also, and which appear to do so all the 
more as their distance from the sun is greater. Understanding that 
Mercury had a cloudier atmosphere than Venus (though to-day’s 
lecture has rendered me a little doubtful of this), I have seen a 
complete and beautiful gradation thus: next to the sun comes 
Mercury with a very cloudy atmosphere, then Venus with a clearer 
atmosphere but no moon, then the Earth with a still clearer atmos- 
phere (as we learn to-day) and with one moon, then further out Mars 
with a thin atmosphere (as we learn) and two moons, then far, far 
out Jupiter with eight moons, and then Saturn with ten moons 
and a vast luminous ring besides. As for Uranus and Neptune they 
are probably too far away and minute in appearances for astronomers 
to have yet discovered how many satellites or rings they may have. 

Surely this supplementation of light and probably of heat also 
cannot have occurred by mere chance; and if the planets are not 
already habitable may they not have been intended to become so 
at a time yet future? 

Mr. J. T. MATTHEWS said: I came to this meeting pone that 
Mr. Maunder would tell us something about life upon other worlds, 


CONDITIONS OF HABITABILITY OF A PLANET. 97 


and I have been much disappointed that he has rather taken the 
other line, and argued that there are very few, if any, inhabited 
worlds other than our own. Surely all the millions of stars which 
the telescope shows us were not created without some purpose ; may 
they not have planets revolving round them that we cannot see and 
of which we knew nothing ? And of the planets in the solar system, 
may there not be forms of life quite unlike those with which we are 
familiar that would flourish under such conditions that they offer ? 
Why should we think that water is the only liquid that can support 
life 9 

A MEMBER asked: Might not life be possible on Mars near the 
edge of the polar caps since, when the ice is melting, there would be 
abundance of water there ? 

Mr. SCHWARTZ said: Mr. Maunder has given us an interesting 
paper but I fear that he has taken a rather prejudiced view of the 
question. Mr. Maunder says on the first page that all men would 
greatly delight to be able to recognize the presence of races similar 
to our own upon other worlds; I rather think myself that the reverse 
is the case. Then, again, I think Mr. Maunder was quite un- 
warranted in assuming that we know all the elements that exist. 
Up to a very few years ago we knew nothing of helium beyond 
the bright line which it showed in the solar chromosphere ; now it 
has been discovered on the Earth. Nearly one-third of the dark 
lines of the solar spectrum are not yet assigned to any element 
known to us on the Earth, and several terrestrial elements have not 
yet been identified in the sun. 

Mr. D. Howarp said: Mr. Maunder’s paper is specially interest- 
ing as an example of accurate scientific thought applied toa question 
generally discussed only from a popular point of view. He has 
shown us exactly what the conditions must be on Mars and they 
certainly are incompatible with organic life. 

The history of the canals is a very curious one and shows the 
difficulty of accurate observation even for skilled observers. Iam 
afraid we must still be content to doubt what the markings on Mars 
are and still more what they are caused by, but if highly organized 
life is impossible on Mars they cannot be the result of the labours of 
Martians. 

Let us always beware of “must be’s.” ‘There must be inhabitants 
ot the planets, or if not what use are they.” 

H 


9§ E, WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON THE 


That they are of use there is no doubt, but study of facts and not 
imagination is the only way to find out even partially what that is. 

And beware of Final Causes as a basis of argument; Lord Bacon 
well described them as “ Unfruitful Virgins.” 

Mr. MAUNDER, in replying, said: I am exceedingly indebted to 
the Meeting for the very generous reception which has been given 
to my paper. My purpose throughout has been to confine myself 
to the region of observed facts and not to enter upon vague, 
general and unsupported speculations. Mr. Rouse asked if the 
fact that the number of satellites appeared to increase as we went 
outwards from the sun did not look as if the outer planets were 
intended to be inhabited in the future, if they were not inhabited 
now? In reply to this it should be borne in mind that our moon 
was the only satellite in the solar system that was of any serious 
service as a light-giver. The moons of Mars would not together 
afford one-fourth the light, or those of Jupiter one-tenth, to their 
respective primaries that the moon gives to the Earth; and these 
satellites usually suffer total eclipse when they are at thefull. It 
hardly looks, therefore, as if they have been designed for the 
purpose of supplying the deficiency of sunlight. I greatly sym- 
pathize with Mr. Howard’s wise advice that we should beware of 
making assumptions as to the purpose of any particular structure. 
It reminds me very much of what Galileo wrote in his Dialogue of 
the “Third Day,” the Dialogue which brought his condemnation. 
He puts into the mouth of Saviati the words, “ Methinks we 
arrogate too much to ourselves, Simplicio, when we assume that the 
care of us alone is the adequate and sufficient work beyond which 
the Divine Wisdom and Power do nothing and dispose of nothing.” 
And may we not look at the question from another point of view ? 
We know that many millions of acorns fall every year, but only 
a very few grow up into oaks, so if, in the gradual evolution of the 
solar system one planet and one planet alone has been rendered fit 
to bear life, can we in any sense say that the material of the solar 
system has been wasted? Mr. Schwartz thought that I was 
prejudiced when | said that there was a strong and natural desire 
amongst men to be able to recognize the presence of similar races 
in other worlds; and he denied that such a desire existed. I 
think, however, he showed pretty clearly that he himself felt this 
desire, and that his real objection to my paper was that I showed 


a os 


CONDITIONS OF HABITABILITY OF A PLANET. Q9 


that there were few facts to satisfy that desire. Mr. Matthews 
asked whether there might not be to many of the stars planets that 
we cannot see and know nothing about, and whether there might 
not be life upon these. Perhaps so, but as we know nothing about 
them we cannot discuss the conditions of life there. It was again 
inquired whether some liquid other than water might not form the 
basis of life on some other worlds. But we find water admirably 
fitted for its purpose on this world; and we know of no other 
liquid that could take its place. If some other liquid could better 
fulfil the functions performed by water we might reasonably ask 
‘why that liquid has not fulfilled that purpose here. Such an 
assumption would imply, moreover, a faulty design in the creation 
of the Earth. It is probable that at one portion of the year on 
Mars, the edge of the ice-cap is more plentifully supplied with 
water than any other part of the planet, but for a period longer 
than an entire terrestrial year that region is in total darkness and 
exposed to the cold of space. It is far less likely to be inhabited 
than the equatorial regions. 

Mr. BisHop asked: Would you tell us whether you think the 
other planets may be habitable in the future ? 

Mr. MAUNDER: That question, of course, leads us far into the 
unknown, but the great difficulty in the case of the outer planets is 
_ that they receive so little heat from the sun at the present time, 
and no way by which that heat can be greatly increased in the future 
is obvious to us at the present. My desire in pointing out how 
stringent were the conditions for life as we see them to be here, 
was not to call in question purpose and design in the formation of 
other worlds, but to emphasize the evidence that we have of purpose 
and design in the formation of this world. 

Communication from Rey. A. Irvine, D.Sc., B.A. :— 

Being unable to attend the Meeting on January 22nd, I beg to 
offer one or two remarks upon this very able paper. I greatly 
appreciate this closely reasoned paper from an expert in Astro- 
nomical Science. It is to be hoped that it may be the prelude to 
a more sane and sober way of dealing with matters of which we 
have no positive knowledge; and I think we may go entirely with 
the author in his conclusions as to the limits of possibility of 
the “habitability ” (as he has defined the word) of either the 
innermost planet, Mercury, or the four great outer planets of our 

H 2 


100 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON THE 


solar system, which seem to record phases of planetary develop- 
ment, through which (in its “ pre-oceanic stage”) our Earth has 
already passed, owing to its much smaller mass, and therefore the 
more rapid dissipation of its heat-energy into the “ entropy” of the 
universe, as Clausius uses that term. 

There is one point on which Mr. Maunder has not touched at 
any length, namely, the probable disappearance of much of the 
quondam hydrosphere of Mars into the lithosphere, such as 
Professor Federico Sacco, of Turin University, foreshadows for 
our future Earth, in his most interesting and instructive essay, 
LT’orogénie de la Terre, which does not seem so widely known as it 
should be to our English astronomers and geologists. 

“Life,” we must recollect, is known to us on this Earth only in 
tts manifestations ; and we are in blank ignorance of what it is per 
se; an ignorance of which we feel the more profoundly conscious 
since the appearance of Professor Bergson’s monumental work, 
Creative Evolution. 1 observe that Mr. Maunder does not attempt 
to dogmatize as to the limits of possibility to “Creative and 
Directive Power” in that direction; but in the sense in which he 
has defined the term “ habitability,” we can, I think, follow him. 
We do well, however, to recollect that “Creative Evolution” has 
the whole duration of eternity as well as limitless space for its 
operation. 

There is just one little point which seems to me open to criticism 
in the paper, when on p. 79 the author speaks of a “‘ man-made 
machine” as a “storehouse of energy.” I think we can hardly say 
that. A contrivance it is (from the simple lever to the steam- 
engine or aeroplane)—a contrivance directed to certain ends for 
accumulating and directing energy (thus converting “energy” into 
force); but we can hardly say that the energy is stored in any 
permanent sense, even in the electric accumulator. We are con- 
fronted here, again, with the fundamental distinction between 
vrganism (in which the energy acts from within, under the vital 
directive action) and an imerganic structure, which cannot supply its 
own energy, even though the materials in which that energy is 
potentially stored may be ready to hand, as in the fuel of the steam 
engine, or the mineral elements of the cells of an electric battery. 

It may seem ungracious to offer even this small criticism on a 
paper in which generally everything is so well put, and especially in 


aS ee ee 


CONDITIONS OF HABITABILITY OF A PLANET. 101 


the two last paragraphs, in which the author seems to be working 
towards a philosophical centre, from which we may be able to see 
the teachings of Science and Revelation in one common perspective. 

Communication from SyDNEY T. KLEIN, Esq. F.L.S., ete. :— 

The Institution is to be congratulated on having such an expert 
as Mr. Maunder to tell us the latest phase of the old controversy as 
to the existence of life upon the planets; there is no astronomer 
living who has done more in the way of popularizing the Science of 
Astronomy than Mr. Maunder has done, especially in his connection 
with the British Astronomical Association ; he is indeed a worthy 
successor of Richard A. Proctor, and his present paper will be 
highly appreciated by our members. I have been much interested 
in the paper and especially his remarks on the planet Mars. 

The writer of the paper seems to have restricted himself to the 
question whether the planets are inhabited now, he does not touch 
upon the larger question whether they may have been inhabited in 
the past or may in the future be the abode of sentient beings similar 
to ourselves ; now this is rather an important point, especially when 
the argument tends, as it does in the paper, to suggest that one par- 
ticular world only, namely the Earth, has been prepared by design to 
be the home of man. The planets of the solar system are all in 
different and distinct stages of what may be called growth in 
preparation for life, such giant and remote planets as Jupiter, 
Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have not yet reached or are only just 
arriving at the stage of consolidation, a stage which the Earth went 
through probably fifty million years ago when the moon had its 
birth ; whereas, on the other hand, Mars, Mercury and the moon, 
having small masses, have progressed faster and are probably in a 
stage well in advance of the Earth; whilst Venus, of practically the 
same mass as the Earth, although about one-fourth nearer to the 
sun, has so dense an atmosphere that her physical conditions are 
probably very like our own and her organic life similar to ours. 

With regard to the so-called “canals” in Mars, I think 
Mr. Maunder was the first to point out that if you place a number 
of black dots on a white card and look at it from along distance, the 
eye at once forms lines of those dots, and this is probably the true . 
explanation of what Mr. Lowell claims he saw, and that it was upon 
these pseudo-perceptions that he made his wonderful drawings ; 
there were certainly no such canals shown on the photographs he 


102 CONDITIONS OF HABITABILITY OF A PLANET. 


brought over and which many of us examined very minutely with- 
out finding any trace of his network of canals, and as pointed out 
by Mr. Maunder, the larger the telescopes used the less did the 
markings have the appearance of straight lines; the controversy 
certainly took a humorous turn worthy of Punch, when the 
advocates for the canal theory actually propounded the extraordin- 
ary theory that “many of the telescopes were too large to show 
such small markings.” 

Mr. Maunder truly points out that under certain conditions of 
temperature, as are found in the earlier stages of the formation of a 
world, the basis of living matter, as we know it, in- plant and 
animal structures, namely protoplasm, could not exist, but he also 
states that among other worlds in the universe there can only bea 
small proportion, at best, so well favoured as our Earth for 
sustaining life ; now we find by means of the spectroscope that each 
of the atoms comprising that protoplasm, namely, oxygen, hydro- 
gen, carbon and nitrogen, are identically the same throughout the 
whole universe, whether we observe them here in our laboratories 
or when situated at the very limit of our perception, through 
the greatest telescopes; we also know that though each atom is 
continuously pulsating and clashing with others billions of times 
per second, they show absolutely no signs of wear or diminution 
in activity in a million years, for we can examine side by side two sets 


of say hydrogen atoms, one of which is a million years older. 


than the other; the atoms we examine here are, in time, a million 
years in advance of those we examine through our astro-spectro- 
scope, as we are seeing these latter atoms only as they were a 
million years ago, and yet wherever we turn to in space we find this 
hydrogen atom and all other atoms identical to those not only in 
the sun, but in our surroundings on this little Earth ; we also see the 
same forces at work in the far off nebulz as we are experiencing in 
this little corner. Does not this wonderful proof of unity of design 
throughout the whole visible universe force upon us the con- 
viction that round each of the myriads of other stars in our star 
cluster, of which our sun is one, and probably round the suns in 
countless other star clusters, are planets in the course of preparation 
for sustaining life, life probably, as Mr. Maunder points out, based 
upon protoplasm as we know it, but possibly under conditions 
absolutely beyond conception from our present restricted outlook. 


—— i= ~~ 


526TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 57, 1912, 4.30 P.M. 
Davip Howarp, Esq., VIcE-PRESIDENT, IN THE CHAIR. 


The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed. 


Announcement was made of the election of the following :— 
Member: Mrs. Brocklebank. 
AssociaTE: J. Bancroft-Hill, Esq. (a Life Associate). 


Owing to the Author’s inability to be present, the CHAarRMAN called 
upon the SEcRETARY to read the paper, entitled :— 


THE HISTORICITY OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE. 


By the Rev. Professor JamEs Orr, D.D. 


T has come to be regarded as a truism by the newer school 
of Old Testament criticism that the tabernacle described 

in Exodus xxv ff. and xxxv ff., as set up by Moses in the 
wilderness, is unhistorical. It never had a real existence, but 
is a devout imagination spun from the brains of post-exilian 
scribes. It is but the Temple of Solomon “ made portable,” 
halved in dimensions, and carried back in fancy to the time 
of the wilderness wanderings. It belongs, critically speaking, 
to the document P, or Priestly Writing, which, originating after 
the exile, is of no authority as a picture of Mosaic times. It 
is not denied that there was a tent of some simple sort as 
a covering for the ark—rather, perhaps, a succession of tents— 
and evidence of this is thought to be found in the mention 
of such a tent in the narrative of E, the Elohist, in 
Exodus xxxii, 7 ff, with later notices in Numbers x1, 16, 24 ff. ; 
xii, 1 ff.; and Deuteronomy xxxi, 14 f. Everything in these 


2 


older descriptions, it is said, is of a simpler order. The tent is 


104 PROFESSOR JAMES ORR, D.D., ON THE 


pitched outside the camp, not within it; the purpose is 
revelation, rather than worship; there is no ministering 
priesthood, but Joshua alone has charge. Outside the 
descriptions in P no trace of the elaborate “ Tent of Meeting” 
is discoverable. It is hence to be dismissed as unreal. This 
is the view of the Mosaic tabernacle introduced by Graf, 
Kuenen, and Wellhausen, and now found in almost every 
critical text-book and Biblical Encyclopeedia that is published. 
I need only refer as examples to the articles on the Tabernacie 
in Hastings’ Dictionaries of the Bible (alike in four-volume and 
one-volume dictionaries), and in the Encyclopedia Lbiblica ; 
and to the recently published Commentary on Hxodus by 
Dr. Driver, and /ntroduction to the Pentateuch by Dr. Chapman, 
writers who would be regarded, presumably, as belonging to 
the moderate wing of the school. 

The rejection of the historicity of the tabernacle rests, as 
just said, in part on critical grounds—on the alleged late date 
of the P writing, and the supposed conflict of its descriptions 
with those in E—but far more on broader considerations, 
arising out of the conditions of the history, and the general 
view taken of the religious development. The tabernacle 
disappears as part of the total picture of the Mosaic age given 
in the documents JE and P, but specially in P. That picture, 
it is held, is late, legendary, and incredible. Religion had 
not, it is affirmed, then attained the stage which made the 
conception of such a tabernacle possible; and the narratives, 
when examined, show in every part their legendary and unhis- 
torical character. To take only one point: the numbers of the 
Israelites who are said to have left Egypt at the Exodus— 
600,000 fighting men, implying a population of nearly 2,000,000 
—are declared to be impossible, and still less possible is the 
subsistence of such an immense multitude in the desert, which, 
at the utmost, could not have sustained more than 5,000 
or 6,000. Then the amount of precious metals, and the high 
artistic skill, presupposed in the accounts of the making of the ~ 
tabernacle, are such as a multitude of trembling fugitives 
cannot be conceived of as possessing. The simple weight 
of the massive boards, pillars, and heavy sockets of silver 
and bronze is beyond what the means of transport could 
convey. Or think of the elaborate weaving and dyeing 
operations and refined embroidery of fine linen implied in the 
production of the coverings and hangings of the structure. | 
Putting all together, the case against the historicity of the 
tabernacle is claimed to be complete. 


HISTORICITY OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE. 105 


It may seem then, as if, in venturing to challenge this array 
of reasons for setting aside the tabernacle of the Exodus 
account, I were undertaking an absolutely hopeless task. I do 
not, however, myself feel that it is so; and I shall leave you to 
judge, when I have presented the other side, whether a great 
deal more is not to be said for the historicity of this sacred 
structure than the critical theories allow. 

The purely critical question I do not discuss in detail. So 
far from admitting that the Levitical Code—the so-called 
P Code—with its complex of laws, rites, and institutions, is a 
production of the age after the exile, I believe this to be an 
-arbitrary and wholly preposterous conception, for which no 
sound reasons have been adduced, and which ere long is bound 
to be abandoned by thoughtful minds. Imagine Ezra producing 
this Code of laws—a thing unheard of before—in presence of 
the returned community of exiles at Jerusalem—a com- 
munity deeply divided, disaffected, religiously faithless, and 
in large measure opposed to the reforms of Ezra _himseif 
and of Nehemiah—and obtaining from them without demur 
the acceptance of its egregious historical statements, ¢.¢., 
that the Levites, unknown before Ezekiel, had been set apart 
by Jehovah in the wilderness, and from time immemorial 
had been richly endowed with cities, pasturages, and tithes, 
and beyond this, the acceptance of its heavy and entirely new 
financial burdens. I have, however, argued this fully elsewhere, 
without ever seeing an answer to my argument, and do not 
dwell upon it further now. 

Much more weight, I grant, belongs to the historical diffi- 
culties, which here also I would only touch upon, as none of 
them are new, and they have been discussed and appraised 
times without number, without the rejection of the Mosaic 
account following as a necessary consequence. It may be 
observed that it is not the P document alone, but the JE 
histories as well, which narrate the marvellous increase of the 
people of Israel in Goshen, and the immense host that went out 
at the Exodus; they are pictured as leaving Egypt as an 
orderly, marshalled host, spoiling the Egyptians of their wealth, 
freely thrust upon them to secure their speedy departure; their 
marches, deliverances, and the provision made for them are 
not figured as natural events, but as the result of the miraculous 
guidance and bountiful care of Jehovah, their God and 
vedeemer ; the entire history is penetrated by a supernatural 
element without which, it is freely admitted, it is not intelligible 
at all, but which, if granted, is in keeping with both the 


106 PROFESSOR JAMES ORR, D.D., ON THE 


antecedents and the consequents in the history of the nation, 
and becomes part of an orderly sequence of divine events and 
revelations. I am not concerned, therefore, about schemes even 
for the reduction of the numbers, which do not seem to me — 
generally happy, and have difficulties to encounter in the 
consistency of representation in all parts of the narrative. To 
reduce the numbers to say, 5,000 or 6,000 seems to me absurd ; 
yet, unless this is done—if, ¢g., you allow 20,000 or 30,000— 
the whole difficulty remains, for the desert, under present 
conditions, is as incapable of naturally supporting that number 
as it would be of supporting ten times as many. 

I leave these outer subjects to return to the narratives of the 
tabernacle itself, and to ask whether there are not much 
stronger reasons for accepting them as historical than there are 
for rejecting them, as the critics do, zn foto. 

The tabernacle, on the critical theory, was, as already said, a 
creation of the exilian or post-exilian mind—part of a Code 
intended to apply to the restored community of Israel. Regarded 
as fiction, it is an extraordinarily elaborate, detailed, and 
minute piece of invention. Wellhausen cannot find language 
strong enough to express his contempt for it. “ Art products 
of pedantry,” he says,“ . . . One would imagine that he 
(the Priestly Writer) was giving specifications to measurers for 
estimates, or that he was writing for carpet-makers or 


upholsterers . . . of a piece with this tendency is an 
indescribable pedantry, belonging to the very being of the 
Priestly Code. . . . Nor is it any sign of omginality, 


rather of senility,” etc. (History of Israel, pp. 337, 348, 350, 
353). But now ask—What is the motive of this intolerable 
web-spinning on the part of the Priestly Writer? From the 
point of view of the theory, it is to provide a Code to be put in 
force after the return from exile; at least to furnish regulation 
for.worship in the new community. For this purpose could 
anything be conceived less suitable than what was actually 
produced? Instead of a Code for a new temple at Jerusalem, 
everything takes the shape of a sanctuary and Code of laws for 
the desert, where the conditions were totally different. The 
portable tabernacle, with its curtains, coverings, regulations for 
construction, placing, transport, etc., had no longer the semblance 
of applicability, while the law providing that all sacrifices should 
be offered at the door of the tabernacle lost all relevancy aiter 
the relaxing rule of Deuteronomy xii, 15. On the theory of 
fiction the tabernacle must be viewed as a construction wholly 
in the air—a pure play of imagination from the motive of 


HISTORICITY OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE. 107 


inventing an ideal state of things in the past. How far does 
this tally with reason or with fact ? 

The explanation proposed is that the idea of the tabernacle 
was obtained by taking Solomon’s temple as a model, halving 
its dimensions, making it portable by converting it into a tent, 
then projecting it back into Mosaic times. ‘The temple was not 
an enlarged copy in stone of the tabernacle, but the tabernacle 
was a copy of the temple, reduced to half its size. How does 
this tally with the facts? I need not dwell long on the 
structure of Solomon’s temple. It was a stately building of 
hewn stone on a fixed spot, 60 cubits (roughly 90 feet) in length 
-20 eubits (30 feet) in breadth, 30 cubits (45 feet) in height— 
interlor measurewent. It was divided by a partition and veil 
into two apartments—the inner, or holy of holies, 20 cubits in 
length, breadth and height, with a chamber above; the outer, 
or holy place, specially called in the narrative the “temple,” 
40 cubits in length, 20 in breadth, but 30 in height. Before tie 
temple was a lofty porch, in front of which stood two high 
bronze pillars—Jachin and Boaz—and round the building, 
adhering to its walls on the sides and back were three stories 
of chambers for storage and, perhaps, dormitories for the priests. 
The temple stood in the court, the dimensions of which are not 
given—they are generally reckoned as double those of the 
tabernacle—and this court again within an outer or greater 
court, the size, situation, and relation of which to the adjoining 
royal buildings are still matters of. keen dispute, and do not 
concern us here. It was, according to the theory, the imaginative 
halving of the proportions of this temple and its appurtenances 
which yielded the tabernacle. A very little consideration, how- 
ever, will show the fallaciousness of this plausible speculation. 
There is not such exactitude of proportion as the theory requires, 
and it is far easier to understand how the temple should be 
evolved out of the simpler structure of the tabernacle, than how 
that tent-like sanctuary should come to be as a simplification of 
the highly complex Solomonic temple. 

Picture to yourself, first, for clearness sake, what in general 
the tabernacle was. Its name ’dhel md‘édh, “ Tent of Meeting,” 
denotes it as the place of meeting between Jehovah and His 
people, as the other name mishkan, “ Dwelling,’ interchanged 
with the former in the P descriptions, marks it as the place 
where Jehovah abode with Israel. The tabernacle enclosure, or 
court, 100 cubits (150 feet) long, by 50 cubits (75 feet) broad, 
was formed by white linen curtains suspended from pillars, 
5 cubits, or about 74 feet high. Its entrance was towards the 


108 PROFESSOR JAMES ORR, D.D., ON THE 


east. In the innermost half of this enclosure stood the 
tabernacle itself. The tabernacle may be briefly described as 
consisting of a framework of gilded boards, set in silver sockets, 
over which were cast successive coverings—the first a beautifully 
embroidered curtain, made of ten breadths, joined, in sets of five, 
by golden clasps in the middle; the next, a covering of goat's 
hair, the tent-covering proper, made of eleven breadths, therefore 
larger than the former, and overlapping it as it hung; finally, 
a rough covering of porpoise or dugong skins, to protect against 
the weather. A chief problem about the tabernacle is, whether 
these coverings were stretched flat-wise over the top of the 
framework, hanging down at sides and back almost to the ground, 
or, as Mr. Fergusson and others have ably argued, were raised 
by a ridge-pole to form a sloping roof, corresponding to the 
character of a tent. It is certainly in favour of the latter 
conception that nothing could be less like a tent than the coffin- 
hike structure, with a pall thrown over it, which results from the 
flat-roof theory, not to speak of the danger of sagging, and the 
concealment by the curtain of the gilded work and bars of the 
outer framework, also of the beauty of the curtain itself from 
the view of those within. Professor A, R. Kennedy meets this 
by a hypothesis that the framework did not consist of solid 
boards, but of open frames, through which the curtain would be 
visible. The theory is ingenious, but has its own difficulties. 
The mention of “ pins” and other apphances of a tent support 
Mr. Fergusson’s view. However this may be, and it is immaterial 
for the present argument, the main facts about the wilderness 
sanctuary are clear enough. The tabernacle was not a large 
structure—only 30 cubits (45 feet) long by 10 cubits (15 feet) 
broad. It was divided, like the temple, into a holy and a most 
holy place—of the dimensions of which I shall speak immediately. 
A veil divided the two places, and an embroidered curtain, hung 
from five pillars, closed the entrance. 

Such was the tabernacle structure. In its outer court was 
the altar of burnt offering—only 5 eubits (7$ feet) square and 
3 cubits (43 feet) high (Exodus xxvii, 1)—and the bronze laver 
for the ablutions of the priests (Exodus xxx, 17-21). In the 
holy place were the golden candlestick on the south side, the 
table of shewbread on the north side, and the golden altar of 
incense, again quite small, 1 cubit square and 2 cubits high, in 
front of the veil. The altar was regarded as belonging rather to 
the most holy than to the holy place. In the holiest place, 
finally, stood the ark of the covenant. It is not always realized 
how very small this sacred object, with its covering of gold, or 


HISTORICITY OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE. 109 


mercy-seat, and the cherubim at either end, was. It was only 
24 cubits (3? feet) long; 1} cubits (2 feet 3 inches) broad, and 
the same—14 cubits—in height. 

This 1s a very cursory description, but it will suffice to 
enable us to judge of the theory of the halving of Solomon’s 
temple. Beyond the fact that in interior length and breadth 
the temple was twice the size of the tabernacle the theory has 
very little support.* The tabernacle court is commonly 
assumed to be half the dimensions of the inner court of 
Solomon’s temple. In reality it is the other way. Nothing is 
known of the dimensions of the court of the temple, and it is 
_ only by inference from the dimensions of the tabernacle court 
(100 cubits by 50) that we reach the probability that the temple 
court may have been 200 cubits long and 100 broad. There 
is no certainty even about that. If it be so, is the fact that 
the size is not mentioned in Kings not a reason for believing 
that the description of the tabernacle is presupposed? Passing 
next to the tabernacle, it 1s again commonly assumed that the 
holy place and holy of holies in that sanctuary had the same 
relative proportions as in the Solomonic temple, only halved: 
aeé., that the holy of holies was 10 cubits square, and the holy 
place twice that length, viz.: 20 cubits. But it should carefully 
be observed that this again is nowhere stated in the description, 
which, on the contrary, explicitly declares that the veil dividing 
the two places hung directly below the clasps of the curtain 
overhead (Exodus xxvi, 33), ae. presumably in the middle. 
That is the only place it could be, on Mr. Fergusson’s view of 
the construction; and even if that be rejected, it remains a 
serious difficulty, for the shifting back of the joining of the 
curtains (40 cubits Jong in all), 20 cubits from the entrance, 
leaves a full 10 cubits to hang down at the back. I do not 
wish to press this unduly; I only wish to point out that the 
usual assumption that the holy and most holy places were 
modelled on the proportions of the temple has no support in 
‘the text itself, which gives no dimensions at all. In other 
respects the proportions do not agree. In the temple the 
holiest place was 20 cubits in length, breadth, and height ; 


* Mr. Fergusson, in his article “Temple,” in Smith’s D.B., while con- 
tending strongly for the historicity of the tabernacle, gives too much 
support to the halving theory when he writes of the Temple: “ The first 
thing that strikes us is that all the arrangements were identical, and 
the dimensions of every part exactly double those of the preceding 
structure.” Mr. Fergusson’s love of symmetry, as shown in the paper 
leads him here too far. 


110 PROFESSOR JAMES ORR, D.D., ON THE 


the holy place was 40 cubits long, but 30 cubits high. This 
has no analogy in the tabernacle. When we proceed to the 
furniture and belongings of the sanctuaries the halving theory 
breaks down altogether. There is no halving in the ark, for it is 
the same old Mosaic ark which accompanied the Israelites in 
their wanderings, which—small and disproportionate as it was 
—was brought up by Solomon, and placed in his more splendid 
house. What Solomon did was to erect two new massive 
cherubim of olive wood, plated with gold, the wings of which 
stretched from side to side of the chamber, and overshadowed 
the mercy seat and its lesser figures. In the holy place, instead 
of one candlestick there were 10; instead of one table there 
were, according to Chronicles, also 10; the dimensions of the 
altar of incense are not given; in no single particular is a 
principle of halving discernible in the tabernacle. The altar of 
burnt-offering isan even more signal example. The dimensions 
are not given in I Kings, but Chronicles, probably on good 
authority, gives it at 20 cubits square and 10 cubits high (iv, 1) 
—an immense enlargement of the 5 cubits square altar of the 
tabernacle. I think, accordingly, I am justified in saying that, 
as far as the new theory rests on any assumption of halving the 
sizes in Solomon’s temple, it has no real foundation. 

There is another point worth noticing about the temple as 
bearing on our subject. While special detailed descriptions are 
given of the new objects in the sanctuary—as the great molten 
sea and the ten lavers with their ornamented bases in the court 
of the temple—only allusion is made to such objects as existed 
in the older sanctuary, as the golden candlestick and the table 
of shewbread, with their utensils. Beyond the fact of the 
multiplication of their number (I Kings vii, 48, 49 ; 11 Chronicles 
iv, 7, 8) nothing is said of them, The obvious explanation 
is that, as these were fashioned after the model of the same 
objects in the tabernacle, further particulars regarding them 
were not needed. So, as utensils familiar to the reader, only 
allusion is made to the pots, shovels, basins and fleshhooks, 
connected with the altar (1 Kings vu, 40, 45 ; m Chronicles iv, 
i AS ) 

To : certain extent, therefore, the tabernacle appears as the 
postulate of the temple, not wice versé; and this relation is 
confirmed when, moving backwards, we glance at the history. 
The testimony of Chronicles (1 Chronicles xvi, 39, 40 ; 11 Chroni- 
cles i, 3) to the fact that in David’s time the “Tent of Meeting” 
was set up at Gibeon, is discredited by the critics, the ark 
being at the time lodged in a new tent made for it by David on 


HISTORICITY OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE. LEI 


Mount Zion (11 Samuel vi, 17). But 1 Kings also declares 
(viii, 4) that, at the dedication of the temple, the Tent of 
Meeting and its holy vessels were brought up to be placed in 
the new sanctuary. This reference, though found in the LX X 
as well as in the Hebrew text, is expunged by the critics as 
an interpolation; or it is alleged that the name “Tent of 
Meeting ” is given to David’s provisional tent, a usage without 
warrant. Without, however, dwelling on this, there are other 
indications which are not open to such objection. It is quite 
incidentally that, in the previous history in I Samuel, we come, 
in the notice of the tabernacle at Shiloh, under its old name, 
ohel mo‘édh, on mention of “the lamp of God” burning, as 
directed, all night (1 Samuel ii, 3; ¢f Exodus xxvii, 20, 21); 
and at Nob, of the “shewbread” (1 Samuel, xxi)—a charac- 
teristic institution of the Levitical Code. It is only, as it were, 
by accident, that the mention of “lamp” and “shewbread ” 
occurs, otherwise their existence also would probably be denied. 
The argument from silence, as these instances show, is a pre- 
carious one. Even Wellhausen admits that at Shiloh there 
must have been—as at Nob later—a considerable priestly 
establishment (History of Israel, pp. 19, 128), though only Eli 
and his two sons are mentioned. The reply given to this is 
that the sanctuary at Shiloh cannot have been the tabernacle, 
for it is called twice a “ temple” (1 Samuel i, 9; iii, 3), and had 
“ doors” and “ doorposts,” implying a permanent structure. On 
this last point it is to be observed that Old Testament tradition 
was quite clear that prior to the temple, Jehovah’s dwelling was 
“a tent and a tabernacle” (ohel and mishkan, 11 Samuel vii, 6 ; 
I Chronicles xvii, 5)—the ark of God dwelt “within curtains.” 
It is no contradiction of this that during its century-long stay 
at Shiloh, the “ Tent of Meeting” may have gathered round it 
other structures, supports and conveniences—gateposts, sleeping 
chambers for priests and attendants, etc. But this suggests to 
me another remark which [ think is of great importance. Are 
we bound to suppose that the tabernacle continued during the 
whole of the long period between the Exodus and the building 
of the temple—according to I Kings vi, 1, 480 years; on the 
shortest reckoning about 300—without change, renewal, re- 
placement of parts occasioned by age and decay? The taber- 
nacle as set up in the wilderness was, after all, not a structure 
that could for a very long space of time endure stress of wind 
and weather, not to speak of simple decay of material. Boards 
will not hold out for ever, even apart from frequent removals 
and journeyings, curtains will wear out, and become faded and 


ad? PROFESSOR JAMES ORR, D.D., ON THE 


torn. The tabernacle could not for three or four centuries 
retain the fresh, beautiful appearance it had from the first, and, 
with general adherence to the original model, would undergo 
repair, replacement, and, as need required, modification. There 
is no necessity, therefore, for supposing that the “Tent of 
Meeting,” as it existed at Shiloh and Nob, was in every 
particular an exact facsimile of the original wilderness 
structure. 

In this connection an interesting corroboration of the histor- 
icity of the tabernacle may be based on the identity of the sacred 
ark in pre-Solomonic and Solomonic times. I have often 
wondered that the implications of this identity are not more 
dwelt upon than they are. There was much that was new in 
Solomon’s temple, but it shonld carefully be observed that the 
ark at least was not new. There is little dispute that it was the 
one Mosaic ark which, after many vicissitudes, was brought up, 
and deposited by Solomon in his new house, where it remained 
till the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar. The 
notices we have of this ark—its cherubim (1 Samuel iy, 4), the 
staves by which it was borne, and the tables of stone it 
contained (1 Kings vii, 7—-9)—show that it answered so far 
to the description of the ark in Exodus. The suggestion that 
the cherubim are an unhistorical addition (Driver, ete.) is opposed 
not only by the text of the LX.X, which agrees with the Hebrew, 
but by the nature of the case. What motive could exist for 
interpolating the two small cherubim of the ark, while Solomon’s 
temple, with its large overshadowing cherubim, still stood ? 
The passage in 1 Kings mentioning the staves and the tables 
of stone was written while the temple still existed—“ there they 
are,’ it is said of the staves, “unto this day” (vii, 8). In 
Deuteronomy also, even if we relegate that book to the age of 
Josiah, the ark of acacia wood and its contents are described in 
accordance with the ark of Exodus (Deuteronomy ix, 1-5). In 
any case, and this is the essential point, there must have been a 
familiarity with the form and nature of the ark up till the very 
end of the temple, and if priestly writers described it in the 
exile, they could hardly have ventured on a wide divergence 
from the reality. On the theory that the tabernacle was a copy, 
in reduced form, of the temple, we must suppose that the ark of the 
tabernacle was a copy also, and this guarantees that the descrip- 
tion given of it corresponded very much with the reality of the 
Mosaic ark. It was, in fact, the one ark, the character of which 
was well known in exilian times, that persisted to the very end. 
‘What follows from this? Ark and tabernacle go closely 


HISTORICITY OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE. Eis 


together. It is granted that there must have been from the 
beginning a tent of some kind as a protection and habitation 
for the ark. But the tent must have corresponded in some 
degree with the character of the ark, and if this was the 
beautiful, gold-covered object which we have seen reason to 
believe that it was, in other words, if it agreed with the 
deseription given of it in Exodus—it is highly probable that 
the tabernacle sheltering it would have some degree of 
splendour also; would be a habitation worthy in dignity and 
significance of the Jehovah whose ark it was. The counter- 
theory that the ark was originally simply a fetish-chest, with 
perhaps two meteoric stones representing the deity, I dismiss as 
a figment of rationalistic imagination contrary to all historical 
evidence. The ark hada well-known history ; men could verify 
what it was like at the time when David and Solomon brought 
it up to Zion; when Deuteronomy was written ; in the age when 
the temple was destroyed; and we are on the safest ground 
when we affirm that Exodus correctly describes it, and with 
it the tabernacle that enshrined it. 

This brings us back to the primary descriptions in Exodus, 
and to the question of their historical worth. Dr. Driver and 
other writers say flatly that the tabernacle could not have been 
historical, because, apart from the costliness and skill implied 
in its construction, the descriptions are “ marked by omissions 
and obscurities ” which indicate that “they are not the 
working directions upon which a fabric, such as is described, 
could be actually constructed ” (Exodus, p. 427). It may be 
sufficient to put in opposition to this the opinion of an expert 
working architect like Mr. Fergusson, who as the result of his 
minute study of the subject, declared, “It seems to me clear 
that it must have been written by some one who had seen the 
tabernacle standing. No one could have worked it out in such 
detail without ocular demonstration of the way in which the 
parts were put together” (cited in Speaker’s Commentary on 
* Hxodus,” p. 379, cf. Art. on “Temple” in Smith’s D.B.) Stress 
is laid upon the fact (Driver, Kennedy, etc.) that the bulk and 
weight of the materials of the tabernacle (boards, bars, sockets, 
pillars, ete.) were such that they could not be transported in 
the six covered wagons offered by the princes (Numbers vu, 
2 ff.). We need not suppose, however, that these gift-wagons 
were the only means of transport at the disposal of the Levites 
for this purpose (cf. Keil, 7m /oc.). 

The most plausible critical objection, to my mind, to the 
historicity of the tabernacle is that drawn from the difference 

: 


114 PROFESSOR JAMES ORR, D.D., ON THE 


in representation in the few JE passages already referred to 
and the elaborate descriptions in the so-called P sections, which 
are the main ones. I do not accept the late date of the alleged 
Priestly Writing, but I do not dispute the distinction in style 
and character between it and the notices referred to in the E or 
JE source. But even here the differences are greatly exagger- 
ated, and may perhaps most easily be explained by the fact 
that the P sections are devoted to a formal and detailed 
description of the tabernacle, its relations to the rest of the 
camp, its rules for transport, etc., while the other more popular 
narrative fixes attention mainly on the incidents, and uses 
simple and untechnical phraseology in its allusions to comings 
and goings between camp and tabernacle. It is true that, 
before the tabernacle and ark were made, Moses, at the time 
when God was displeased with his people,—possibly till the 
tabernacle was reared—was used to pitch the tent outside the 
camp, “afar off,’ it 1s said, and the people went out to him 
(Exodus xxxii, 7-11). There were then no Levites to attend 
to the tent, so that the absence of mention of them implies 
no contradiction to the later law. When, however, it is 
affirmed, on the basis of Numbers xi and xii, that the same rule 
_ prevailed in the wilderness wanderings, this can only be made 
good by ignoring many clear indications in the JE narrative 
itself, that the camp was not ordinarily outside, but within the 
camp, and that it was served by a Levitical priesthood. 

In proof of the former, given by me more extensively 
elsewhere (Problem of the Old Testament, pp. 167 ff.), I need 
only refer to the declaration in Numbers xiv, 44, that “the ark 
of the covenant of the Lord, and Moses, departed not out of the 
camp,” implying, as plainly as language can do, that its resting 
place—therefore the place of the tabernacle—was within the 
camp; or again to the formula in Numbers x, 36, at the resting 
of the ark—*“ Return, O Lord, unto the ten thousands of Israel,” 
which shows the same thing. The Levitical priesthood is amply 
attested by the notices in Deuteronomy (x, 6, 8; xxx1, 9, 25, 
26) and Joshua (iii-vi). When, again, it is noted as a feature 
of contrast with the P description that in JE Jehovah descends 
in the pillar to the door of the tabernacle to speak with 
Moses, it is not observed that in the P part also (Exodus xxix, 
42,43) it is said: ‘“‘ At the door of the tent of meeting 
to speak there unto thee.” I cannot, therefore, admit that, 
while the style of representation is somewhat freer and more 
popular, there is any essential disagreement between the 

different accounts warranting us in declaring that the P 


HISTORICITY OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE. 115 


description is unhistorical. It is a very significant admission 
which Dr. Driver makes at the end of his long discussion 
to prove that “it does not seem possible to regard the Tent 
of Meeting, as described by P, as historical,” when he says: 
“Although there are great difficulties in accepting all the 
details as historical, the general plan and outline of P’s 
tabernacle may rest upon historical tradition to a greater 
extent than we are aware. There are abundant indications 
showing that the ritual system of P is a development from old, 
and in some cases archaic ceremonial usage; and the same, 
mutatis mutandis, may have been the case with his picture 
of the tabernacle” (Exodus, pp. 430-1). If that is granted, 
I fail to see why, if the untenable assumption of the post- 
exilan origin of the Code is given up, we may not go a good 
way further, and say that P’s picture of the tabernacle goes 
back to the times when the tabernacle actually existed, and 
rests on sound historical knowledge. 


DISCUSSION. 


Dr. Witt1AM Woops SmyTH said: We have been privileged to 
hear this interesting subject treated by a high, if not our highest 
living authority. And the subject and occasion are singularly in 
place just after the publication of Canon Driver’s work on Exodus. 

It is not sufficiently borne in mind that the Egyptian people, and 
in considerable degree Israel, at the era of the Exodus had reached 
a very high state of civilization. Moses was brought up in a court 
which for culture and refinement surpassed every Imperial and Royal 
Court in Europe of our time. 

Again, Israel in their Exodus “spoiled the Egyptians,” and the 
wealth of Egypt at this time, only after the Rameses period, was 
enormous. And they owed it all to Israel because of long unpaid 
labour. This great wealth supplied everything embodied in the 
Mosaic Tabernacle. 

While we acknowledge the importance and utility of Professor 
Orr’s interesting paper, I must express my regret that Professor 
Orr should have adopted the theory of J.E.P. documents, when 
so great an authority as Professor Herdmanns, now in the chair of the 
redoubtable Kuenen, throws them overboard. Where is the use of 
placing any reliance upon a hypothesis, which is based on the 

12 


116 PROFESSOR JAMES ORR, D.D., ON THE 


fallacious argument, that a given writer always adheres to one, and 
one only, style in language, composition, method, and illustration in 
writing, when as a matter of fact most writers run through the 
whole gamut of composition, the subject matter of discourse having 
a potent influence in varying the style of writing. Carmichale of 
Montreal showed the strata the Critics contend for in the Bible to 
be present in Macaulay’s writings. Someone has pointed out that 
the principles of criticism upon which this farrago of “J,” “ EH,” “ P,” 
offered us is based, would with more reason compel us to believe that 
the writings of Burns show the existence of four or five men of that 
name. 

St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, for the name of our Saviour 
in the early part of that Epistle uses the form “Jesus Christ.” 
After these chapters we find almost exclusively the form “ Christ 
Jesus” and “Christ,” or ‘Lord Jesus Christ,” till the last few 
verses of the Epistle ; where a supplementary passage of three verses 
occurs, and we have again the form “ Jesus Christ.” So far as any- 
thing the Critics have to show, it is open to us to point out some 
differences of style in connection with the different use of the sacred 
Name. Even the Critics fail to convince themselves, unless they 
are permitted to call in the agency of an unknown, unknowable, 
unnameable, and unhistoric being called a “ Redactor.” 

Mr. MAUNDER said: May it be permitted to a practical astro- 
nomer to express how the general methods of the Higher Criticism 
strike him? It might seem as if astronomy had no bearing upon 
such methods, but it follows from the nature of astronomy, which 
necessitates the collation of observations made in different places 
and extending over great periods of time, that astronomers are 
continually obliged to make use of observations made by others. 
This brings the written document into great importance, as it may 
be necessary to use observations made a century or more ago. 
And what is the light in which experience has taught astronomers 
to regard the written document ? Conan Doyle said of the British 
mob of a hundred years ago that it had been bludgeoned into a 
respect for law and order. It is hardly too strong an expression to 
use to say that experience has bludgeoned astronomers into the 
most scrupulous respect for the written document as it stands. 

I could give, if necessary, any number of illustrations from 
astronomical history in which an account of some apparent contra- 


HISTORICITY OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE. 117 


diction or, because it did not seem to fit in with accepted views, 
the record of some observations has been rejected. Time and 
again the written document, sometimes after a hundred years, has 
vindicated itself, and those who rejected it have suffered in their 
reputation. 

It would be impossible for an astronomer to stand up before his 
colleagues and advocate some theory which he was basing upon 
documents that he was treating in the way in which the Higher 
- Critics habitually and of set purpose treat the documents presented 
to them in the Bible. I am not speaking now from the point of 
view of my belief that the Bible is indeed the Word of God, but 
simply irom the point of view that it is an existing document of 
which we wish to make use. If an astronomer were dealing with a 
record of observations which he felt that he could treat with the 
freedom with which the Higher Critics treat the text of Scripture, 
if he felt himself obliged to dissect, to alter, to eliminate, even to 
one-hundredth part of the extent that has been done in this critical 
handling of Scripture, he would feel bound to reject it completely 
as not worth wasting labour upon; it would go, the whole of it, 
into the waste paper basket at once. 

It is, therefore, from the point of view of a practical astronomer, 
that the methods of the Higher Critics seem to me essentially 
opposed to the principles of science. 

Mr. Martin RovseE said: I can only testify that I know 
Dr. Orr as in no sense a Higher Critic, but as a defender of the 
Pentateuch as a firsthand and faithful record of events. It was in 
this character that two years ago, during my sojourn in Toronto, 
he lectured to vast crowds of students and others in the University 
Theatre and in two of the largest churches in Toronto, not to speak 
of his series of addresses given there to the scholars of the Bible 
Training School and their friends. Indeed, in the chief Canadian 
newspaper (Zhe Toronto Globe) he was termed “a great war horse” of 
orthodoxy. 

I remember an argument uttered there, to which he alludes in 
this paper, and by which he upset the theory that the Levitical 
Code was written upon the return of the Jews from Babylon: the 
priests who returned were far more numerous than the other 
Levites who did so—twelve times as numerous, as shown by the 
muster-rolls. How, in face of such conditions, could Jeshua or Ezra 


118 PROFESSOR JAMES ORR, D.D., ON THE 


or any other priestly scribe have set down as of solemn authority 
the ordinance, that the mass of the people should give a tithe of all 
their annual produce to the Levites, and they again a tithe of their 
tithe, or only a hundredth part of the produce, to the priests ? In 
speaking of the earlier part of the Pentateuch, also, Dr. Orr 
remarked that Genesis x, with its accurate and comprehensive 
table of affinities among the nations of the world, stood out as a 
grand witness to the authentic and contemporary character of 
the records in Genesis; since it would have been impossible to 
construct such a table even a single century after the dispersion 
of the peoples, when settled in their widely severed habitats and 
speaking tongues so diversified. 

The difficulty of the existence of a “tent of meeting” in the 
wilderness before Moses was bidden to make one is obviated, if 
in Exodus xxxiil, 7, we read “his own tent” with the Samaritan 
Hebrew text instead of ‘‘the tent” with the Masoretic Hebrew, 
making the verse run “ And Moses took his own tent and pitched 
it outside the camp afar off from the camp, and he called it the 
tent of meeting” (see Linpl. Bible Dict., Samaritan Pentateuch). 

Doctor Orr’s idea that the beautiful tabernacle curtains and 
the goats’ hair tent that covered them had to be renewed from 
time to time appears (at first sight) to be borne out by the Divine 
statement made through Nathan to David, “I have gone from tent 
to tent, and from one tabernacle to another,” I Chron. xvii, 5. 
But the two outer coverings, of ram skins and skins of the 
takhash, must have given them a nearly perfect protection against 
sun and storm; while the Divine words may well refer to the fact 
that, after the ark of the covenant was brought back by the 
Philistines, 1t went no more to the tabernacle at Shiloh or Gibeon, 
but first to the house of Abinadab at Kirjath Jearim, then to the 
house of Obed-Edom at Perez-Uzza, and lastly to a tent that David 
had pitched for it in Zion—1 Sam. vii, 1; 11 Sam. vi, 8-10, 12, 17 
et pill. 

Dr. TuHrrTLE: I am struck by the want of consistency in the 
critical position as a whole. At one time we are told that the 
ancient Hebrews were an unimaginative people; that they had no 
faculty for the romantic. Yet, all the same, their literature has 
been dealt with in a manner which cannot but suggest that they 
included men who were veritable adepts in the work of fiction, men 


HISTORICITY OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE. 119 


whose writings and compilations were, in fact, anything but what 
they seem. Moreover, as we have been reminded this afternoon, 
among the leaders in Hebrew literature there were men who (so it 
is said) set themselves to provide, or rather devise, a model structure 
a good while after the same had been realized in a stately copy / 
In other words, we are told that these men found delight in 
describing institutions which never existed; and, having projected 
the same into a far distant past, suggested that they formed the 
- germ and inspiration of things which had since become well known ! 
And what is more, these men succeeded in foisting the said 
description upon an unsuspecting community. These various 
positions do not cohere: in fact, any one of them excludes the others. 

Surely some of us remember the time when all possible was done 
to represent Moses as a decreasing figure in history and literature. 
It was said, among other things, that he could not have done the 
things which the Old Testament places to his account. Going into 
details, Critics sought to show that legend had gathered round the 
people of Israel ; that the provisions of the Decalogue were in some 
respects inconceivable; and that the writings of Moses were, in 
part if not as a whole, pious frauds. When, however, it became 
evident that the art of writing was more ancient than had been 
supposed ; that the nations which surrounded Palestine had laws 
which were marvellously comprehensive ; and that the remains of 
other peoples contained references to ancient Israel, then, by steady 
steps, Moses became an ascending figure, and to-day he is increasing 
in reputation both as a man and a law-giver. Indeed, with the 
discovery of the Code of Khammurabi, it has come to be held that 
Moses was not only a leader of his people and a great law-giver, 
but likewise a statesman well acquainted with the laws of other 
nations, and, moreover, able to make use of the accumulated wisdom 
and experience of such nations ! 

These facts, as I maintain, indicate the most serious defect of 
Criticism: it fails to do justice to the documents which relate to 
the man, his people, and the laws which stand in his name. If 
Criticism would but take due account of the Old Testament, it 
would find therein a solution of many of its difficulties. For 
example, it is said that the children of Israel could not possibly find 
food in the wilderness. Here the record helps us; the Divine 
Redeemer of the people gave them manna—“ bread from heaven.” 


120 PROFESSOR JAMES ORR, D.D., ON THE 


Again, when the wisdom and power of Moses is considered, can we 
do better than follow the Hebrew record with its statement that 
the law-giver received instruction from God, and that those that 
executed his commands shared a like enduement from Heaven ? 
As we read, everything was done “according to the pattern shown 
in the mount.” 

In a word, Criticism cannot ‘have it both ways,” either with 
regard to the people of Israel, or to Moses “the man of God.” 
Ark, Tabernacle, and people go together, and Moses occupies the 
central place. No other nation of antiquity had such a deliverance, 
such a leader, such institutions. The history presented by the Old 
Testament documents is one that throbs with the acts of men, and 
tells of the over-ruling power of God, neither of which factors have 
due representation in the processes of Criticism, which, in separating 
itself from history in its most simple expression, yields, as might be 
supposed, results that are discordant in themselves and mutually 
destructive. 

Sir Ropert ANDERSON, K.C.B., said: The tent of meeting, which 
we all mean when we speak of ‘The Tabernacle,” never stood out- 
side the camp. On account of the apostasy of the golden calf, 
which occurred while Moses was on the mount receiving instructions 
to make the Tabernacle, he pitched the then tent of meeting outside 
the camp. But when the Tabernacle was made, it was dedicated by 
blood-shedding, and placed in the middle of the camp, a position 
which it occupied ever afterwards. 

“The historicity of the Tabernacle” is a question to be decided 
by evidence; and questions of the kind should be left to men who 
have practical experience in dealing with evidence—a category which 
does not include the Critics. Indeed if the matter were not so 
serious and so solemn, the methods of the Critics might amuse us. 
Any clever nisi prius lawyer could do their work better and make 
a stronger case against the Bible. But those of us who have been 
accustomed to attend the Law Courts know how little that sort of 
talk weighs with sensible men. 

One word more. I think that in dealing with this question we 
should not forget the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. For 
with the Christian the Lord’s testimony to the “historicity ” of the 
Pentateuch is an end of controversy. One is amazed at the blindness 
of the Critics in ignoring the fact that it was after the Resurrection 


HISTORICITY OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE. t21 


when the Lord stood free from all the limitations of His humiliation 
—whatever they were—and spoke with full Divine knowledge, that 
in the most explicit and emphatic terms He accredited the Books of 
Moses as Divine. For then it was that, ‘‘ beginning at Moses, and all 
the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the 
things concerning Himself.” And again, referring back to His 
previous teaching, “‘ He said unto them, these are the words which I 
spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be 
fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, 
and in the Psalms concerning me”—the well known three-fold 
division of the Hebrew Canon. (Luke xxiv, 27, 44.) 

Professor HULL said: Though I am not in a position to speak on 
the details of the question before the Meeting, I would like to say 
that I have followed the line of march of the Exodus step by step 
through the wilderness of Sinai and Arabia Petrza, and I can con- 
firm the absolute integrity and accuracy of the sacred writers ; 
never was a description of a great migration so definite, clear, and 
evidently true. I cannot separate the story of the Tabernacle from 
its historical setting, and that I have been able to confirm by 
personal experience. 

Anyone who reads, with a candid mind, the account in Exodus 
| XXiv—xxxvii cannot fail to come to the conclusion that the details of 
events which took place at the foot of Mount Sinai (Jebel Musa) 
were written by one who was a personal actor and spectator of the 
events there described ; and amongst these were the directions given 
to Moses by Jehovah for the construction of the Ark which was 
henceforth to accompany the people through their journeyings into 
the land of Canaan, and the presence of which is so deeply inter- 
woven with their history. For myself I accept the account in 
Exodus—whether dealing with miraculous or non-miraculous 
matters, as I would that of any reliable historian. It is the only 
source of our knowledge of these events, and the whole Jewish 
nation is a standing witness to its truth. 

It is now so many years since my visit with the party sent out by 
the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund in 1883-4 that 
many members of the Institute may not have had any opportunity 
of becoming acquainted with its results; these will be found in 
vol. xxi of the Jowrnal of Transactions (for 1887-8), being the address 
delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Society. 


122 PROFESSOR JAMES ORR, D.D., ON THE 
3 3 


The little volume, Mount Seir, Sinai and Palestine, which I wrote 
with details of the expedition is now, I fear, out of print. 

The Rev. J. A. LigHTFooT said: It seems to me thata strong 
argument for the historicity of the Mosaic Tabernacle may be derived 
from the character of the narrative of its construction :—(1) Two 
accounts of the details of the Tabernacle are given. One gives us 
the order in which it was revealed to Moses, Exodus xxv to xxx ; the 
other gives us the order in which it was actually constructed, briefly 
in Exodus xxxy, 10-19, and fully in Exodus xxxvi to xxxix. The 
fact that we have two accounts gives a verisimilitude to the whole 
transaction. Surely this would be a quite unaccountable method of 
narrating, if the writer were an Exilic romancer. It is indeed 
pointless and clumsy, unless it is a history of what happened. 
(2) But the two accounts strikingly differ in the order in which they 
deal with the different parts. The first begins with the Ark and 
the Mercy-seat (the contents of the Holiest), the Table and the 
Candlestick (contents of the -Holy Place); then follows the 
Tabernacle. But the second begins with the Tabernacle, and 
places the making of the Ark, etc., after the Tabernacle had been 
made. Now if we are dealing with a historical narrative this change 
of order is natural and intelligible. It was natural that in the order 
of revelation the Ark should be mentioned first, for it was the central 
object, and the Tabernacle was constructed for its sake. It was 
natural that in the order of construction the Tabernacle should 
come first, for its resting-place must be ready for the Ark before 
that sacred thing itself was made. 

One other point of verisimilitude in the narrative is worth 
noticing. ‘The series of instructions to Moses closes with an injunc- 
tion as to Sabbath observance (Exodus xxxi, 13-17). This comes 
in naturally as a warning, as if God said: ‘‘I have set before you a 
sacred work to be done, but remember that its sacredness will not 
justify a breach of the Sabbath for its sake”; not even Tabernacle 
construction is allowed to be done on the Sabbath. It is no less 
natural that in the series of instructions given by Moses to the people, 
the reminder about Sabbath observance should come first of all 
(Exodus xxxy, 1-3). 

Bishop Westcott (Commentary on Hebr ews, p. 233) called the 
“critical” theory of the Tabernacle “an incredible inversion of 
history.” It seems to me that the narrative itself defies the theory 


HISTORICITY OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE. 125 


of religious romance, and demands to be read as a record of what 
took place. 

Mr. H. M. WIENER said: As it is getting late I must confine 
myself to one or two points. There can, I fear, be no doubt that 
Dr. Woods Smyth was quite right in saying that Dr. Orr accepted 
the documentary theory, though in a modified form. Indeed there 
is evidence of this in the sentence on p. 113, relating to the history 
of the Ark, where the composition of Deuteronomy is treated as 
~ an event that took place between the age of David and Solomon 
aud the destruction of the Temple. 

I desire to express my entire concurrence in what Sir Robert 
Anderson said as to the inability of the Higher Critics to weigh 
evidence. 

The main point with which I wish to deal is the question of the 
tent in Exodus xxxii, 7 ff. The first of these verses is not 
accurately translated in the current English version. It should 
run, “‘ And Moses used to take the tent ”—or a tent, for Hebrew 
idiom uses the definite article in certain cases where the English 
would require the indefinite “a@”—‘“ and pitch it for himself, etc.” 
The little Hebrew monosyllable meaning “for himself” is un- 
fortunately omitted in the English versions, but in the most recent 
English edition of Exodus—that of Dr. Driver—the inaccuracy of 
the current rendering is pointed out. Now I put it to you, is it 
really conceivable that if the tent here spoken of had been the 
shelter of the Ark, Moses would have taken it and pitched it for his 
own use outside the camp, afar off from the camp, leaving the Ark 
itself bared and unguarded in the midst of the camp? If that question 
is answered in the only possible way, it follows of necessity that 
this narrative does not relate to that tent of meeting, which we call 
the Tabernacle in ordinary parlance. A difficulty then arises from 
the name “‘tent of meeting.” It is hard to believe that after seven 
chapters (xxv—xxxi) almost wholly devoted to instructions for the 
tent which was to bear that name, Moses should have taken an 
entirely different tent for his own purposes and applied to that the 
designation of the intended home of the Ark. If he had done so, 
the narrative would surely have given us some intelligible explana- 
tion of his procedure. I, myself, believe that Exodus xxxiu, 7-11, 
is at present misplaced, and should stand much earlier (see Hssays 
in Pentatewchal Criticism, pp. 93-102, 106 f.; The Origin of the 


124 PROFESSOR JAMES ORR, D.D., ON THE 


Pentateuch, pp. 53 ff.), but if I were to start on the subject of the 
textual criticism of the Pentateuch, I fear we should be here all night. 

I thank you for your kindness in giving me a hearing. 

Dr. HrEywoop SMITH wished to make two observations. The 
first was with regard to the author’s remarks at the bottom of 
p. 111 on the wearing out of the boards and curtains; could not 
the same God that kept the clothes and shoes of the Israelites from 
wearing out have also preserved the material of his own Tabernacle 
from deteriorating ? And secondly, the author says (p. 113), ‘‘ We 
are on the safest ground when we affirm that Exodus correctly 
describes it.” Have we not also the additional testimony of the 
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who, in his description of the 
Tabernacle with its furniture and the Ark (chapter ix), writes as one 
who was inspired to speak of things that had had an actual existence 
and were not dim pictures of a myth. 

The CHAIRMAN in summing up said: It is most valuable to have 
the opinion of experts in two branches of evidence, Sir Robert 
Anderson and Mr. Maunder, as to the value of questions of Higher 
Criticism. For my part, I have no doubt that experts in forensic 
evidence and in scientific evidence have much sounder views of what 
evidence really means than those whose criticism cannot be verified 
by experiment or practical life. 

I cannot understand the objection to the Mosaic account of the 
Tabernacle, that it is not clear enough for anyone to work on. At 
least two of my friends have found it clear enough to construct 
models not exactly alike but differmg only in minor points, the 
only great difference being whether there was or was nota ridge pole. 

As to the remarks which have been made as to the author’s views 
on questions not in the paper, I would say that it is not right to try a 
man in his absence when he has had no notice of the charge. It 
certainly is not allowed in law, and I think should not be in 
discussion. 

In conclusion, I propose a hearty vote of thanks to Professor Orr 
for his most valuable and important paper. 

This was put to the meeting and carried unanimously. 


The following written communications have been received. 


From Canon GIRDLESTONE :— 


P. 104. Reference is made to “high artistic skill.” In Petrie’s 


HISTORICITY OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE. 125 


Hist. Egypt (i, 140) we read with regard to a pre-Abrahamic artist, ‘God 
has made him excel . . . the work of the chief artist in every kind 
of precious stone, gold, silver, ivory, ebony.” See also p. 177 on the 
pectoral inlaid with precious stones found in a casket, also his notes 
on early statuary and painting, and on the simplicity, vastness, 
perfection and beauty of Egyptian art in patriarchal times, and on 
traces of Semitic workmanship in Egypt, in the XVIIIth Dynasty 
(vol. ii, p. 36). In view of these and other utterances, the very 
natural difficulty about ‘high artistic skill,” etc., vanishes. 

P. 104. Dr. Orr’s position is confirmed by the fact that the 
explanations with regard to structure are far more detailed and 
exact in regard to the Tabernacle than in the case of the Temple. 

P. 105. Technical words introduced in Exodus xxv, etc., have to be 
carefully studied, as is sometimes, but not always, done by the 
revisers, in order to detect the substitution of other words in Kings 
and Chronicles. Note, e.g., the substitution of Row-bread for Show- 
bread (not marked in Revised Version) and the introduction of 
“ oracle,” “ chariot,” ‘ gourd ” (for knop), ‘ felloe” (for fillet). 

P. 106. There is a remarkable pair of expressions bearing on the 
points of the compass, viz., ‘‘ Southside southward ” in Exodus xxvi, 
18, and elsewhere, and “ Eastside eastward” in Exodus xxvii, 13. 
What does it mean? In each case the old words used in patriarchal 
times (negeb and kedemah) come first, whilst other words used here 
for the first time in this sense are added by way of explanation (teman 
and mizrach). This would never have been needed in later times, 
and the duplicate expression is never used again except by Ezekiel, 
who is steeped in the use of Tabernacle expression. The sons of 
Jacob had not forgotten their ancestral language, and we have here 
a testimony to the fact. 


From CHANCELLOR LIAS :— 


I quite agree with the statement on p. 105, that the theory 
of the Levitical Code, which enjoys the favour of critics just 
now, is ‘‘arbitrary and wholly preposterous.” ‘These words I feel 
to be not one whit too strong. A theory which is established by 
striking out every passage in the historical scriptures which is 
irreconcilable with it, and assigning that passage to a later date, is 
one which, to use the words of the late Bishop Stubbs, a historical 
expert by no means to be despised, would be “laughed out of 


126 PROFESSOR JAMES ORR, D.D., ON THE 


court” in every branch of historical research except that in which 
theological prepossessions are allowed to enter. And where we find 
it supported by the absolutely incompatible assertions (1) that the so- 
called Priestly Code is “‘in its present shape” post-exilic, and yet (2) 
that it is, “in its origin, of great antiquity,” and is a “ codification 
of the existing Temple usage,” it becomes quite inadmissible. It is 
a dexterous mode of puzzling opponents, no doubt, for when an 
opponent proves, as he can easily do, that a large portion of the 
Priestly Code is pre-exilic, he is, of course, met by the reply, 
“Precisely so, that is what we say.” And if the critic, when 
challenged to state precisely which of the regulations of the Code are 
post-exilic and which are not, proceeds calmly to tell us that this 
“is an archeological rather than a literary question,” and that, 
therefore, he is not called upon to enter into it, one wonders what 
theory can possibly exist which cannot be proved by arguments 
such as these. It is no wonder that Professor James Robertson has 
invoked the aid of British enquirers to introduce a “ saner ” sort of 
criticism which shall correct the exaggerations and arbitrary assump- 
tions of so many German critics. 

On p. 111 the Professor refers to the passage in I Kings vii, which 
states that the Tabernacle (or “ tent of meeting,” as it is called) and 
‘all the holy vessels therein ” were brought up to Jerusalem for the 
service of dedication of the Temple. This passage is characteristi- 
cally struck out by the critics, and I have never been able to find 
any reason for this except that it conflicts with their prepossessions. 
On such principles of historical investigation it could be proved that 
Queen Elizabeth reigned before the Norman conquest. But I would 
ask the meeting to note what is said in I Kings ii, 4. It states that 
at Gibeon was the ‘‘Great High Place.” And the passages cited by 
Professor Orr, I and 11 Chronicles, give the reason. The Tabernacle 
was there. This is the argument from Undersigned Coincidence, now 
entirely ignored, though made abundant use of by writers such as 
Lardner, Paley and Blunt, clearer and sounder thinkers, I must 
believe, than many who have undertaken to instruct us since their 
day. Why should Gibeon be the “Great High Place,” greater 
than any other? Kings states the fact, Chronicles gives the reason. 
Why should there have been any “ High Places” in the days of 
David and Solomon? Once more Chronicles gives the reason. 
Because since the days of Eli the Ark had been in one place and the 


HISTORICITY OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE. 127 


Tabernacle at another. It is possible that the shiftings of the Taber- 
nacle from place to place—from Shiloh to Nob, and from Nob to 
Gibeon—were in order to bring the Tabernacle and the Ark nearer 
together. Certainly Gibeon was a good deal nearer to Kirjath Jearim 
than Shiloh was. The whole question is worth fuller treatment. 
Thus it is clear that the word heycal does not necessarily mean 
Solomon’s Temple, for we have the word in the plural in many parts 
of the Old Testament. Heycal means simply a large building, and in 
I Sam. i, 9, and iii, 3, it probably includes, not merely the Taber- 
nacle, but buildings surrounding it to protect it from assault or 
plunder, as well as the “other structures” which Professor Orr 
suggests. 

One remark I should like toadd. On p. 106 the Professor criticizes 
the ‘“‘ schemes for the reduction of the numbers in the Exodus.” I 
do not question his conclusions there. But there can be no doubt 
that the numbers in the Old Testament generally have fallen into 
confusion, either by the use of signs for numbers—signs which 
eventually became out of date, so that they were no longer under- 
stood—or for some other undiscovered reason. The best explanation 
of the difficulty is that of Mr. Harold Wiener, who has given much 
attention to Old Testament questions. He thinks that the “‘M” 
with which the word Meah (hundred) begins, when used to signify 
one hundred, as it does a thousand among ourselves, may have been 
confounded with ‘“-im,” the Hebrew plural, used in matters 
numerical for tens, and that, therefore, numbers may have sometimes 
been inadvertently multiplied or divided by ten. 

To my mind the one thing needful at the present moment is full, 
fair, and free discussion of the whole critical question. As that 
able scholar Professor Flint said some years ago, it is time to 
“eriticize the critics.” I venture to say that the question will 
never be settled until argument takes the place of assertion, and all 
objections are fairly met and answered. 


Dr. ORR’S REPLY. 


The discussion seems to deal largely with the merits or demerits 
of the general critical theory, which it did not fall within my 
province to discuss, rather than with the special question of the 
Tabernacle. My views on the critical theory may be seen at large 
in my book, The Problem of the Old Testament, and in more popular 


128 HISTORICITY OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE. 


form in The Bible under Trial. As will be seen from these volumes, 
it is not the case that I accept the documentary theory of the 
Pentateuch in any sense corresponding with the view of the critics, 
or carrying the work beyond the Mosaic age, and certainly I do not 
regard Deuteronomy as originating at or near the time of the 
discovery in the reign of Josiah. That view I have always strongly 
contested. For the rest, I can only thank the Members of the 
Institute for their kind reception of the paper. 


527TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 


MONDAY, FEBRUARY 191, 1912. 


Davin Howarp, Esq., VIicE-PRESIDENT, IN THE CHAIR. 


The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed and 
the following elections were announced :— 


Memser: Sir Robert Anderson, LL.D., K.C.B. 


AssociATEs: Sir W. Mackworth Young, K.C.S8.I.; Miss Cecilia 
Bramwell. 


THE REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL 
HGO. Illustrated by Physical Experiments. By SYDNEY 
T. Ke, F.L.S., F.R.A.S. 


N the last paper I read before this Institution I attempted to 
show that what we call Time and Space have no real 
existence apart from our physical Senses, they are only modes 
or conditions under which those Senses act and by which we 
gain a very limited and illusory knowledge of our surroundings. 
Our very consciousness of living depends upon our perception 
of multitudinous changes in our surroundings, and our very 
thoughts are therefore also limited by Time and Space, because 
change is dependent on these two limits, the very basis of 
perceived motion being the time that an object takes to go 
over a certain space; we must therefore look behind conscious- 
ness itself, beyond the conditioning in Time and Space, for the 
true reality of Being. I concluded my paper with the 
suggestion that the true conception of the creation of the 
whole Physical Universe was the materialization of the 
Thought or Will of the Deity, He does not require time to 
think as we do, the whole Universe is therefore an instan- 
taneous Thought of the Great Reality; the forming of this 
World and its destruction, the appearance of Man, the birth 
and death of each one of us, are absolutely at the same instant, 
K 


130 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S8., F.R.A:S:, ON THE 


it is only from the fact of our finite minds requiring that 
Thought to be drawn out into a long line and from our want ~ 
of knowledge and inability to grasp the whole truth that we 
are forced to conceive that one event happens before or after 
another. In our finite way we examine and strive to under- 
stand this wondrous Thought and at last a Darwin, after a 
lifetime spent in accumulating facts on this little spot of the 
Universe, discovers what he thinks to be a law of sequences 
and calls it the Evolution theory; but this is probably only 
one of countless other modes by which the intent of that 
Thought is working towards completion, the apparent direction 
of certain lines on that great tracing board of the Creator, 
whereon is depicted the whole plan of His work. I shall now 
try to carry our thoughts a step further towards appreciating 
that in this wonderful Thought of the Great Spirit, whose 
mind may be said to be omnipresent, each individual is a 
working unit in the plan of Creation, each unit as it gains 
knowledge of this thought, forms fur itself a personality 
helping forward the great work to its fulfilment; without that 
knowledge there can be no personality, no unit in the great 
completed Thought, no life hereafter. 

The longer one lives and the more one studies the mystery 
of “ Being,” the more one is forced to the conviction that in 
every Human Being there are two Personalities, call them what 
you like, “The Leal Personality and its Image,” “ The Spiritual 
and its Material Shadow,” or “The TZvanscendentai and its 
Physical Ego.” The former in each of these Duads is not 
conditioned in Time and Space, is independent of Extension 
aud Duration, and must, therefore, be Omnipresent and Omni- 
scient ; whereas the latter, being subservient to Time and Space, 
can only think in finite words, requires succession of ideas to 
accumulate knowledge, is dependent on perception of move- 
inents for forming concepts of its surroundings and, without 
this perception, would have no knowledge, no consciousness of 
existence. 

Let us first try and understand the conditions under which 
phenomena are presented to us. In our perception of sight 
we find the greater the Light the greater the shadow; a light 
placed over a table throws a shadow on the floor, though not 
sufficient to prevent our seeing the pattern of the carpet, but 
increase the light and the shadow appears now so dark that no 
pattern or carpet can be seen; not that there is now less light 
under the table, but the light above has to our sense of sight 
created or made manifest a greater darkness, and so, throughout 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. Lae 


the Universe, as interpreted by our Physical Ego, we find 
phenomena ranging themselves under the form of positive and 
negative, the Real and the Unreal. 


The Good .... making manifest its negative ... the Evil. 

The Beautiful 2 fs ie ¥ > bane Wgly.. 
he Erae. «2: s 4 “ * ... the False. 
Knowledge... : ‘ is ‘ ... Ignorance. 
Light rf 2 f . 4 ... Darkness. 
Heat xh, a " ‘ i, dnt Clokd: 


but the negatives have no real existence. As in the case of 
Light we see that the shadow is only the absence of light, so the 
negative of Goodness, 7.c., Evil, may in reality be looked upon 
as folly or wasting of opportunity for exercising the Good, but 
owing to their limitations our thoughts are based upon 
relatiwity, and it is hardly thinkable that we could, under our 
present conditions, have any cognizance of the positive without 
its negative, and it is therefore by the examining of the 
Physical, the negative or shadow, that we can best gain a 
knowledge of the Spiritual, the positive or real. 

It is between the Spiritual and the Physical, the Real and 
its Image, Good and Evil, the Knowledge and Ignorance of the 
Good, Beautiful and True, that Freewill has to choose. Let us 
try to get a clearer understanding of this, First let us clearly 
recognize that it is not we (the Physical Egos) who are looking 
out upon Nature, but that it is the Reality or Spiritual which 
is ever trying to enter and come into touch with us through 
our senses, and is persistently trying to waken within us 
the sublimest truths; it is difficult to realize this as from 
infancy we have been accustomed to confine our attention 
wholly upon the objective, believing that to be the reality ; 
in the sense of Sight we have no knowledge of the only 
impression made upon our bodies, namely the image itself 
formed upon our retina, nor have we any cognizance of the 
separate Electro-magnetic rills which, reflected from all parts 
of the object, fall upon the eye at different angles constituting 
form, and at different frequencies giving colours to that image ; 
that image is only formed when we turn our eyes in the right 
direction to allow those rills to enter, whereas those rills are 
incessantly beating on the outside of our sense organ, when the 
eyelid is closed, and can make no image on the retina, unless 
we allow them to enter by raising that shutter ; it is not then 
any volition from within that goes out to seize upon and grasp 
the truths of Nature, but the phenomena are, as it were, forcing 

K 2 


132 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S., F.R.A.S., ON THE 


their way into our consciousness. This is more difficult to grasp 
when the objective is near, as we are apt to confound it with 
our sense of touch, which requires us to stretch out our hand 
to the object, but it is clearer when we take an object far away. 

In our telescopes we catch the rills of light which started 
from a star a million years ago and the image is still formed on 
the retina, although those rills are a million years old and have 
been falling upon mankind from the beginning of life on this 
Globe, ready to get an entrance to consciousness; it was only 
when, by evolution of thought, the knowledge of Optics had 
evolved the telescope, that it “became possible, ‘uot only to allow 
that star to make itself known to us but to teach us its distance, 
its size and conditions of existence, and even the different 
Elemental substances of which it was composed a million years 
ago; yet, when we now allow it to form its image on the retina, 
our consciousness insists on fixing its attention upon that star, 
refusing to allow that it is only an image on our retina and 
making it diificult to realize that that Star may have disappeared 
and had no existence for the past 992,999 years, although in 
ordinary parlance, we are looking at and seeing it there now. 

I have referred to the sense of touch: it is, I think, clear that 
the first impression a child can have of sight must take the form 
of “ feeling” the image on its retina, as though the object were 
actually inside the head, and it could have no idea that the 
object was outside, until, by touching with the hand, it would 
gradually learn by experience that the tangible object 
corresponded with the i image located in the head ; this is borne 
out by the testimony of men who, born blind, had by an 
operation received their sight late im life; their first experience 
of seeing vave the impression that the object was touching the 
eb es and they were quite unable to recognize by sight an object 
which they had often handled and knew perfectly well by 
touching ; in fact, the idea of an object formed by the sense of 
touch is so absolutely different to that formed by the sense of 
sight that it would be impossible without past experience to 
conclude that the two sensations referred to one and -the same 
object. The image formed on the retina has nothing in common 
with the sense of hardness, coldness and weight experienced by 
touch, the only impression made on the retina being that of 
colour or shades and an outline ; it is, however. hardly conceiv- 
able that even the outline of form would be recognized by the 
eye, until touch had proved that form comprised also solidity, 
and that the two ideas had certain motions in common both in 
duration of time and extension in space. Again, our sense of 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. 138 


sight and hearing are alike based on ‘the appreciation of 
vibrations or frequencies of different rapidity ; brightness and 
colour in light are equivalent to loudness and pitch in sound, 
but in sound we have no equivalent to perception of form or 
situation in space, we have no knowledge of the existence of an 
object when situated at great distances, nor can we follow its 
movements even at shortest distances without having material 
contact with that object: light indeed appears to have to do 
with Space—and Sound with Time—perception. 

In exainining Nature, by means of our senses, we are in this 
position :—We find that Perception without knowledge leads to 
false concepts, which lead us into difficulties, and this fact is 
indeed our greatest incentive to acquire further knowledge; but 
our thoughts are so hemmed in by what we have always taken 
for granted. and so bound down by modes of reasoning derived 
from what we have seen, heard, or felt in our daily hfe, that we 
are sadly hampered in our search after the truth. It is difficult 
to sweep the erroneous concepts aside and make a fresh start. 
In fact, the great difficulty in studying the reality underlying 
Nature is analogous to our inability to isolate and study the 
different sounds themselves which fall upon the ear, without 
being forced to consider the meaning we have always attached 
to those sounds, when words of our own language are being 
uttered ; however hard we may try, it is hardly possible when 
hearing the sound to dissociate the meaning or prevent our 
mind from dwelling upon the thoughts which have hitherto 
been allocated to those sounds. Our other great difficulty is 
that our Physical senses only perceive the surface of things, we 
are most of us looking npon the woof of Nature as though it 
were the glass of a window upon which are seen patterns, 
smudges, dead flies, etc. ; it requires a keener perception than 
that of sight to enable us to look through the glass at the 
Reality which is beyond. Let us, therefore, now try and see 
when and how this higher perception was first given to 
humanity. 

Let us go back into the far distant past, before the frame 
and brain of what we now call the genus homo was fully 
developed ; le was then an animal pure and simple, conscious of 
living but knowing neither gond nor evil, there was nothing in 
his thoughts more perfect than himself, it was the golden age 
of innocency, a being enjoying himself in a perfect state of 
Nature with absolute freedom from responsibility of action ; 
but, as ages rolled on, under the great law of evolution, his brain 


ra) 
was enlarging and gradually being prepared for a great and 


154 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S., F.R.A.S., ON THE 


wonderful event which was to make an enormous change in his 
mode of living and his outlook on the future. As seeds may 
fall continually for thousands of years upon hard rock without 
being able to germinate, until gradually, by the disintegration 
of the rock, soil is formed, enabling the seed at last to take 
root, so for countless ages was the mind of that noble animal 
being prepared until, in the fulfilment of time, the Spiritual took 
root and he became a living soul. The change was marvellous ; 
he was now aware of something higher and more perfect than 
himself, he found that he was able to form ideals above his 
ability to attain to, resulting in a sense of inferiority akin to a 
Fall, he was conscious of the difference of Right and Wrong and 
felt happy and blessed when he followed the Good, but ashamed 
and accursed when he chose the Evil; he became upright in 
stature and able to communicate his thoughts and wishes to his 
fellows by means of language, and by feeling his freedom to 
choose between the Good, Beautiful, and True, on the one hand, 
and the Evil, Ugly, and False, on the other, he became aware that 
he was responsible and answerable toa mysterious higher Being 
for his actions. All these at once raised him far above other 
animals and he gradually began to feel the presence within him 
of a wonderful power, the nucleus of that Transcendental Self 
which had taken root and which, from that age to this, has urged 
Man ever forward, first to form, and then struggle to attain, 
higher Ideals of Perfection. As a mountaineer who with stern 
persistence struggles upward from height to height, gaining at 
each step a clearer and broader view, so do we, as we progress 
in our struggle upwards toward the understanding of Perfection 
ever see clearer and clearer that the Invisible is the Real, the 
visible is only its shadow, that our Spiritual Personality is akin 
to that Great Reality, that we cannot search out and know that 
Personality, it cannot be perceived by our senses, it is not an 
idea, any more than we can see a Sound by our sense of Sight or 
measure an Infinity by our finite units; all we can so far do is 
to feel and mark its effect in guiding our Physical Ego to choose 
the real from the shadow, the plus from the minus, receiving 
back in some marvellous mode of reflex action the power to draw 
further nourishment from the Infinite. As that Inner Personality 
becomes more and more firmly established, higher ideals and 
knowledge of the Reality bud out, and, as these require the 
clothing of finite expressions before they can become part of our 
consciousness, so are they clothed by our Physical Ego and 
become forms of thought; and, although the Physical Ego is only 
the shadow, or image projected on the physical screen, of the 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO, 135 


Real Personality, we are able by examining these emanations and 
marking their affinity to the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, 
to attain at times to more than transient glimpses of the 
loveliness of that which is behind the veil. As ina river flowing 
down to the Sea, a small eddy, however small, once started with 
power to increase, may, if it continues in mid-stream, instead of 
getting entangled with the weeds and pebbles near the bank, 
gather to itself so large a volume of water that, when it reaches 
the sea, it has become a great independent force ; so is each of 
us endowed, as we come into this life, with a spark of the Great 
Reality, with potential to draw from the Infinite in proportion 
to our conscientious endeavours to keep ourselves free from the 
deadening effects of mundane frivolities and enticements, turning 
our faces ever towards the hight rather than to the shadow, until 
our personality becomes a permanent entity, commanding an 
individual existence when the physical clothing of this life is 
worn out and, for us, all shadows disappear. 

If man became a conscious being on some such analogous 
lines as indicated, it is clear that he is, as it were, the offspring 
of two distinct natures and subject to two widely separated 
influences ; the Spiritual ever urging him towards improvement 
in the direction of the Real or Perfect, and the Physical or 
Animal instincts inviting him in the opposite direction ; these 
latter instincts are not wrong in themselves, ina purely animal 
nature, but are made manifest as urging in the direction of the 
shadow or Imperfect when they come in contact, and therefore 
in competition, with the Spiritual. Neither the Spiritual nor 
the Physical can be said to possess Free-will, they must work in 
opposite directions, but this competition for influence over our 
actions provides the basis for the exercise of man’s Free-will : 
the choice between progression and stagnation. The Spiritual 
influence must conquer in the long runas every step under that 
influence is a step towards the Real and can never be lost, the 
apparent steps in the other direction are only negative or 
retarding and can have no real existence except as a drag on the 
wheel which is ever moving in the direction of Perfection, thus 
hindering the process of growth of the Personality. 

The stages in development of the Physical Ego and its 
final absorption in the Transcendental may perhaps be stated 
as follows :— 


The Physical Ego loquitur :— 


“T become aware of being surrounded by phenomena,—I 
will to see,—I perceive and wonder what is the meaning of 


136 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S., F.R.A.S., ON THE 


everything,—I begin to think,—I reflect by combining 
former experiences—I am conscious that ‘I am’ and that 
I am free to choose between Right and Wrong but that I 
am responsible for my actions to a higher power; that 
what I call‘ I am’ is itself only the shadow or in some 
incomprehensible sense the breathing organ, of a wonderful 
divine Afflatus or Power which is growing up within, or in 
intimate connection with me, and which itself is akin to 
the Reality. Owing to my senses being finite I cannot 
with my utmost thought form a direct concept of that 
power although I feel that it comprises all that is good and 
real in me, and is, in fact, my true personality; I am 
conscious of it ever urging me forward towards the Good, 
Beautiful, and True, and that each step I take in that 
direction (especially when taken in opposition to the 
dictates of physical instincts) results in a further growth 
of that Transcendental Self; with that growth I recognize 
that it is steadily gaining power over my thoughts and 
aspirations. I learn that the whole physical Universe is 
a manifestation of the Will of the Spiritual, that every 
phenomenon is, as it were, a sublime thought, that it 
should be my greatest individual aspiration to try to 
interpret those thoughts, or when, as it seems at present, 
our stage in the evolution of thought is not far enough 
advanced, I should, during my short term of life, do my 
best to help forward the knowledge of the Good, Beautiful, 
and True for those who come after. As I grow old the 
Real Ego in me seems to be taking my place, the central 
activity of my life is being shifted as I feel I am growing 
in some way independent of Earthly desires and aspirations, 
and, when the term of my temporary sojourn here draws 
to a close, I feel myself slackening my hold of the physical 
until at last I leave go entirely and my physical clothing, 
having fulfilled its use, drops off and passes away, carrying 
with it all limitations of Time and Space—lI awake as 
from a dream to find my true heritage in the Spiritual 
Universe.” 


If we try to form a conception of the stages of growth of the 
Transcendental Self it would, I think, be somewhat as follows :-— 


The first consciousness of the I know that Love is the Sum- 
Spiritual entity would be mum bonum. 

As it became nourished it I love. 
would be 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. 137 


then -... ee be .... L love with my whole being. 

‘Then... ny ye ... I know that I am part of God 
and God is love. 

And lastly ... Ave ... Tam perfected in Loving and 
Knowing. 


If we now try to consider the connection between the 
Spiritual and Physical Ego, we have to recognize that the 
Human Race is still in its infancy, we still require Symbolism 
‘to help us to maintain and carry abstract thought to higher 
levels, even as children require picture books for that purpose. 
With all our advance in knowledge during the last hundred 
years we are indeed still as children playing with pebbles on 
the seashore, knowing neither why we are placed there nor 
what those pebbles are or whence they come. Though we seem 
ever to be discovering fresh truths concerning the relations of 
these pebbles among themselves when arranged in different 
patterns, built up into new forms, or split up into smaller 
fragments, we have to acknowledge (substituting thoughts for 
pebbles) that we are still only learning our alphabet and the 
simple rules of multiplication, addition, and division, which 
must be mastered before we can hope to take the real step 
towards understanding; we are surrounded by mysteries, we 
are indeed a mystery to ourselves, we do not know even 
how the Physical Ego is connected with the physical world ; 
how the sense organs, receiving the impression of multi- 
tudinous and diverse frequencies of different intensities and 
amplitudes, transmit them to the brain, and how the mind 
is able to combine all these impressions and form concepts. 
We have but lately learnt that our senses can only be affected 
by changes or movement in matter or in the all-pervading 
ether, that they can only act under certain specific modes which 
we call Time and: Space and that, as our conceptions are based 
on knowledge limited by these two modes, we have, apart from 
“ Revelation,’ no means of knowing the Transcendental except 
by noting its effect upon the Physical. By examining the 
Physical Universe we seem to see clearly, however, that the 
only Reality is the Spiritual, the Here and the Now, that our 
real Personality being Spiritual is independent of Space and 
Time limitation and is, therefore, Omnipresent and Omniscient ; 
it may, indeed, be not solely connected with the Physical Ego of 
this world, but in close working connection with other Physical 
Egos in the Universe, and may in some wonderful process, 
through its affinity with the Great Spirit, be helping the 


138 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S., F.R.A.S., ON THE 


others to bring the wonderful thought to completion in other 
directions possibly quite beyond our power to conceive under 
the conditions we are accustomed to here. 

A great forest tree forms each year a multitude of separate 
buds; each of these buds is an independent plant which has 
only a temporary existence and has no present knowledge of 
the other buds, but it is by means of all these buds and the 
leaves they develop, that the tree is nourished and increases 
from year to year. Still more wonderful is the fact that it 1s 
these temporary existences which, in accordance with the 
general law of life-reproduction, form special ovules which we 
call seeds, each of which has the potentiality for growing up 
into a great forest tree, which, in its turn, is capable of pushing 
forth temporary existences in countless directions. We have 
in the above process of creating a Forest Tree a likeness on the 
Physical plane to what I would suggest is the process, not only 
of the creation of the Race, but on the Transcendental Plane 
the multiplication of permanent personalities by means of, or in 
connection with, the temporary and Space-limited Human 
Physical Ego. 

Again, as the Human mind forms a thought, clothes it in 
Physical language, and sends it forth in such a form as not only 
affects our material sense of hearing but conveys to the hearer 
the very thought itself, so the whole Physical Universe is a 
temporary and Space-limited representation of the Reality 
which is behind, is, in fact, the materialization of the Will or 
Thought of the Great Spirit. The “taking root” or advent of 
the Spiritual to the genus homo made it possible for man to 
interpret the Good, Beautiful, and True in the phenomena of 
Nature, and as we, by studying these materializations, gain 
knowledge of the Reality, and our personalities become real 
powers, so may we at leneth approach the poimt where we may 
feel that we are thinking, or having divulged to us, the very 
thoughts of God; and, though it may never be possible in this 
life to form a full conception of the Reality, we may, I think, even 
with our present state of knowledge, aspire to understand the 
messages conveyed to us in some of the multitudinous forms 
under which these thoughts are presented to us, and | propose 
giving you an example of this later on. 

Once more, in the case of a picture, it is possible, by examining 
and comparing a number of certain short lines in perspective, 
to discover not only the position occupied by the Artist but also 
the point to which all those lines converge, so (as I attempted in 
my former paper) by examining and combining certain lines of 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. 139 


Thought on the Physical Plane and following them as far as we 
can with our present knowledge towards the point where our 
Ideals of the Good, Beautiful, and True intersect, we may reach the 
position from which we may be able to form, although through 
a glass darkly, even a conception of the Great Reality, and 
therefore of Its Offspring the Transcendental Ego, and its 
connection with the Universe. 

As the whole of Nature is the temporary and Space-limited 
manifestation of the Reality, so the individual Physical Ego is 
- the manifestation in Time and Space of the True Personality, it 
is its transcient expression and has no other use beyond this 
life. Hach Physical Ego helps or should help forward the 
general improvement of the Race towards perfection. Each 
generation should come into being a step nearer to the 
Spiritual until it can be pictured that at the fnal consummation 
there will be nothing imperfect, no shadow left; the full 
complement of Spiritual Personalities being complete in the 
Great All-Father. 

I would like now to attempt to show, to those of my hearers 
who have followed my argument and are able to make use of 
the conclusions we have come to, that it is quite possible for 
some of us at times to realize how real and near to us the 
Transcendental Ego is, and, at that moment, to get a glimpse of 
even that which we are told “ Eye hath not seen nor ear heard, 
nor hath entered into the heart of man.” I would first ask you 
to try and realize clearly in your mind that the only absolute 
Reality is the Spiritual, and that Matter, Space and Time lave 
no existence apart from our finite senses. Those of you who 
have been through a certain experience, to which I shall refer, 
will have no difficulty in following me, and among even those 
who have not felt what may be called the Mystical Sense, there 
will be some who will recognize, in what I have to say, 
something they have felt more than once in their lives, and to 
all these I addre:s the following :— 

I have already given you the best description I can formulate 
of the growth of the Transcendental Ego, and this is therefore 
also the mode of development of that Mystical Sense, the Eye 
of the Soul, by means of which we can get our glimpse beyond 
the Physical Veil. 

I will try to give my own experience of this, which will, 
I know, wake an echo in other hear ts, as | have met those w ho 
have felt the same. From a child I always had an intense 
feeling that love was the one thing above all worth having in 
life, and as I grew older and became aware that my real ‘self 


140 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S., F.R.A.S., ON THE 


was akin to the Great Spirit, I at certain times of elation, or 
what might be called a kind of ecstacy, had an overpowering 
sense of longing for union with the Reality, an intense love and 
craving to become one with the All-loving. When analyzed 
later in life this was recognized as similar in kind, though 
different in degree, with the feeling which, when in the country 
surrounded by charming scenery, wild flowers, the depths of a 
forest glade or even the gentle splash of a mountain stream, 
makes one always want to open one’s arms wide to embrace and 
hold fast the beautiful in Nature, as though one’s Physical Ego, 
wooed by the Beautiful, which is the sensuous (not sensual) 
expression of the Spiritual, longed to become one with the 
Physical, as the Personality or Transcendental Ego craves to 
become one with the Reality. It is the same intense feeling 
which makes a lover, looking into the eyes of his beloved, long 
to become united in the perfection of loving and knowing, to be 
one with that being in whom he has discovered a likeness akin 
to the highest ideal of which he himself is capable of forming 
a conception. As in heaven, so on earth the Physical Ego, 
though only a Shadow, has in its sphere the same fundamental 
characteristic craving as the Transcendental Personality has for 
that which 1s akin to it, and it is this wonderful love that, as 
the old adage says, makes the world go round. It is the most 
powerful incentive on earth and is implanted in our natures for 
the good and furtherance of the Race; it is, in fact, the mani- 
festation, on the material plane, of that craving of the Inner-self 
for union with, and being perfected in loving and knowing that 
Infinite love of which it is itself the likeness. If we can realize 
that everything on the Physical plane is a shadow, symbol, or 
manifestation, of that which is inthe Transcendental, the Mystical 
Sense, throngh contemplating these as syinbols, enables us at 
certain times, though, alas, too seldom and of too fleeting a 
character, to get beyond the Physical. Those of my hearers who 
have been there will know how impossible it is to describe in 
direct words which would carry any meaning, either the path by 
which the experience is gained or a true account of the experi- 
ence itself; but I will try and I think I may be able to lead, by 
indirect inductive suggestion, to a view of even these difficult 
subjects, by using the knowledge we have already gained in our 
examination. If an artist were required to draw a representa- 
tion of the Omniscient transcendental self, budding out new forms 
of thought in response to the conscientious efforts and the 
providing of suitable clothing, by the Physical Ego, he would be 
obliged to make use of symbolic forms, and I want to make it 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. 141 


quite clear that the description I am attempting must neces- 
sarily be clothed in Symbolic language and reasoning, and must 
not be taken as in any wav the key by which the door of “ The 
Sanctuary ” may be opened ; it is only possible by it to help the 
mind to grasp the fact that there is a window through which 
such things may be seen, the rest depends upon the personality 
of the Seer. Now bear in mind that it is not we who are 
looking out upon Nature but that it is the Reality which, by 
means of physical manifestations, is persistently striving to 
enter into our consciousness, to tell us what ? @eos ayarn éotuv. 
As in Thompson’s suggestive poem, “The Hound of Heaven,”— 
The Hidden which desires to be found—the Reality which is 
ever hunting us and will never leave us till He has taught us 
to know and therefore to love Him; and, as we have seen, the 
first step is to try to see through the woof of Nature the 
Reality beyond. To this may also be added the attempt to hear 
the “silence” beyond the audible. Try now to look upon the 
whole “visible” as a background comprising landscape, sea, 
and sky, and then bring that background nearer and nearer to 
your consciousness ; it requires practice but it can be done. It 
may help you if you remember the fact that the whoie of 
that visible scene is actually depicted on the surface of your 
retina and has no other existence for you; the nearer you can 
get the background to approach the clearer you can see that the 
whole physical world of our senses is but a thin veil, a mere 
soap film, which at death is pricked and parts asunder, leaving 
us in the presence of the Reality underlying all phenomena. 
The same may be accomplished with the “audible” which is, 
indeed, part of the same physical film, though this is not at first 
easy to recognize. As already pointed out, there is little in 
common between our sense of Sight and Hearing; but the chirp 
of birds, the hum of bees, the rustie of wind in the leaves, the 
ripple of a stream, the distant sound of sheep bells and lowing 
of cattle, form a background of sound which may be coaxed to 
approach you; the only knowledge you have of such sounds is 
their impression or image on the flat tympanum of your ear 
and they have no other existence for you, and ayain you may 
recognize that the physical is but a thin transient film. With 
the approach of the Physical film all material sensation becomes, 
as 1t were, blurred, as near objects become when the eye looks 
at the horizon, and gradually escapes from consciousness. 

I have tried in the foregoing to suggest a method by which 
our window may be unshuttered, it has necessarily been only an 
oblique view and clothed in Symbolic phraseology, but those who 


142 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S., F.R.A.S., ON THE 


have been able to grasp its meaning will now have attained to 
what may be called a state of self-forgetting, the silencing or 
quieting down of the Physical Ego ; Sight and Sound perceptions 
have been put in the background of Consciousness and _ it 
becomes possible to worship or love the very essence of beauty 
without the distraction of sense analysis and synthesis or 
temptation to form intellectual conceptions. We are now pre- 
pared to attempt the last and most difficult aspect of our 
investigation, namely, the description of what is experienced 
when the physical mists have been evaporated by the Mystical 
Sense ; again we find that no direct description is possible, 
language is absolutely inadequate to describe the unspeakable, 
communications have to be physically transmitted in words to 
which finite physical meanings have been allocated; the still 
small voice which may, at times of Rapture, be momentarily 
experienced in Music, is something much more wonderful than 
can be formed by sounds and this perhaps comes nearest to the 
expression necessary for depicting the vision of the soul, but it 
cannot be held or described, it 1s quickly drowned by the 
physical sense of audition. As the Glamour of Symbolism can 
only be transmitted to one who has passed the portal of Symbolic 
Thought, the Rapture of Music can only be truly understood by 
one who has already experienced it and the Ideal of Art requires 
a true artistic temperament to comprehend it, so it is, I believe, 
impossible to describe, with any chance of success, this wonderful 
experience to any one but those whom Mr. A. C. Benson, in his 
“Secret” of the Thread of Gold, very aptly describes as having 
already entered the “Shrine.” Those who have been there will 
know that it is not at all equivalent to a vision, it is not anything 
which can be seen or heard or felt by touch; it is entirely 
independent of the Physical Senses; it is not Giving or 
Receiving, it is not even a receiving of some new knowledge 
from the Reality; it has nothing to do with Thought or Intel- 
lectual gymnastics, all such are seen to be but mist; the 
nearest description I can formulate is :—A wondrous feeling of 
perfect peace ;—absolute rest from physical interference—true 
contentment—the sense of “Being” one-with-the-Reality, 
carrying with it a knowledge that the Reality or Spiritual is 
nearer to us and has much more to do with us than the Physical 
has, if we could only see the truth and recognize its presence ;— 
that there is no real death ;—no finiteness and yet no Infinity ;— 
that the Great Spirit cannot be localized or said to be anywhere 
but that everywhere is God ;—that the whole of what we call 
Creation is an instantaneous Thought of the Reality ;—that it 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL E&GO. 143 


is only by the process of analysing in Time and Space that we 
imagine there is such a thing as succession of events ;—that 
the only Reality is the Spiritual, the Here embracing all space 
and the Now embracing all Time. 

How few of us who are now drawing towards the end of our 
sojourn here, have not, at certain times during their lives, 
experienced something akin to what | have tried to put before 
you in the above. Does not a particular scent, a beautiful 
country scene, a phrase in Music, the beauty or pathos in a 
picture, symbolic sculpture in a grand Cathedral or even a 
chance word spoken in our hearing, every now and then waken 
in our innermost consciousness an enchanting memory of some 
wonderful happy moment of the past, when the sun seemed to 
have been shining more brightly, the birds singing more 
merrily, when everything in Nature seemed more alive and our 
very being seemed wrapped up in an intense love of our 
surroundings? On those occasions we were not far from 
seeing behind the veil, though we did not recognize it at the 
time, but when we now look back, with experience gained by 
advancing years, and consider those visions of the past, we 
cannot help but see that the physical film was to our eyes more 
transparent at those times, and the very joy of their 
remembrance seems to be giving us a prescience of that which 
we shall experience when for each one of us the physical film is 
pricked and passes away like a scroll. 

As long as we are on this side of the Veil we are, as we have 
already seen, dependent for knowledge of surroundings upon 
our perception of movements and, as our Conceptional Know- 
ledge is based on Perceptional Knowledge, our very thoughts 
are under the limits of Time and Space and can only deal with 
finite subjects ; from this arises all our difficulty of understand- 
ing the Infinite, we cannot know the whole truth, we can only 
think of one finite subject at a time, and at that moment all 
other subjects are cancelled; we can, in fact, only think in 
sequences, we can only think of points in Time and Space as 
existing beyond or before other fixed points, which again must 
be followed by other points. The whole Truth is there before 
us but we can only examine it in a form of finite sequences. A 
Book contains a complete story but we can only know that 
story by taking each word in succession and insisting that one 
word comes in front of another and yet the Story is lying before 
us complete. So with Creation, we are forced to look upon it 
as a long line going back to past eternity and another long line 
going on to future eternity and, with our limitations, we can. 


144 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S., F.R.A.S., ON THE 


only think of all events therein as happening in sequence ; but 
eliminate Time and the whole of Creation is there as an 
Instantaneous Thought of God. Under the dominion of Time 
we appear to be in a similar position to that of a being whose 
senses are limited to one-dimensional space, namely, to a /ine, 
we can only have cognizance of what is in front and behind, we 
have no knowledge of what is to the right or left, we appear to 
be limited to looking lengthwise in Time whereas an Omniscient 
and Omnipresent Being looks at time crosswise and sees it as a 
whole. A small light when at rest appears as a point of light, 
but when we apply quick motion, the product of Time and 
Space, to it, we get the appearance of a line of hght, and this 
continuous line of light, formed by motion of a point, is, I think, 
analogous to the Physical Universe appearing to our finite 
senses as continuous in Time duration and Space extension, 
though really only comprised in the Now and the Here and the 
whole of Creation being an instantaneous Thought. A con- 
sideration of our limitation under the dominion of Space may 
also be useful to show how impossible it is for us to hope to see 
by our Senses the Reality or by our Thoughts to know the 
Spiritual. Our Senses and Thoughts are limited to a Space of 
three dimensions and we can therefore only see or know that 
part of the Spiritual which is or can be represented to us in 
three dimensions; a being whose senses were limited to a 
Universe of one dimension, namely, a /ine, could have no real 
knowledge of another being who was in a Universe of two 
dimensions, namely, a flat surface, except so far as the two- 
dimensional being could be represented within his line of 
Sensation; so also the two-dimensional being could have no 
true knowledge of a being like ourselves in a universe of three 
dimensions :—To his thoughts, limited within two dimensions, a 
being like ourselves would be unthinkable, except so far as our 
nature could be made manifest on his plane; so can it be seen 
that we, limited by our finite senses to Time and Space, and 
our consciousness dependent upon that limited basis of thought, 
can only know that aspect of the Reality which can be mani- 
fested within that range of thought, namely, as Motion or what 
we call Physical phenomena. 

Do we not then see clearly that the Physical Ego comprised 
in what we call “I am,” “I perceive,” “I think,” “I know,” 
“T remember,” is transient and has only to do with the 
progress of the Race; it is the Shadow or Image in the Physical 
Universe of that Personality which Transcends Time and 
Space; take away a small portion of the brain and Memory 


Ee a 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. 145 


is wiped out, remove the greater part of it and the Physical 
Ego is destroyed, though the body is as much alive as before ; 
there is apparently nothing left but the physical life which 
it has in common with all animals and plants and probably, 
as strongly suggested by late discoveries in Radio-activity, 
even with what is called inorganic matter. Let me now put 
before you a connection between the Transcendental Personality 
and the Physical Ego, which I consider one of the greatest 
miracles on earth, though of every-day occurrence. The Inner 
Self of each one of us being part of the Reality, and therefore 
independent of Time and Space, is Omniscient ; it is from this 
store of Knowledge that our Physical Ego is ever trying to 
win fresh forms of thought and, in response to our persistent 
endeavours, that Inner self, from time to time, buds out an 
ethereal thought; the Physical Ego has already prepared the 
clothing with which that bud must be clad before it can come 
into conscious thought, because, as Max Miiller has shown us, 
we have to form words before we can think; so does the 
Physical Ego clothe that Ethereal Thought in physical 
language, and, by means of its organ of speech, it sends that 
thought forth into the air in the form of hundreds of thousands 
of vibrations of different shapes and sizes, some large, some 
small, some quick, some slow, travelling in all directions and 
fillmg the surrounding space; there is nothing in those 
vibrations but physical movement, but each separate movement 
is an integral part or thread of that clothing. Another 
Physical Ego receives these multitudinous vibrations by means 
of its sense organs, weaves them together into the same 
physical garment and actually becomes possessed of that 
Ethereal Thought ; and this acquisition may in turn enable him 
to win fresh knowledge from his own Real Personality. Now 
consider, in connection with this wonderful phenomenon, the 
fact already emphasized that it is not we who are looking out 
upon Nature, but that it is the Reality which is ever trying 
to make itself known to us by bombarding our sense organs 
with the particular physical impulses to which those organs can 
respond ; and if we aspire to gain a knowledge of that which 
is behind the Physical, it is clear that all our endeavours must be 
towards weaving those impulses into garments and to learn from 
them the sublime truths which the Reality is ever trying to 
divulge to us. 

In the last forty years we have entered upon a new era of 
religion and philosophy, we hear no more of the old belief that 
the study of scientific facts leads to Atheism or irreligion, we 

L 


146 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S., F.R.A.S., ON THE 


begin to see that Religion and Science must go hand in hand 
towards elucidating the Riddle of the Universe, and such a 
change makes it possible for a layman not only to attempt 
to read such a paper as the present before your Institution, but 
to even aspire to show, as I now propose to do by physical experi- 
ments, that it is possible by examining certain phenomena in 
Nature to reach that point where we may even feel that we are 
listening to and understanding, though through a glass darkly, one 
of what may be called the very Thoughts of the Great Reality. 

I will take for physical examination the subject most 
intimately connected with the title of this paper, namely: 
The nature of the growth of the Transcendental Personality, 
upon what does that growth depend, and how may we under- 
stand that the attainment to Everlasting Life is dependent 
upon that growth ? 

I have already pointed out that the Transcendental 
Personality being Spiritual, and therefore akin to the Great 
Reality, may be said to have no free-will of itself. Its will or 
influence must always be working towards perfection in the 
form, “Let Thy Will, which is also my will, be done”; the 
efficacy of its influence with the Great Reality depends on its 
growth, or nourishment by the knowledge of the Good, Beautiful, 
and True, ever bringing it nearer and nearer into perfect touch 
or sympathy with the All-loving. The power of prayer, there- 
fore, depends upon two conditions ; it must be in the form of 
“Let Thy Will be done,” and that which prays must be capable 
of making its petition felt by having already gained a 
knowledge of what that Will is. 

If now we carefully examine the Phenomena around us we 
make the extraordinary discovery that this power to influence 
is the very basis of survival and of progress throughout the 
universe. In the Organic world all Nature seems to be praying 
in one form or another, and only those that pray with efiicacy, 
based upon the above two conditions, survive in the 
struggle for existence. The economy of Nature is founded 
upon that inexorable law, the “ Survival of the Fittest”; every 
organism that is not in sympathy with its environment, and 
cannot, therefore, derive help and nourishment from its 
surroundings, perishes. Darwin tells us that the colours of 
flowers have been developed by the necessity of plants 
attracting the Bees, on whose visits depends the power of 
plants to reproduce their species ; those families of plants which 
do not, as it were, pray to the Bees with efficacy, fail to attract 
and disappear without leaving successors. Flowers may also be 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. 147 


said to be praying to us by their beauty, or usefulness, in some 
cases, as with Orchids, by their marvellous shapes. We answer 
their prayer by building hot-houses and tending them with 
care because they please us and therefore we help them to live ; 
while, on the contrary, those plants that have not developed 
these qualities are not only neglected but, in some cases, as 
with weeds, we take special trouble to exterminate them 
because their existence is distasteful to us. Darwin also tells 
us that Heredity and Environment are the prime influences 
under which the whole Organic World is sustained. In other 
words, every organism has implanted in it by Heredity the 
principle of life, but the conditions under which it will be 
possible for that life to expand and come to perfection rest 
entirely upon its power to bring itself into harmony with its 
environment; this principle of life does not come naked into 
the world, it is fortified by Heredity with powers gained by its 
parents in their struggle for existence, and in their persistence 
to get into sympathy with theirenvironment. The knowledge 
they gained by this struggle they have handed down to their 
offspring and given it thereby the possibility of also gaining 
for itself that knowledge of, and power to get into sympathy 
with, its environment, upon which its future existence will 
depend ; so, may we not see that, in the Spiritual World, these two 
- conditions dominate, and that it is only by the clear comprehen- 
sion of their reality that we can understand how all-important it 
is for the soul to bring itself nearer and nearer into harmony 
with its environment, the Spiritual, and how the efficacy of 
prayer depends upon the Knowledge of what is the Will of 
God. We have received from our Spiritual Father the 
principle of Everlasting Life and the aspirations which, if 
followed, will enable that life to expand and come to perfection, 
but, as in the case of physical organism, the gift is useless 
unless we elect to use those aspirations aright and gain thereby 
a knowledge of our Spiritual Environment, which alone can 
bring us into sympathy with the Great Reality. Without this 
Knowledge of God we can see by analogy on the Organic 
Plane that Everlasting Life is impossible: we are as weeds and 
shall be rooted out. This is no figment of the imagination ; it 
seems to be the only conclusion we can come to if Nature is the 
work of Nature’s God, and Man is made in the image (Spiritual) 
of that God. Herbert Spencer came to the same conclusion 
when defining everlasting existence. He says: “ Perfect 
correspondence would be perfect life ; were there no changes in 
the environment but such as the organism had adapted changes 
L 2 


148 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S., F.R.A.S., ON THE 


to meet, and were it never to fail in the efficiency with which 
it met them there would be Hternal Existence and Eternal 
Knowledge” (Principles of Biology, p. 88). If we now follow the 
same Thought by examining the Inorganic, we again make the 
extraordinary discovery that this power to influence, based on 
sympathetic action, is the very mainspring by which physical 
work can be sustained, and upon it also depends entirely the very 
action of our physical senses. Our senses are based upon the 
appreciation of Vibration in the Air and Ether, of greater or 
less rapidity, according to the presence in our Organs of 
processes capable of acting in sympathy with those frequencies. 
The lmits within which our senses can thus be affected are 
very small. The ear can only appreciate thirteen or fourteen 
octaves in sound and the eye less than one octave in light; 
beyond these limits, owing to the absence of processes which 
can be affected Sympathetically, all is silent and dark to us. 
This capability for responding to vibration under sympathetic 
action is not confined to Organic Senses ; the Physical forces, 
and even inert matter, are also sensitive to its influences, as I 
will now demonstrate to you. 

In wireless telegraphy it is absolutely necessary that the 
transmitter of the electro-magnetic waves is brought into 
perfect sympathy or harmony with the receiver, without that 
condition it is impossible to communicate at a distance. Again, 
a heavy pendulum or swing can, by a certain force, be pushed, 
say an inch from its position of rest, and each successive push 
will augment the swing, but only on one condition, namely, 
that the force is applied in sympathy with the pendulum’s 
mode of swing; if the length of the pendulum is fifty-two feet, 
the force must be applied only at the end of each eight seconds, 
as, although the pendulum at first is only moving one inch, it 
will take four seconds to traverse that one inch, the same as it 
would take to traverse ten feet or more, and will not be back 
at the original position till the end of eight seconds ; if the force 
is apphed before that time, the swing of a pendulum would be 
hindered instead of augmented; even a steam engine must 
work under this influence if it is to be effective; there may 
be enough force in a boiler to do the work of a thousand 
horse power, but unless the slide valve is arranged so that 
the steam enters the cylinders at exactly the right moment, 
namely in sympathy with the thrust of the piston, no work is 
possible. ; 

In order to bring this subject of influence by sympathetic 
action clearly to your minds, I have arranged the following 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. 149 


simple experiments. I want you first to recognize that, apart 
from its physical qualities, every material body has certain, 
what may be called, traits of character, which belong to it alone ; 
there is generally one special trait or partial, namely, the charac- 
teristic, which it is easiest for the particular body to manifest, 
but I shall be able to show you that by sympathetic action others 
can be developed. I have here several pieces of ordinary 
wood used for lighting fires, each of which according to its 
size and density has its special characteristic; if you examine 
each by itself you will hardly see that they are different from 
one another except slightly in length, but when I throw them 
down on the table you will hear that each of them gives out 
a clear characteristic note of the musical scale. To carry this 
a step forward I have here a long heavy iron bar, so rigid 
that no ordinary manual force can move it out of the straight, 
and, from mere handling, you would find it difficult to imagine 
that it could be amenable to soft influences; but I have studied 
this inert mass, and as each person has special characteristics, 
some being more partial than others to, say, literary pursuits, 
athletics, music, poetry, engineering, science, or metaphysics, 
so I shall be able to show you at the close of this meeting 
that this iron mass has not only a number of these “ partials,” 
some of which are extraordinarily beautiful and powerful, but 
- that by the lightest touch of certain instruments, each of 
which has been put into perfect sympathy with one of those 
traits, I can make that mass demonstrate them to you both 
optically and audibly ; but without those sympathetic touches 
it is silent and remains only an inert mass. This result is 
obtained by physical contact between the instrument and the 
mass: but we will now carry this another step forward and 
deal with the subject of the action of Influence at a distance, 
or what may be called Prayer, between two of these rigid masses. 
From what we have already seen it is clear that the Soul of 
man could not possibly pray with efficacy to a graven image— 
there is nothing in sympathy between them, and, without 
sympathetic action, influence is impossible, but it is quite 
possible for Matter to pray with efficacy to Matter, provided 
the material soul, if we may use the analogy, is brought into 
perfect sympathy with the material god, and I can now put 
before you an experiment showing this taking place. 

I have here another heavy bar. of iron and have found its 
strongest characteristic, I have in my hand a small instrument 
fashioned so that its characteristic is in perfect sympathy with 
that of the bar, namely, that the number of vibrations, in a second, 


150 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S., F.R.A.S., ON THE 


of the instrument is exactly equal to that of the iron mass, and 
it is therefore, as we saw in the last experiment, able to 
influence the bar sympathetically; you will see that the 
slightest touch throws the bar into such violent vibration that 
a great volume of sound is produced, which could be heard a 
quarter of a mile away. The result of this sympathetic touch 
is far from being transient, in fact the bar will continue to 
move, audibly, for a long time. This movement in the mass of 
iron was started by physical contact, but having once started 
the bar praying, willing, or thinking, whichever you like to call 
it, that bar now has the power to affect, without contact, 
another bar of iron even when removed to great distances, 
provided the second bar possesses a similar characteristic and 
that that characteristic has been brought into perfect sym- 
pathy with that of the first bar. I have here a second bar 
which fulfils these conditions, and, although at the outset it 
had no power whatever to respond, it has been gradually, as 
it were, educated, namely, brought nearer and nearer into 
sympathy with the first bar, until it is now able, as you 
can hear, to respond across long distances, even the whole 
length of this hall. We will now reverse the process 
of bringing these bars into sympathy and I will throw 
the first out of harmony by slightly changing its charac- 
teristic; the change is extremely small, quite unappreciable 
to the human ear, the bar giving out as full and pure a note 
as it did before the alteration was made, in fact, the change is 
so shght that it can still, with a little force, be stimulated by 
the same generator, and yet the whole power to influence has 
been lost; you can hear that the first bar, although it is 
praying with great force, gets no response from the second bar, 
and even if the bars are now brought on to the same table and 
put within a few inches of each other there is still no reply, 
there is no sympathetic action, the efficacy of prayer between 
the two has been lost. 

Do we not then see the principle upon which the efficacy of 
Prayer depends; the whole object of a Human Soul, when using 
the words “Thy Will be done,” is to bring itself closer and closer 
into perfect harmony with the Deity, when that is accomplished 
we may understand, from our simile, that not only will we and 
our aspirations be influenced by the Will of the Deity, but that 
then our wishes, in their turn, must have great power with God, 
and it becomes possible for even “ Mountains to be removed and 
cast into the midst of the sea.” 

How truly the Philosopher Paul, at the beginning of our Era, 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. Tat 


recognized that the knowledge of God, which Christ Himself 
tells us is Everlasting Life, may be gained by the study of the 
material creation; his words were sadly overlooked by many 
who, half a century ago, were afraid that the discoveries of 
Science were dangerous to belief in the Deity; he says the 
unrighteous shall be without excuse because “ The invisible things 
of Him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being 
perceived through the things that are made, even His everlasting 
power and divinity ” (Romans i, 18 to 20, R.V.). 

We have seen to-night the truth of this wonderful statement, 
we have traced the reflection of the greatest attribute of the 
Deity, Divine Love, on the material plane ; what has been the 
result of our investigation ? We find that throughout the whole 
of Nature the one great universal power is Sympathy. 

‘Tis verily “ Love that makes the world go round.” What a 
marvellous conclusion to our investigation, let us see where it 
leads us: The whole of creation is the materialization of the 
Thoughts of the Deity, we have, therefore, in the forces of Nature, 
the impress of the very Essence of God. Our Innermost Self 
is anemanation from Him, and Prayer which, at the beginning, 
is only a striving to bring ourselves into harmony with the 
Deity, must, as the Soul grows in strenethand knowledge, become 
a great power working under the wonderful principle of Sympathy. 
True prayer, indeed, becomes love in action and, under certain 
conditions, Prayer may actually be looked upon as the greatest 
physical force in Nature. But let us carry this one step further : 
can we by our analogy of Matter praying understand why “ The 
knowledge of God is Everlasting Life?” Look at the first iron 
bar and watch how, as long as it keeps on vibrating, the second 
bar, because itis in sympathy, will be kept in motion ; if it were 
possible for the first bar to vibrate for ever, the second bar 
would, speaking materially, have everlasting life, through its 
being in perfect sympathy with the first bar, without this 
connection the bar would be lifeless. Now apply this to our 
Transcendental Personality : it is being nourished—the knowledge 
of God is increasing—it is at last pulsating in perfect harmony 
with the Deity, and when, for it, the Material Universe disappears, 
its affinity to Infinite Love must give it Everlasting Life. 
Everything that has not that connection is but a shadow which 
will cease to be manifest when the Great Thought is completed, 
the volition of the Deity is withdrawn and the Physical 
Universe ceases to exist ; nothing can then exist except that 
which is perfected, that which is of the essence of God, namely, 
the Spiritual. Perfect harmony will then reign supreme, such 


152 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S., F.R.A.S., ON THE 


happiness as cannot be described in earthly language, nor even 
imagined by our corporeal senses ; hence, in the many passages 
referring to that wondrous Life hereafter, we are not told what 
Heaven is like but only what is not to be found there : 


‘“‘ Eye hath not seen nor ear heard, 
Neither have entered into the heart of man 
The things that God hath prepared for them that love Him.” 
(1 Cor. ii, 9.) 


DISCUSSION. 


The SECRETARY read the following communication from the 
Rey. Canon GIRDLESTONE :— 

In reading Mr. Klein’s remarkable paper I have been reminded 
again and again of the writings of Philo, the Alexandrine Jew, 
Paul’s contemporary. Thus, Philo says, ‘The world was not created 
in time, but time has its existence in consequence of the world ; itis 
the motion of the heaven that has displayed the nature of time.” 
Again, “what has been made by the author of all things has no 
limitation ; and in this way the idea is excluded that the universe 
was created in six days.” God is regarded by him as “the mind or 
soul of the universe” and to be contemplated by the soul alone 
without utterance of any voice. He also held that every one of us 
has two persons, the animal and the man, the life-faculty and the 
reason faculty. 

Mr. Klein holds with Kant that time and space are human forms 
of thought, or, as Carlyle calls them, the warp and woof of existence : 
still, they stand for something, and they help to give us an idea of 
the eternal and infinite spring of existence. I wonder that Mr. Klein 
did not point to the Incarnation as supplying the key to the problem, 
€.g., m pp. 139-142. 

On p. 131 he says that certain negatives (¢.g., evil) have no real 
existence. They areshadows. Weare familiar with this view in the 
writings of Christian Science, but does it stand the test of Scripture 
or of experience? Victory over evil is a very realthing. A good deal 
depends on the definition of the word “real.” Jam sorry that we 
have not this useful word in the English Bible, though we have 
what answers to it in the original. 

P. 132, middle, “only an image of our retina.” Surely the image is 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. L535 


caused by something, as Mill pointed out when discussing sensation. 
Mr. Klein has hardly called sufficient attention to muscular action 
in connection with form and distance. Perception, to which he 
refers, p. 133, is a bad master, but a very useful servant. We must 
not disparage the use of our senses, especially when their evidence 
converges. 

P. 134, “man became a living Soul.” Mr. Klein here departs from 
Paul’s interpretation in I Cor. xv. We have to discern between 
Soul and Spirit. I wish I could be as optimistic as Mr. Klein is on 
that page. A day spent in the dens and alleys of London (say with 
a City Missionary) shows that Progress is very slow and there are 
many adversaries. I think a little qualification is needed on p. 137, 
with respect to the omnipresence and omniscience of our real per- 
sonality. By cutting off patches of brain, Mr. Klein telis us, 
patches of the ego are destroyed. Certainly the brain is the 
condition of our physical life but not the cause of it. It is the nursery 
of the soul and of character, and free-will, which is reduced toa 
minimum on p. 146, is vital for the formation of character and so of 
destiny. 

Let me close by saying what a pleasure it is to read such a medi- 
tative paper as this, even though at times one is inclined to question 
certain expressions. I wish the last line had been added to the 
closing text: ‘‘ But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit.” 
(1. Cor. ii, 10.) 

The SECRETARY read the following extract from a letter he had 
received from an Associate who was unable to attend :— 


“T cannot tell you how much I have enjoyed Mr. Klein’s paper, 
He seemed to be clothing in words for me, thoughts of mine that 
had never ‘ broken through language and escaped’; or to use his 
own illustration, I found myself (the receiver) vibrating in perfect 
sympathy with him (the transmitter) nearly all through. The first 
thing that struck me as a probable point for discussion is his table 
of negatives on p. 131. Negative is not the same as opposite, is it ? 
I mean is evil the negative of good, isn’t it something much more 
active than not-good? Further on he talks of ‘ progression and 
stagnation’ not retrogression. This point of view interests me 
because it is Browning’s solution of the problem of evil. Compare 
the end part of the paragraph on p. 135, beginning ‘If man became 
a conscious being’ with: 


154 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S., F.R.A.8., ON THE 


“«There shall never be one lost good! What was, shall live 
as before ; 
The evil is null, is nought, is silence implying sound ; 
What was good shall be good, with, for evil, so much good more ; 
On the earth the broken arcs ; in the heaven a perfect round.’ 


‘Then the stages of growth on pp. 136 and 137 are so beautiful 
and true : 


«There is no good of life but love—but love! 
What else looks good, is some shade flung from love ; 
Love gilds it, gives it worth.’ 


So let us say—not ‘Since we know, we love,’ 
But rather, ‘Since we love, we know enough.’ 


‘‘And in the passage on p. 139, beginning ‘I will try to give my 
own experience,’ he does indeed ‘ wake an echo.’ He writesmy own 
experience word for word, when he describes that yearning which is 
almost pain in its intensity, which is one of the most vivid impressions 
of childhood : 


‘““* My God, my God, let me for once look on Thee 
As though nought else existed, we alone ! 
And as creation crumbles, my soul’s spark 
Expands till I can say,—Even from myself 
I need Thee and I feel Thee and I love Thee,’ 


“And on p. 142, ‘ A wondrous feeling of perfect peace.’ 

‘““Thank God that wakes an echo too, and, as he says, is past 
describing. Two other points I hope will be discussed. One is, 
when he talks as on p. 139 of our Spiritual Personalities, does he mean 
that any kind of body is transient only and must disappear with Time 
and Space, surely our Spiritual bodies will be something more than 
Spirit ? The second point is, is he justified in arguing by analogy 
that the perfect sympathy between two material iron bars gives us 
the key to the perfect sympathy between ourselves and the Divine ? 
But perhaps he doesn’t argue this and has got quite out of my reach 
here ? 

‘“‘] like the way the idea of God’s Immanence seems to underlie 
the whole paper, and especially the expression ‘ bombarding our 
sense organs.’ ” 

The Rev. Dr. Irvine, D.Sc., B.A., thought that Mr. Sydney 
Klein’s paper was one which many members of the Victoria 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. 155 


Institute would appreciate, even among those who could not follow 
him to the full extent in the mysticism which pervades the paper. 
The phrase ‘The Transcendental Ego” brought into strong relief the 
dual nature of the universe of Being—the material and the spiritual 
—the visible universe and the ‘invisible universe,” in: both of 
which Man, and man only (of created beings known to us on this 
planet) had ashare. The author’s powerful way of presenting the 
“ spiritual ” as penetrating the “ material” and as “taking root” in 
-the physical Ego, would be welcome to students of those deep 
questions, which make themselves heard in that philosophical zone of 
thought which forms the borderland of Religion and Science. Such 
questions would continue to present themselves for a long time yet 
to those minds, which were not so constituted that they could find 
a resting-place either in materialism, on the one hand, or in extreme 
mysticism, on the other. One who (like himself) had found it 
impossible on Scientific grounds to recognize an “ evolution” of the 
moral and spiritual nature of Man out of the physical, would find 
much to appreciate and even admire in the paper ; and he emphati- 
cally welcomed the author’s suggestion (p. 146) that Religion and 
Science must go hand in hand in elucidating the Riddle of the 
Universe. 

That striking phrase again (p. 142) which speaks of a “state of 
self-forgetting (as) the silencing or quieting down of the Physical 
Ego,” seemed to have its counterpart in the dictum of the great 
Apostle of the Gentiles, when (11 Cor. iv, 18) he speaks of the pro- 
gressive growth to maturity of the spiritual man as consequent upon 
the soul turning its gaze more and more from ‘things seen (7a 
PAeropeva),” and fixing its gaze more and more upon “ the things 
unseen (ra poy PAerdueva) and eternal.” In that region things were 
seen by the “Inner Light” (as Dr. Arnold Whateley would say), 
they were realized in the sphere of the God-consciousness of the 
Soul. And there was a corresponding auditory soul-sense (if the 
term might be allowed) to which reference was made by the Prophet 
Isaiah (Ch. 1) when he made Jehovah’s “ Righteous Servant” to say 
—‘'The Lord God hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious 
neither turned away backwards” (from the call of the Spirit). 

Yet, if truth is to be advanced by Religion and Science going 
hand in hand, we must allow as actwalities the fundamental con- 
cepts of time and space, without which the phenomena, with which 


156 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S., F.B.A.S., ON THE 


Science has to do, can have no meaning for us. Our concept of 
“time” arose necessarily out of our perception of succession of 
“states of conciousness,” which (as Bergson helps us to see) might 
not be independent units, but the crests of the waves that mark a 
continuous flow of the durée, rather than a mere line marking the 
“loci” of a point in motion. And as to our concept of “ Space,” the 
speaker thought that the author might, with some advantage, have 
taken into consideration the action of the muscular sense, as the 
subject was ably treated in the writings of the late Professor 
Alexander Bain (see his work, Zhe Senses and the Intellect). For 
his part the speaker thought that the author was quite wrong, in 
referring our perception of the weight of an object (p. 132) to the 
sense of touch; it was evidently arrived at through the muscular 
sense. In speaking of the sensory impression of (¢.g.) a landscape 
as having no existence for the individual subject except as an image 
on the retina of the eye, and of sounds having no existence except 
on the tympanum of the ear (p. 141), the author seemed to have 
overlooked the function of perceptivity seated in the corresponding 
cerebral ganglia; as also the fact that there was a storage of such 
impressions perhaps in the region of ‘unconscious cerebration ” 
(possibly through a process which Lloyd-Morgan had called 
‘“‘metakinesis ”), to make memory possible. 

The speaker thought that since the appearance of Bergson’s 
Creative Evolution, which recognizes “directivity” as a factor of 
Evolution, it was rather late in the day to full back upon the crude 
Darwinism dogma of evolution by mere ‘‘ natural selection ” or upon 
what Bergson calls the “ false evolutionism” of Herbert Spencer. The 
author of the paper seemed to fail to see (1) that anew departure had 
been taken in the theory of Evolution ; (2) that what concerns the 
“Transcendental Ego” transcends altogether what belongs to the 
‘“‘ Physical Ego”; and (3) that these lower states of consciousness fall 
properly within the province of Evolution, as generally understood, 
while those of the former category le outside its range. 

Professor LANGHORNE ORCHARD thought that their thanks were 
due to the author for an able paper upon a topic of absorbing 
interest and for his suggestive experiments with sympathetic bars. 

Upon some points, however, he was unable to agree with the 
author’s affirmations. This non-agreement began with the very 
first sentence. To say that the knowledge, given by the funda 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. Wh 5 3 


mental intuitions of Time and Space is “illusory,” is to question 
the validity of our primary intuitions. But, since all reasoning 
rests ultimately upon premises given by intuition and consciousness, 
to deny their validity is to deny that we have any standard of truth, 
and to leave us nothing but Pyrrhonism—it is intellectual suicide. 
It is also (as was pointed out by Sir William Hamilton) to cast a 
a slur upon the character of God, by representing our Creator as a 
deceiver. We can by no means accept the view that the notion of 
- succession is an illusion of our unfortunate minds, that Paul was haling 
Christians to prison at the very same instant he was praying with 
the EHphesian elders. Nor is it to be supposed that the Divine 
Mind is without any notion of succession, that the Creator had no 
design, no plan, no purpose, in giving existence to a universe, and 
in history and providence no adaptation of means to ends. No doubt, 
God “ does not require time to think as we do,” but it does not follow, 
as the author seems to think it does follow, that ‘the forming of 
this World and its destruction, the appearance of Man, the birth 
and death of each one of us, are absolutely at the same instant .. .” 
The statements of Scripture are in apparent contradiction to this 
strange hypothesis. The sacred Name Jehovah (Yahveh), by which 
God was pleased to reveal Himself, signifies Existence—past, present, 
future, and these three aspects, which thus meet us in the first Bible 
book, meet us again in the salutation of the last book. The facts 
that God created vessels of mercy unto glory and prepared them 
for it, that He has intervened in the affairs of men and sent His Son, 
the Saviour of the World, appear irreconcilable with the theory 
that the notion of succession of sequence and order is foreign to 
the Divine Mind. Though successive events be seen, by That Mind, 
in one view, they are surely seen as successive, and their order is 
seen also. 

The statement (p. 130) that a human being has two “ personalities ” 
would imply that he has two wills. It is somewhat startling to 
read (p. 137) that my real personality is omnipresent and omniscient ! 
May I suggest the term “nature,” instead of “‘ personality,” as better 
expressing the author’s true meaning? The idea (p. 131) that evil 
and falsehood are merely the absences of goodness and truth is un- 
tenable. These things are not opposites only, they are contraries. 
On p. 132 occurs the curious phrase—“ evolution of thought,” which 

might be taken to imply the absurdity that the conscious is a product 


158 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S., F.R.A.S.. ON THE 


of the unconscious. From sundry evolutionary imaginations on 
p. 134 (assertions without proof), those investigators who hold the 
hypothesis of Evolution to be unscientific and false will emphatically 
dissent. The author seems here to fall into a self-contradiction, 
since the Physical Ego appears pre-existent to that Transcendental 
Ego of which we are told repeatedly it is “the shadow.” It is 
ditficult to understand how a ‘‘shadow” can be pre-existent to the 
thing of which it is the shadow (p. 134). 

Nowithstanding these blemishes, the paper is marked by much 
that is true and beautiful and of practical value. The idea of the 
Spiritual as the Eternal, the idea of Love as the Summum Bonum, 
the idea of God as Infinite Love ever seeking to reveal Himself to us 
in order that, through sympathy resulting from knowledge, we may 
come to resemble Him and have Everlasting Life, the idea of 
successful Prayer as that which is in will-sympathy with Him—these 
are living thoughts for which all readers of this paper may unite in 
warmly thanking the gifted author. 

The CHAIRMAN said: This is a very important and interesting 
paper. It is well to learn to realize the limitations of our nature 
and, if it may be, to see to go beyond them. 

It is no new problem, it has been well said— 


‘““T gaze aloof at the tess and roof 
Ot which time and space are the warp and the woof, 
A tapestried tent to shade us meant 
From the brave everlasting Firmament.” 


But how far is it possible, and still more how far can we find words 
to express it. 

I think it is Dean Inge who has warned us that most of our words 
which we use to express deep thought are drawn from imperfect 
analogies. 

Now take the word “ real,” as modern as it is common, borrowed 
from Roman Law by the Schoolman: it is used to express anything 
from the material to the Platonic ideal, according to the conception 
of the speaker of what “res ” is. 

Again Kant seems to mean by “objective” exactly what the 
Schoolman meant by “‘subjective,” and there is the grave danger of 
such words being taken in a widely different sense from what is 
intended, 

Evil is the negation of good, to a mathematician minus is as much 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. 159 


a verity as plus, but to loose thinkers a mere negation is nothing 
and does not matter, and it isa grave matter to think that evil does 
not matter. The negation of good has very practical results. 


AUTHOR’S REPLY. 


In preparing this paper I was fully aware that the subject was 
not an easy one to deal with, it was not one that could be 
approached with a light heart, but it was for me a labour of love, 
and I had therefore no fear that an earnest attempt to elucidate 
such a subject, one perhaps more suitable for meditation than for 
discussion, would not be appreciated, and I have not been dis- 
appointed. From numerous communications I have since received 
from Clergymen, Laymen, Scientists and Writers of note on Trans- 
cendental subjects, it is clear that I was fully justified in thinking 
that the subject would have an intense interest for many and widely 
diverse classes of thinking people. It remains now for me only to 
reply to those particular communications which have been printed, 
and, at the outset, I can candidly say that no remarks therein have 
given me the slightest inducement to alter a single sentence of my 
paper. 

I am not familiar with the writings of Christian Science, but if 
they have recognized, as Canon Girdlestone seems to state, that the 
Invisible and not the Visible is the real, they have got hold of one 
piece of Knowledge, at all events, which it would be well for some 
others to acquire. I think it a pity, in dealing with these subjects, 
that the truth of any argument should be stated to depend upon 
whether it ‘stands the test of Scripture.” An example of the 
unfortunate result of insisting on such a test is seen when a little 
later on Canon Girdlestone makes the definite statement that the 
Brain is “the nursery of the Soul and of character.” Now the 
brain is never mentioned in Scripture, neither in the Old nor New 
Testament ; thoughts and emotions are attributed to quite different 
organs of the body, namely the reins or kidneys, the heart, the loins 
and even the bowels. 

I am sorry I cannot also agree with his statement that the brain 
is the condition of Physical life ; I certainly never suggested, as he 
seems to think, that the brain was the cause of life; he is evidently 
confounding Physical life with the Physical Ego. The very existence 
of our Physical Hgo, namely, the manifestation of the Transcendental 


160 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S8., F.R.A.S., ON THE 


go in our consciousness, depends, as J have shown, upon the existence 
of the brain, which is the organ of the mind ; when this is removed 
the manifestation disappears, but physical life, which we have in 
common with all plants and animals, does not require a brain at 
all; this is clearly seen in the lower forms of life; it would be 
difficult to point out the brain of a cabbage or an oaktree. If he 
will refer to p. 146, he will see that he is again confounding the Physi- 
cal Ego, the Soul-man, with the transcendental, I speak there only 
of the Transcendental having no Free will, but on p. 135 I emphasize 
that man, the living Soul, if you like, has freedom of will to choose 
between the Spiritual and Physical influences. 

I indeed appreciate the kindly words with which Canon Girdle- 
stone closes his remarks; he will, I think, on further consideration 
recognize my reason for eliminating as far as possible all dogmas, 
especially one of so controversial a character as the Virgin birth, 
and, with regard to the line ‘‘ But God hath revealed them unto us 
by His Spirit,” although this is in consonance with the very basis 
of my argument it opens up the question of direct Revelation which 
I have studiously avoided in my paper. 

Need I say how deeply I appreciate the second printed communi- 
cation as evidence of a true lover of the Divine, and one who is 
travelling the same path which we must all follow in the “ Quest 
for the Grail”; I have had many other similar communications, and 
in almost the same words; it is very gratifying to know that so 
many others have had the same wonderful experience and have thus 
realized their kinship with the Reality ; would that others may also 
be led to meditate upon what after all is “ the pearl of great price,” 
for which those, who have once possessed it, know they would, if 
they had it not, give everything in this world to acquire. | 

The question of having a body after death must, I am afraid, be 
relegated to that much used but misleading region of thought called 
Anthropomorphism ; how can a Spirit, which is independent of space 
limitation and therefore Omnipresent, be imagined to have a body ? 
does anybody still imagine that, when the physical film is pricked 
for us, we shall have legs and arms and wings and have to see and 
hear by means of sense organs? With the elimination of Time and 
Space, all matter ceases to exist, for we know, by late discoveries in 
Radio-activity, that every atom of which the human body is com- 
posed, and every atom of the phenomenal Universe, is nothing else 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. 161 


but motion, and that is but the product of these two limitations or 
modes under which our Senses act, the very basis of motion being 
the time that an object takes to go over a certain space. Now with 
regard to the second question concerning my physical experiments, 
if my contention is true that the whole of the phenomena of Nature 
must be looked upon as the manifestation of the Divine Noumenon, 
it follows that Matter is as Divine as the Spiritual but not as real, 
it is His shadow, or the outline of His very image, thrown on the 
material plane of our Sensations, and the principle of sympathetic 
action, upon which the whole power to influence depends throughout 
the Universe, becomes surely the best symbol we can use for under- 
standing the efficacy of Prayer and the connection between our 
Transcendental Self and the All-loving. Realize that the Trans- 
cendental Ego is a Spirit and therefore akin to the Great Spirit not 
only in essence but in “loving and knowing communion,” then look 
at my last experiment where we saw two material bodies (remember 
they are shadow manifestations of the Reality) which could influence 
each other from the fact that they were akin not only in substance, 
but in perfect sympathetic communion. If now weare watching the 
shadows of two human beings thrown upon a wall and see those 
shadows shaking hands and embracing each other, are we not 
_ justified in concluding that those images give us a true explanation 
of what is really taking place ? and is that not exactly what I have 
done ; have I not shown, as I proposed to do on p. 146, that it is 
possible by examining the phenomena of Nature (the shadows of the 
Reality) to reach that point where we may even feel that we are 
listening to, or having divulged to our consciousness, though through 
a glass darkly, some of what may be called the very thoughts of the 
Great Reality? There are several other phenomena which I might 
have examined, but I chose this particular aspect of the Reality as 
best illustrating the subject of my paper, thoughit was probably the 
most difficult one to bring home to so critical an audience as we have 
at these meetings. 

The next two speakers must evidently be classed with those to 
whom the very word “evolution ” is still as a red rag to a bull, and 
I can only recommend them to study the subject more perfectly and 
especially the latest light thrown upon it by discoveries in Embry- 
ology : How the Rey. Dr. Irving can have got the impression, as he 
appears to have done, that I do not recognize “directivity” as a 

M 


162 SYDNEY T. KLEIN, F.L.S., F.R.A.S., ON THE 


factor in Evolution, is past my comprehension ; the very root of the 
contention of my whole paper is that God does not only direct, but is 
Himself the actual working Agent of every process in Nature, for 
all the various phenomena of “ progress towards perfection ” are but 
the glimpses we get of the working of His Will. 

The opening paragraph of my paper, where I stated that “ Time 
and Space are only modes or conditions under which our Senses act, 
and by which we get a very limited and illusory knowledge of our 
surroundings,” has evidently quite upset Professor Orchard, as he 
says such a thought is ‘intellectual suicide”! I canonly refer him 
again to my former paper to this Institution dealing with that 
subject, but he goes further and makes the extraordinary statement 
that it is also to cast a slur upon the character of God by representing 
our Creator as a deceiver! It is difficult to treat such statements 
seriously. Apart from the question as to how God can possibly be 
said to have a “ character,” every thinking person knows that our 
Senses are apt to, and do, woefully deceive us, that perception 
without sufficient knowledge leads us into false concepts, which in 
their turn get us into difficulties, both in the Physical and Meta- 
physical, and this fact is the greatest incentive we have to earnestly 
seek for and gain further knowledge to correct those erroneous conclu- 
sions. Was it a slur on God’s character that for hundreds of thousands 
of years man was deceived by his sense of sight into believing that 
this little earth was the centre of everything, that it was fixed in 
Space and that the Sun and Stars and the Universe revolved around 
it? or, when Galileo proved that this perception was erroneous, was 
it a slur on God’s character that his Human Agents in this World 
declared, and maintained for hundreds of years after, that it was a 
sacrilegious invention and threatened with death any one who should 
dare to believe what they, in their blind dogmatism, declared was 
contrary to the teaching of Scripture! God may perhaps be looked 
upon as having given us our present imperfect senses, and as having 
helped us, under His plan for natural progression, to improve and 
largely extend their powers, during the last 300 years, by the 
invention of various instruments ; but by no stretch of the imagina- 
tion can He be held responsible for the way in which we use those 
Senses ; their present imperfections as truth finders are, as I have 
pointed out, one of our greatest incentives to gain further knowledge. 
Professor Orchard trots out again, as he did in the discussion on my 


REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. 163 


last paper, the extraordinary suggestion that because God has 
revealed himself in the name Jehovah, which means existence 
(derivation not certain but perhaps) and comprises the three aspects, 
Past, Present and Future (which it certainly does not), therefore 
there must be a Past, Present, and Future to God; it might just 
as well be argued that, because the Deity has revealed Himself to 
us in the name G O D, which word comprises three letters, one of 
which is at the beginning, another in the middle and a third at the 
end, therefore the Deity must have had a beginning, has now a 
middle, and will come to anend. He is startled at hearing for the 
first time that his Transcendental Ego is Omniscient, but his refer- 
ence to ‘Evolutionary imaginations” shows so clearly the state of 
his knowledge upon that subject, that I venture to remind him 
that he himself, or rather the clothing which is now being used by 
his Physical Ego, has, during his present life, gone through all 
the different stages of evolutionary development, which, since the 
beginning of life on this planet, have been employed to build up his 
body in its present state. HEmbryology has shown us that, during 
Gestation, each human embryo is a replica of the past; it passes 
through the different stages from protoplasm to man, being unre- 
cognizable at certain stages from a monad, an amoeba, a fish with 
- gills, a lizard, and a monkey with a tail and dense clothing of hair 
over the whole body. The human embryo has also, at an early 
stage, the thirteenth pair of ribs, which is found in lower animals 
and is still seen in a very rudimentary form in Anthropoid 
Apes, but which disappears from the human embryo before birth. 
Professor Orchard is of course quite wrong in saying I have stated 
that the Physical Ego came before the Transcendental Ego; I have 
done nothing of the sort. The Spiritual, being independent of 
time, has always existed but, before its advent to man, the genus 
homo was, as I specially pointed out, an animal pure and simple ; it 
was the advent of the Spiritual, or its taking root in that animal’s 
mind, which gave it, or made manifest in it, a physical Ego and 
raised man far above all other animals. I have now dealt with 
what Professor Orchard calls “‘ blemishes” in my paper but which, 
I submit, are nothing but the result of his own imaginary creation. 
It is a pleasure to turn to the remarks of the Chairman, he recog- 
nizes how difficult and in many cases impossible it is, in treating 
Metaphysical subjects, to find words to express the exact meaning ; 
M 2 


164 ON THE REAL PERSONALITY OR TRANSCENDENTAL EGO. 


we have to describe the Infinite in terms of the finite and, by use of 
imperfect, finite analogies and symbols, to get a glimpse of the 
otherwise unthinkable, and even then it requires a Mystical Sense, 
or what St. Paul called Spiritual discernment, to get beyond the 
physical. i note that he appreciates that Evil is the negation of 
Good and, in my argument, I have never denied that these nega- 
tions have the appearance of realities, under our present conditions 
of existence, and indeed have to be dealt with by us as realities, but 
they are only manifested as phenomena on the physical plane, 
through our senses, and therefore thoughts, being limited by Time 
and Space and therefore dependent upon relativity. It is easy 
to see that the negatives, Cold, Shadow, Ignorance, are 
manifestations of the absence of their positives on my list, and it 
is not difficult also to show that Sin is actually dependent upon the 
Good, as the shadow depends upon light for its appearance of reality. 
Moral laws, and responsibility thereto, are dependent upon the exist- 
ence of Goodness ; the purely animal Homo was free from sin or 
responsibility until the advent of the Spiritual, when he became 
aware of Right, and therefore of Wrong, and became a responsible 
moral being; certain acts then became for him Sin that were not 
sin before; thus the advent of Christ, and in a less degree the 
coming of every good man into the world, so raised and is raising 
the level of moral rectitude, that things become sin that were not 
sin before; St. Paul himself specially recognizes this when he 
says that without law there is no sin. The Goodness brought 
into the World by Christ did not create sin but made it manifest and 
gave it the appearance of a reality under our present conditions of 
life and thought. 

How well the Mystic St. Paul recognizes that the Invisible is the 
real and that the visible, namely the phenomena of nature, is only 
dependent upon time for its manifestation, his words are :— 

‘For the things which are seen are temporal but the things which 
are not seen are Eternal.” 


528TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 
MONDAY, MARCH 4ru, 1912. 


THE VENERABLE ARCHDEACON SINCLAIR, D.D., IN THE CHAIR. 


The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and signed, and the 
SECRETARY announced the elections of Mr. Sidney Collett, formerly an 
Associate, as a Member, C. H. F. Major, Esq., a life Associate, and 
3 ae Stewart, Esq., as Associate, and the Rev. Professor eee as 

a Missionary Associate. 


The CHAIRMAN, in introducing the Bishop of Down, Connor aul 
Dromore, said that it gave him great pleasure to do so, and that 
they all felt it a privilege to hear a paper from one who had taken 
high honours at Trinity College, Dublin, and whose career had 
justified his earlier successes. As examining chaplain to a former 
Bishop of what was now his own diocese, as chaplain to the Lord 
Lieutenant, as Donnellan Lecturer, as Bishop of Clogher, and then 
of Ossory, he had furthered the cause of Truth and laid a burden 
of indebtedness upon all who had studied his works. 


He then called upon him to read his paper. 


DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF. 
By the Ricut Rev. THE BisHop oF Down, D.D. 


HE difficulties of belief, which have so powerful an effect 
on modern minds, may be said to be due in the main to 
three causes : — 

First, the influence of modern science ; secondly, the tendency. 
of modern criticism; and thirdly, the character of the modern 
ethos. 

All these are related ; for modern criticism is very largely 
the application of scientific methods to history and to historical 
documents, and the modern ethos has taken shape under 
conditions which owe their nature in a great degree to the 
transformation of the material environment of human life by 
the application of the discoveries of physical science. 

We shall consider our subject in the three departments which 
have just been outlined. 

(1) Every really thoughtful Christian believer in our day 
has, In some way or other, found means of adjusting his 
scientific creed so as to avoid conflict with his theology. There 
are people who find no difficulty in such an adjustment, because 
they think in water-tight compartments. They never dream 
of applying in the sphere of their religion the categories which 
dominate their science. There are some very powerful minds 


166 RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF DOWN, D.D., ON 


which have this peculiarity. It makes life and faith easy 
for them. And, as we shall see, there are schools of thinkers 
in our time whose whole philosophy consists in an effort to 
prove that thinking in water-tight compartments is true and 
right thinking. 

“But the majority of thinking people are not thus con- 
stituted. Even when they accept scientific principles and 
methods on the one hand, and religion with its principles and 
methods on the other, they are constantly disturbed by the 
uncomfortable suspicion that somehow or other their whole life 
needs a reconciliation which they ought to effect but have no 
means of effecting, or, if their faith is of a very intense kind, 
they have a deep underlying conviction that there exists some 
reconciliation which lies beyond the grasp of their thought. 

Let us consider briefly how this difficulty arises. It is due 
surely in the first instance to the fact that science goes upon 
the principle of physical causation. It regards the universe as 
a connected system of related things and events pervaded by 
necessity. Natural law governs the whole. According to this 
scheme of thought, the condition of the world at any moment is 
the necessary outcome of what it was at the previous moment: 
the universe is a vast mechanism in which every element is 
determined by relation to all the others. In the eighteenth 
century this idea was confirmed by the discovery and descrip- 
tion of the mechanism of the heavens. In the nineteenth 
century its scope was extended by the great doctrine of evolu- 
tion. True, this latter seemed to leave mere mechanism behind. 
It added to the idea of mechanism the higher idea of organic 
growth. But it did not get rid of the idea of an order dominated 
by necessity. Rather it seemed, in its earlier statements, at all 
évents, to link biology to mechanism, and to show that 
elements which, for earlier thinkers, seemed to break free from 
the control of merely natural law are really in complete 
bondage. Thus arose that naturalistic monism of which 
Haeckel may be regarded as the most characteristic exponent. 

Science certainly goes upon the supposition that the unex- 
plained may always be explained on these principles, if we can 
only get deep enough. It does not, in practice, admit exceptions. 
Its aim is ever to banish the mysterious and unaccountable. 
If told that life, for example, is a new beginning which cannot 
be brought into one system with matter and motion, and 
explained in terms of mechanism aud chemistry, it answers 
‘“ Wait and See.” If confuted by the facts of consciousness and 
will it urges the danger of hasty assertion in view of the steady 


DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF. 167 


advance of scientific explanation throughout the domain of 
nature. Here is the strong foundation of materialistic and 
agnostic naturalism. And thinking people who feel the 
tremendous force of the contention may be pardoned their 
fears and their hesitations, and their doubt of mere dogmatic 
statements on the other side. 

It is further to be observed that these ideas which, a genera- 
tion ago, were current among the educated, and especially the 
scientifically educated, classes, have now become the property 
of the masses. Education of a sort is now widely diffused. 
The principles of science, in a rudimentary fashion, have 
penetrated almost all minds. The thoughts of the few in one 
generation are those of the many in the next. To Sir Oliver 
Lodge, Haeckel’s Riddle of the Universe seems a survival from 
the past. To the muliitude it seems the newest light of science. 
The reason is clear. The multitude has only just grasped the 
ideas which give that work its plausibility. To Sir Oliver 
Lodge those ideas are old and familiar and he has discovered 
their limitations. 

On the whole I think it is true that here we have the 
difficulty which most of all affects the minds of the more thought- 
ful people who doubt or deny at the present time. Here is the basis 
of most forms of definite unbelief. What are we to say as to 
- the outlook for the future ? 

First, we must note the emergence of a philosophy which cuts 
the Gordian knot. Pragmatism does not deny the validity of 
science. On the contrary it maintains that validity, but bases 
it altogether upon its practical value. Its contention is that we 
believe science to be true because we find it useful. To extend 
the methods of science into realms where they are not useful 
is mere confusion. In those realms we must seek for the 
principles which are useful, and we shall find them true also— 
true in their own sphere. I regard this philosophy as a remark- 
able sign of the times. It is the revolt of the spirit of man 
against the dominance of mechanism. As such it is of supreme 
importance. I do not believe in pragmatism as a final philosophy. 
But it is surely a fresh proof, and one characteristic of our age, 
that man’s spiritual nature can never finally submit to the 
bondage of the material. Naturalism (or monism) is only 
another name for materialism. And against all such forms of 
thought there is a witness which cannot be suppressed in the 
soul of every man. 

At the present moment this witness is giving its testimony in 
many forms. Some of these are strange, even bizarre. From 


168 RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF DOWN, D.D., ON 


the new psychology and psychical research to spiritual healing 
and Christian Science, from profound philosophical speculations 
to the most frantic forms of spiritualism, we can trace the 
movement of the human spirit in its revolt against mechanism. 
There is indeed in our time a wonderful re-discovery of the soul. 
A quarter of a century ago a clever materialistic writer wrote an 
article in one of the great monthlies which he called “ The death 
of the soul.” His point was that no serious thinker any longer 
believed in the soul as something higher than, and different 
from, the mechanism of the brain. It was a foolish thesis even 
then ; but it had a certain degree of plausibility. It would now 
be impossible. During the last quarter of a century the 
spiritual side of our experience has been asserting its reality in 
a very wonderful way. 

The thinker whose work is attracting most attention at the 
present time is Henri Bergson. <A profound physiologist, as well 
as a profound psychologist, he is presenting to the world a new 
conception of hfe in its relation to the universe. And the most 
striking and important fact in this new doctrine is that it 
approaches the problem of life not from the side of mechanism 
but from the side of psychical and conscious experience. And 
this mode of approach has the effect of yielding a new justification 
of the freedom of the will and a view of the world in which is 
found ample room for the spiritual. Though I would deprecate 
any slavish adherence to Bergson’s philosophy as a whole, I must 
welcome him as a pioneer who is opening out a new road into 
the realms of thought and revealing new visions of spiritual 
reality. 

Side by side with Bergson’s work must be placed the new 
realization, which is coming to many scientific minds, that the 
categories of mechanism are insufficient, for the explanation of 
the immense variety of nature. Asa most remarkable illustration, 
I would mention two articles in recent numbers of the Hibbert 
Journal with the suggestive title, Js there one Science of Nature ? 

The result of our enquiry into this first great difficulty in the 
way of belief is distinctly reassuring. We have reason to think 
that the bondage to the mechanical view of the world will not 
long hold the mind of man. 

Before leaving this part of our subject let me point out that 
we have been in the habit of taking too narrow a view of the 
nature of science, and that this fact is to a very great degree 
the eause of our trouble. In considering science in relation to 
religion we have thought too much of only one branch of it, the 
theoretical. 


DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF. 169 


We think of science as the discovery of the laws of nature. 
The result is that we have formed a conception of nature as a 
system completely under the domination of a rigid cast-iron 
rule, a system which seems unalterable by human power, a vast 
machine in which man himself is but an element. We have 
forgotten the most important part of science, the practical part. 
We have omitted to consider that the great purpose in the 
discovery of the laws of nature is that we may control the 
forces of nature for our own ends. And when we turn our 
attention to this side of science we find to our astonishment 
that we are able thus to control natural forces. Natural forces 
are not the inexorable things we imagine., Thus all human work is 
done. By his knowledge of the laws of nature and his using of 
that knowledge for his own purposes, man has been able to sub- 
due the earth, to alter the whole aspect of the globe. Instead of 
making us the slaves of natural forces, the laws of nature are the 
means by which these forces are mastered by the free mind and 
will of man. ‘Thus science itself yields us, when it is rightly 
regarded, a magnificent demonstration of the reality and essen- 
tial independence of the spiritual. Thus also is proved the 
absurdity of imagining that the discovery of natural law implies 
the banishing of the Creator from the universe. For, if it is 
through his knowledge of natural law that man is able to 
~ control the forces of nature, how much more must it be true 
that these laws, and the forces which they rule, subserve the 
purposes of supreme Intelligence. Thus it would appear that 
the universality of law in the domain of nature is no argument 
against the efficacy of prayer and the occurrence of miracle. 
We cannot imagine that the Almighty is subject to a disability 
from which his creature man is free—that His freedom of action 
is bound by laws which do not bind the freedom of finite man. 

(2) Secondly, we have to consider the difficulties of belief which 
arise from the tendencies of modern criticism. The higher 
criticism, as it is termed, of the Old and New Testaments is no 
new thing. But within the past twenty years its methods, and 
many of the views to which they have led, have attracted public 
attention and affected the popular imagination in a new way. 
As we all know, higher critics are of many kinds and degrees. 
Some are very distinctly and definitely negative and destructive 
in relation to the Christian religion. Others represent what 
may still be termed the broad schoo! of religious thought. Some, 
it must not be forgotten, are in the strictest sense orthodox and 
conservative. It is well that we should remind ourselves that 
the higher criticism is really a method, not a school. That 


170 RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF DOWN, D.D., ON 


method is the application of strictly scientific historical criticism 
to the sacred documents. I do not mean that as carried out 
this method has been always scientific. Far from it. It has 
often been marked by the unbridled use of hypothesis. Yet it 
is true that the intention of the higher critic is to be strictly 
scientific in his treatment of the documents. That is what he 
professes. 

Now, looking at the world in a large way and at men in the 
mass, we must realize that the mere application of such a 
method to Holy Scripture marks a very great change and must 
produce a strong effect on the popular mind. In the days that 
our religious traditions come fr om, Holy Scripture was regarded 
as too sacred for criticism. It demanded interpretation, and 
there indeed the scholarly mind might find ample scope for 
study and investigation. But to question the sacred documents’ 
themselves; to treat them as, in many instances, probably 
composite ; to apply to them the tests which would be applied 
to other documents, seemed altogether profane. 

This being so, it was inevitable that, when it became clear to 
the public mind that scholarship was testing Holy Scripture in 
the very same way in which it tests all other documents, that 
very fact had an extraordinary influence. And when, further, 
the views and theories of some of the more extreme critics 
gained currency, it appeared to multitudes of people that the 
very foundations of the Christian Faith were being shaken. 
The impression was created, and still persists, that the unusual 
events recorded in Holy Scripture are being shown to have no 
better foundation than the prodigies recorded in ancient legends, 
and that the documents which are thus fallible, have little 
claim on the reverence of mankind. The popular mind is very 
vague. It does not grasp the exact result of any new develop- 
ment of scientific thought; it receives an impression, and from 
that impression it derives its conviction, or want of conviction. 
So it is, I fear, in this case. 

Now the truth is that at present the tendency of criticism 
is rather to restore than to destroy. Even as regards the Old 
Testament, there are indications that the extraordinary way in 
which the discoveries of the spade are driving back the dates 
assigned to ancient civilization is raising a suspicion that the 
current theories will very soon require revision. And, in 
relation to the New Testament, we can now say that there has 
taken place an amazing restitution. The wild theories which 
endeavoured to bring down the dates of the New Testament 
books into the second century have practically vanished. It is 


DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF. 17] 


now acknowledged, as regards the majority of these books, that 
they belong to the age, and in most cases were written by the 
authors, to which tradition assigned them. All this is true. 
Yet the fact remains that the impression prevails that these 
books tell their story with the uncertainties and inaccuracies 
which belong to old chronicles and folk-lore, and that, however 
elevated may be their tone spiritually and morally, their 
historical value is at the best doubtful. 

Here is one of the most serious difficulties in the way of 
belief at the present time. How can we deal with it? First, 
of course, Christian scholarship must do its duty; and we can 
say with thankfulness that it is doimg its duty. But, in the 
realm of pure scholarship, I fear it is true that negative results 
affect the public mind more definitely than positive. We 
certainly require more than scholarship. The continual 
fluctuation of opinion—of theory and of conjecture—in the 
realm of scholarly criticism makes us feel the necessity of some- 
thing more permanent. Where is that permanent basis of truth 
to be found? The answer surely must be that we must find it, 
not in the mere book, but in the revelation which the book 
contains. It is surely true that all along the ages the source of 
power has been, not the mere letter of certain documents, but 
the personality and influence of Jesus Christ. Here is a great 
' theme and one which has been much in the minds of thought- 
ful Christian people in recent years. It was inevitable that it 
should be so. The discordant voices of the critics and the 
unsettlement of the Christian mind on the subject of Inspiration 
drove the faithful back upon the great central truth. And 
here the unprejudiced mind finds a basis which cannot 
be shaken. The wonderful character of our Lord, with its 
sunplicity and its profundity, with its amazing completeness, its 
union of the most opposite qualities, its freedom from all conscious- 
ness of sin, its realization of humanity in relation to God and in 
harmony with His will, its compelling moral torce, its undying 
power of inspiration, its penetrating quality, its clearness of 
outline—it is this which makes Jesus Christ the most vivid 
personality in history or literature. Together with His 
wonderful character must be considered the teaching of Christ, 
His consciousness of union with God, His superhuman clains, 
the extraordinary way in which these claims have called forth 
a response in the hearts of men mm all ages. He speaks to men 
as their Lord and Master and they acknowledge His supremacy 
and find in that acknowledgment new life. Through all 
generations of Christian listory this is the source of all that is 


rf RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF DOWN, D.D., ON 


truest and best; and, in periods of spiritual decay, here is found 
power for regeneration. In our own time, the principle 
expressed in the words “ Back to Christ” has proved the 
salvation of religion. , 

It is surely clear that the literature which presents us with 
such a, fact as the fact of Christ must differ in some very 
essential way from all other literature. And we may well 
demand that, when this literature. gives us accounts of events 
which seem to stand apart from our ordinary experience, these 
accounts shall be regarded as different from narrations of the 
marvellous occurring in other histories. Christ is unique in human 
history. His relation to mankind is, in some way, different in 
kind from that of other human beings. Therefore we must 
expect that, in connection with Him, there will be found 
circumstances and events which are in kind different from our 
usual experience. 

The influence of Christ upon the human soul is, for Christian 
people, the ultimate fact. When that influence is, for a man, 
the supremely effective power of his life, then all that belongs to 
Christ is lifted out of the ordinary. 

This argument is not now presented as anything fresh or 
original. It is nothing of the kind, thank God. Our present 
purpose is simply to show that the way out of the difficulty 
created by the criticism of Holy Scripture is to follow Him who 
says “Iam the Light of the world: he that followeth me shall 
not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” 

(3) We have, thirdly, to consider the difficulties which are due 
to the character of the modern ethos. Our time is remarkable 
for its amazing mastery of material forces. The whole material 
environment of human life has been transformed by the 
appleation of scientific discoveries. The resources of man in 
his struggle with nature have been increased enormously. The 
globe has been covered with means of communication. The 
world has gained an economic unity which it never possessed 
before. The resources of luxury and of human enjoyment inall 
its forms have been vastly augmented. The result is that 
men are seeking more universally and also more reasonably 
than ever before for material satisfactions. The inevitable 
tendency is to concentrate attention on the visible and tangible, 
and to forget the unseen and spiritual. Earth has become so 
attractive that God and Heaven, if not disbelieved, are simply 
forgotten. 

I think that here we have the explanation of most of the 
thoughtless unbelief, the carelessness, of the present day. Why is 


Pye 


DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF. 173 


it that im our great cities the busy multitudes pass the churches 
by without a thought or a qualm? Why is it that in an age 
when education is, in a manner, universally diffused, the 
enlightenment of the mind does not mean the illumination of 
the soul? It is surely because the modern world has given its 
heart to the material, having found the material world so 
eminently responsive to its demands. It is notable, as 
illustrative of this characteristic, that the dreams of social 
reconstruction, which are so many and so widely attractive at 
‘present, and which we sum up under the familiar term 
socialism, are for the most part endeavours to find happiness in 
a re-arrangement of the material means of life and enjoyment. 
It is strange that there are people who so far mistake the spirit 
of Christ as to quote his authority for efforts of this kind. It is 
hard to understand how the blessings which He pronounced 
upon the poor can be regarded as providing a sanction for the 
doctrine that poverty is a curse and the summing up of all 
evils. A materialistic socialism is indeed the very antithesis of 
Christianity as taught by Christ. But it is very characteristic 
of the age; and the prevalent conviction that all well-being can 
be measured in terms of pounds, shillings, and pence, which it 
represents, is one of the greatest obstacles in the way of religion 
at the present time. The truth is that the primary conviction 


. of the materialistic socialist and of the materialistic individual- 


ist is precisely the same. Both are seeking human happiness 
in material satisfactions and both are doomed to exactly the 
same disappointment. The rush for wealth, the race for 
amusement, the greedy competition of the capitalists, and the 
equally greedy envy which fills the hearts of the needy: all 
these things are symptoms of one and the same disease. And, 
though these things always existed in the world and had at all 
times the same meaning and created the same difficulties in the 
way of religion, the conditions of the present age are such that 
they have attained a volume and a power unknown in former 
ages. 

It is possible that the modern world is only at the beginning of 
a period during which the material resources of civilization will 
be augmented beyond anything which is now conceivable. On 
the other hand, it may be that we have reached almost the limit 
in this respect. But surely we must be convinced that, what- 
' ever the future may have in store for the human race, a time 
must come when the realization that material things are incap- 
able of satisfying the deeper needs of man’s nature will be 
forced upon the attention of mankind. History shows that, 


174 RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF DOWN, D.D., ON 


from time to time, there comes an epoch when the need of the 
spiritual awakens in the human heart. Such is every great 
revival of religion. And is it not possible that the more 
complete man’s victory over the forces of nature proves to be 
and the more he finds it possible to satisfy his material 
cravings, the more decisive will be his disappointment and 
his reaction towards the spiritual when that disappointment 
awakens his spiritual faculties ? 

The present materializing of human life with the carelessness 
of religion which it has brought ought not then to sink us in 
despair. We believe in God: we believe in the human soul: 
we believe that the soul of man cannot be permanently satisfied 
with material things. “O God, thou hast made us for Thy- 
self and our souls can have no rest until they find their rest 
in Thee.” There has never been an age when the truth 
expressed by those words has remained without witness. Is it 
not true that the questionings of the present day, the eager 
striving after everything novel and exciting connected with the 
borderland of our experience, the interest in the theosophies of 
the East and the pseudo-philosophies of the West, indicate a 
deep dissatisfaction of the soul with the material joys of the 
modern world? They express in their own imperfect way the 
ery of the soul after God: “O that I knew where I might find 
Him, that I might come even to His seat.” They are the 
groping of man in his blindness for that which all the while is 
‘ near him, though he knows it not: “ Behold I go forward, but 
he is not there, and backward, but I cannot perceive him: on 
the left hand where he doth work, but I cannot behold him, 
he hideth himself on the nght hand that [ cannot see him.” 

In considering the unbelief of the more thoughtful minds of 
our day we saw that there has already taken place a re- 
discovery of the human soul. May it not be that this is the 
beginning of a great spiritual awakening which will affect the 
great unthinking masses as well as the more select souls ? 

The re-discovery of the human soul must mean also the re- 
discovery of God. Practically the two go together. When 
man knows himself as a spirit, he cannot recognize any cause 
of an inferior kind as the source of the universal order. And 
here we come to the last great difficulty of belief which 
demands our consideration. If the order of the universe is 
the manifestation of supreme and beneficent intelligence and 
will, how is it that nature and human life are so full of pain 
and suffering in various forms? What about the awful 
tragedies and disasters which overwhelm men—even good and 


DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF. 175 


noble men—from time to time? There are many minds in our 
time to whom this difficulty is a positive nightmare. More 
than any other it oppresses those who, possessing sincere and 
real faith, are cifted with strong imagination and sympathy. 

To such I would say, in regard to this problem above all, it 
is true that if the difficulties of belief are great, the difficulties 
of unbelief are greater. The horror of the pain of the universe 
becomes unspeakable if we lose our faith in a God who will 
bring blessing out of evil and make all things work together for 
good. 

And we have the greatest and best of reasons for believing 
that it is of the very essence of the Divine Nature to bring 
good out of evil and over-rule all things for a final blessedness. 
For underlying all our thought and all our life—our commonest 
experiences as weil as our science and our philosophy—there is 
one fundamental principle. It is this: the supreme power 
which works in the universe is trustworthy. Here is the basis 
of our confidence that what is true to-day will not be false 
to-morrow. It is the bed-rock on which rests our conviction 
that there is an order in the world which will not put us to 
utter confusion. It is the principle on which science depends 
in its discovery of the laws of nature, a principle which is ever 
gaining a larger relation to all that we hold for truth and 
_ certainty. And, in the last resort, what can this principle 
mean but this, that God will not fail the creatures whom He 
has made and who put their trust in Him. 


DISCUSSION. 


The CHAIRMAN proposed a hearty vote of thanks to the Bishop 
for his admirable paper and deferred further remarks to the close 
of the discussion. 

Professor HULL seconded, and discussion followed. 

Dr. W. Woops SmytTH said: We are indebted to the Lord 
Bishop of Down and Connor for his brief but masterly sketch of 
Faith’s difficulties, and we must be pleased to find that he lays the 
blame at the door not of Science only, but at the door also of those 
who have originated them and continue to cultivate them, namely, 
the theologians. It is not long since Professor Orchard contributed 
to us a paper pointing out that men of science were not perplexed 
with the worst of these difficulties. And it was shown that they 
existed mainly in the minds of the theologians themselves, and. 


176 RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF DOWN, D.D., ON 


largely owing to their ignorance of modern science. It is with 
mingled feelings of regret and satisfaction that I wish to draw 
attention to the mistake of regarding Bergson as a pioneer in the 
views he has given us upon life. These so-called new views have 
long since been contributed to the Victoria Institute by the late 
Professor Beale, and, as regards life’s relations to free-will, are 
fully expounded in several of my own works. In short, Bergson 
does not here contribute one original thought, but, as I have 
pointed out to Mr. Balfour, lays himself open to having drawn 
heavily upon others without any acknowledgment. 

Upon the ever burning question of Biblical Criticism I could 
wish that his Lordship had been more explicit. The critics con- 
tinually declare that archeology, “the discoveries of the spade,” 
make no difference whatever to their views—they show no tendency 
whatever to restore anything The fact is, all their views have 
been framed without regard to the principles of right evidence or 
right reason or anything in the shape of any true science, and there- 
fore they can still hold them in the face of the most convincing 
facts to the contrary. 

We have before us at this present time an object lesson pointing 
to the entire truth of what I have just said. The 7imes has been 
reporting the lecture of the Rev. J. M. Thompson, Dean of 
Divinity, Magdalen College, Oxford, in which he rejects the 
Virgin Birth and Resurrection of our Lord. The late Professor 
Huxley said that from the standpoint of modern science the 
doctrine of the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection presented no 
difficulties to him. Men of science have generally followed Huxley’s 
pronouncement. But here is a theologian almost absolutely 
ignorant of modern science, with a leading College of Oxford at 
his back, parading his difficulties and rejecting these doctrines, 
through sheer ignorance of the subject itself. 

Mr. RovusE said: When, by diligent excavations and careful 
decipherments, archeologists have proved that in the earliest 
dynasties of Egypt, Babylonia or Elam, men were already skilled 
artists and builders, wrote inscriptions or books with an elaborate 
alphabet, and gave other signs of a high civilization, one would 
expect thoughtful men to conclude that, since the Bible was correct 
in its description of men and manners at that early epoch, it was in 
all likelihood correct in its account of the first building of Babel 


DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF. yy! 


and of the events that preceded this, and the short existence that 
it ascribed to mankind prior to this—only about 2,000 years. But, 
instead of doing so, many archeologists and teachers of natural 
science simply extend the period much further backwards from 12,000 
years to 50,000 or 100,000 or even to 1,000,000 years ; because, 
say they, if man has developed so imperceptibly in 4,500 or 5,000 
years since those dynasties, how much vaster than even we supposed 
must have been the lapse of time during which he had previously 
developed from an anthropoid ape. And, leading newspapers write 
articles in keeping with such views ; and the public read them with 
avidity, and pay little heed to the confirmation of Holy Writ 
yielded by the excavations and decipherments. 

Colonel G. MACKINLAY said: I wish to add my sincere thanks 
to the eloquent author for his very admirable description of the 
conditions of thought at the present time. I am glad to note the 
hopeful spirit which pervades the paper, as evidenced by his assertion 
(bottom of p. 170), that at present the tendency of criticism is rather 
to restore than to destroy belief. May not a similar hopeful view 
be taken of the growing appreciations of the historical value of the 
books of the New Testament, as evidenced by the wonderful 
_accuracy which Sir William Ramsay has shown exists in the book 
of Acts? Good progress is being made by others also in the same 
direction. 

Mr. JoHN SCHWARTZ said: I heartily endorse our lecturer’s view 
that the personality and influence of Jesus Christ is the great central 
truth of Christianity, I go further and state that this rockbed is the 
only foundation on which the Christianity of the twentieth century 
can be securely built. The clergy and most good Christian people 
seem to me quite out of touch with the virile opinions of the modern 
world, which recognizes that the sound historical basis of Christianity, 
as of all other religions, is found some century or centuries after 
initiation, when their votaries are sufficiently numerous and important 
to attract public notice, and the real facts are always garnished 
with myth and amalgamated with current religions and philosophical 
ideas. JI agree with our author that ‘“ The continual fluctuation of 
opinion—of theory and of conjecture in the realm of scholarly 
criticism” is unsatisfactory, but I prefer it to the uncritical dog- 
matism of the middle ages and church fathers on which orthodoxy is 
based. We see Christianity in Roman Catholic countries drifting 

N 


178 RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF DOWN, D.D., ON 


down to the intellectual dregs of the population, and if the same 
unfortunate position is to be avoided in our own land the broadening 
of the bases of official Christianity appears to me the only safe course. 
I quite agree that many wild theories about New Testament dates 
have practically vanished, but I cannot agree that the majority of 
these books belong to the age and were written by the authors to 
which tradition assigns them, particularly the gospels, in fact, it is 
all theory and conjecture. Our author’s thoughts about the laws 
of Nature (p. 169) appear to me to be confused: to control natural 
forces is surely not to alter their inexorable order. All that man 
can do is to move matter, so that the inexorable result is to his 
advantage. ‘True science is not materialistic, on the other hand, Sir 
Ray Lankester, I think, rightly repudiates emphatically, in the name 
of the men of science in general, Sir Oliver Lodge’s little flirtations 
with mysticism. 

The Rev. C. L. DRAwsripGE, M.A., said: Before commencing to 
read the paper, his lordship mentioned the fact that the title of it 
had not been chosen by him, but by the Institute. What was the 
idea in the Bishop’s mind when he made this explanation about the 
title, ‘‘ Difficulties of Belief ”? Ithink that the contrast between the 
spirit displayed by some speakers in the discussion which followed 
the reading of the paper, and the spirit of the paper itself, sheds 
light upon the point. One of the chief objects of some members, I 
gather, is to lessen the difficulties of retaining certain specific beliefs, 
2.é., to find arguments to substantiate certain definite opinions— 
which some of the members entertain and do not intend to relin- 
quish-—rather than to go to the Bible and to nature with a perfectly 
open mind to find out what beliefs are suggested by an impartial 
study of the actual facts. There is, of course, a fundamental 
difference between (1) seeking the truth, for its own sake, wherever 
it may lead us, and (2) searching for arguments to support one’s 
existing opinions. If any specific belief becomes more and more 
ditficult in the growing light of modern investigation, with the 
result that ultimately it is impossible to retain it, what then? 
Surely the result is by no means to be deplored, because the 
discovery of the truth is of much more importance than the dogged 
retention of any old beliefs if they are not justified by the facts. 
The attitude of biblical scholars towards the Bible has changed 
considerably since the days of our grandparents. Whether that 


DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF. 179 


fact is an advantage or the reverse depends upon what the Bible 
really is. It is much more important to know the actual nature of 
the Bible than to successfully retain any particular hypothesis with 
regard to what itis. One of the speakers in the discussion which 
followed the paper said that theologians are largely responsible for 
creating doubts : that the specialists, instead of removing 
“Difficulties of Belief,” increase them. Does he mean belief in 
opinions about the Bible which the careful study of Holy Scripture 
itself renders it exceedingly difficult to retain, opinions which there- 
fore are rapidly becoming extinct? Are such opinions superior to 
belief in what the great authorities consider to be the facts ? 
Archbishop Temple once remarked: ‘To bid a man study and yet 
compel him under heavy penalties to arrive at the same conclusions 
as those who have not studied, is to mock him. If the conclusions 
are prescribed, the study is precluded.” 

Another speaker quoted the words of Our Master, the Son of 
God :—‘“ Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not 
pass away,” interpreting ‘“‘ My word,” apparently, as referring to the 
words and phrases, 7.¢., the text of the New Testament. But we 
have to go to the critics who compare the countless different texts 
together in order to discover what the correct text really is. And 
if Jesus Christ intended by the expression ‘‘ My word” to refer to 
verbal phrases, He would presumably have written our New 
Testament Himself. Instead of doing so, He carefully avoided 
writing anything, except on one occasion with his finger in the dust 
where there was much traffic. And He told us that “the letter 
killeth but the Spirit giveth life.” He also said :—‘ Lo, I am with 
you always even unto the end of the ages”; and, ‘‘I have many 
things to say unto you but ye cannot bear them now, but when He, 
the Spirit of Truth is come, He will guide you into all truth.” One 
great effect of modern scientific study of the Bible has been to 
divert excessive reverence from the mere letter, and to concentrate 
attention rather upon the spirit of the Bible; also to attract the 
attention of the modern Christian ever more and more to the 
““Word” of God, in the sense in which St. John uses the term, 
namely, the Logos, the eternal Son of God, rather than to the mere 
words of what His followers wrote about Him. In proportion as 
the belief in verbal inspiration and infallibility has become more 
and more difficult of credence, the faith of Christendom has been 

N 2 


180 RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF DOWN, D.D., ON 


transferred more and more from the phraseology of the written 
scriptures to the living God. If, as we are convinced, He once 
inspired the ancients, He is presumably also inspiring the moderns, 
and gradually leading them into all truth. We have been driven 
to go behind the written record of the revelation, to the Holy 
Spirit Himself who inspired the writers of the record. 

One speaker said that he did not believe that the Gospels were 
written by the authors, or at the time, ascribed to them by tradition. 
But even the Rationalist Press Association, in spite of considerable 
anti-Christian bias, recently published a book by a Rationalist who 
has come to the conclusion, forced upon him by modern criticism, 
that tradition was, after all, more or less right with regard to the 
dates and authorship of the Gospels. The book I refer to is by 
Mr. F. C. Conybeare, and represents an attack upon the essential 
beliefs of Christianity, but in it the author shows that the 
‘difficulties of belief” in the Tiibingen school have become too 
great for him. In his introduction Mr. Conybeare says :— 

“On the whole the traditional dating (of the Gospels) seems to 
me to be the most satisfactory. Thus I should set the composition 
of Mark’s Gospel, as we have it, about A.D. 70, of Luke at any time 
between 80 and 95, of Matthew’s about 100, of John’s about 110. 
I see little difficulty in supposing that the John Mark mentioned in 
Paul’s Epistles drew up, some time after Peter’s death, as Irenzus 
affirms, the Gospel named after him; and I am inclined to think 
that Luke, the companion of Paul, really wrote the third Gospel 
and the Acts. . . . How far back the Aramaic traditions 
exploited by Mark may go we do not know. . . . The sayings 
of Jesus must have been written down at an earlier stage, because 
they were wanted as a manual of moral teaching. . .. I 
should not, therefore, be surprised to learn that the Aramaic text of 
these sayings was current within a short period after the death of 
Jesus.” 

Some Christians are apt to give the erroneous impression to 
outsiders that they are afraid of investigation, because they doubt 
the conclusion, and that, in their opinion, faith is an act of violence 
exercised by the will upon the intellect, a suppression of reason in 
the interests of what happen to be their present opinions. 
Genuine faith in God includes, surely, the conviction that the most 
searching investigation can but result, under the inspiring and 


DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF. 181 


revealing Spirit of God, in the discovery of the truth. And 
whatever the truth may be, it is God’s truth and therefore preferable 
to human error, however venerable. 

The following communications were then read :— 

The Rev. CHANCELLOR LIAS wrote:—There are only a few 
comments which I desire to make on the Bishop’s paper, and those 
rather of a confirmatory than of a critical kind. 

1. I cordially agree with him in thinking that there is not, and 
never has been, the slightest contradiction between revealed religion, 
properly understood and explained, and modern science, when kept 
within its proper limits. Science concerns itself with the laws which 
govern phenomena. With the cause of those laws it does not 
concern itself. It is here that religion comes in, and tells us that 
the will of an intelligent Creator is that cause. 

2. I am glad to find myself in agreement with his lordship when 
he says (p. 170) that modern Biblical criticism has not always been 
genuinely scientific. No doubt the critic intends his methods to be 
such. But “the unbridled use of hypothesis” forms, I cannot but 
think, a very large part of modern critical processes. And the 
repeated assertion of the finality of such criticism is about as 
unscientific as any assertion can be. Science is continually correcting 
its data by the light of new discoveries. The discovery of a single 
additional inscription might overturn the whole fabric which has of 
late been so positively affirmed to be “demonstrated beyond 
contradiction.” Such a possibility true scientific criticism would 
unreservedly admit. 

3. I desire also to associate myself with the remark (p. 169) that the 
Divine freedom of action is not bound by laws which do not bind 
the freedom of God’s creatures. Natural laws, though irreversible, 
are, nevertheless, found to be plastic in the hands of finite beings 
like ourselves. Cannot God control and use them without either 
‘“‘suspending” or “violating” them? Some of the greatest 
scientific discoverers have been unable to conceive of force except 
as the expression of will. 

4. I have not had an opportunity of studying carefully the recent 
researches into psychology. But one has always felt confident that 
a purely mechanical theory of the universe must eventually fail to 
satisfy the intellectual and moral cravings of humanity. 

Sir RopERT ANDERSON wrote : I cannot but fear that the Bishop of 


182 RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF DOWN, D.D., ON 


Down’s paper will hurt many whom it is intended to help. May I 
venture to suggest a revision of one of his lordship’s statements. 
I would read it thus: ‘“‘ It was inevitable that when the public were 
duped into supposing that scholarship was testing Holy Scripture in 
the same way in which it tests all other documents, that fact had an 
extraordinary influence” (p. 170, line 19). For the sham Higher 
Criticism has tested “scripture in a way that would not be tolerated 
in the case of other documents.” The movement originated, as we all 
know, with German Rationalists, who with the skill and subtlety for 
which the German mind is famous, produced a “ clear and complete ” 
case against certain of the sacred books. And English scholars 
who have traded on their labours are the dupes of the egregious 
fallacy that “a clear and complete case makes an end of controversy.” 
But no accused person is ever committed for trial in our Courts 
unless a clear and complete case is made out in proof of his guilt. 
The object of a trial is to sift that case, and to hear what is 
to be said on the other side. If the critics could be brought 
before a competent tribunal, their case would be “ laughed out of 
Court.” For it is exploded not only by facts which they ignore, 
but by a fuller knowledge of the Bible than any one of them has 
given proof of possessing. For no one with an adequate acquaint- 
ance with the typology of scripture, or with the scriptural scheme 
of Divine prophecy would accept their “ assured results.” Therefore 
it is that no archeologist of note is on their side. And though many 
book scholars and popular preachers help to distribute their German 
wares, not a single front rank theologian of our time in britain has 
been with them. 

P. 171. Then again, the passage discriminating between ‘“ the mere 
book” and the revelation which the book contains, will, I fear, be 
generally misunderstood. JI am not sure, indeed, that I understand it 
myself. Renan would have accepted that entire paragraph, and in his 
Vie de Jésus he has expressed similar thoughts in glowing words. But 
while there is in such thoughts and words a basis for “ the religion 
of Christendom,” this is not Christianity. For Christianity is a 
revelation and a faith. <A revelation of, and from, the Lord Jesus 
Christ as risen and ascended, and a faith based upon that revelation as 
contained in the God-breathed scriptures of the New Testament. 
The blind and bitter infidelity that refused belief in “ Jesus Christ ” 
as “the most vivid personality in history or literature,” belonged to a 


DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF. 183 


bygone age. But thisis quite apart from that faith in the Lord Jesus 
Christ, which brings us the forgiveness of our sins and eternal life. 

Professor LANGHORNE ORCHARD wrote: That much modern 
unbelief is traceable to one or more of the three sources, to which 
attention is directed in this able paper, there can be no question. 
Mistaken views as to natural laws, and disparaging (if not irreverent) 
treatment of the Bible, have combined, with a feverish thirst for 
pleasurable excitement, to blur the clear perception of Truth, and 
to chill love for that spiritual beauty from which some eyes have 
wandered. | 

Natural law has been imagined as a fetish, some mysterious 
entity, a phase or aspect of a stern inexorable necessity, toward 
which, as regnant in the universe, man’s only fitting attitude 
is the submission of the slave and vassal. It has not been generally 
recognized that natural laws are simply force-uniformities, 1.¢., 
uniform manners of spiritual action, essentially expressions of Will 
which is not the less free that it chooses to act in certain uniform 
modes. Misconception as to the character of natural law has fostered 
a lazy acquiescence in the supposition of a blind deity called Fate, 
and led to indisposition to that will-effort without which can be no 

intelligent acceptance and belief of truth. 
_ Disparagement of the Bible has produced a weakening of moral 
principle and a loosening of moral restraints. Sin has been made 
easier, and in many minds has arisen despair of finding certainty 
anywhere, truths the most solemn and most sure coming to be 
regarded as matters of opinion, or of probability only. 

The modern “ Higher Criticism,” to which this disparagement of 
the Bible is due, is largely based on the theory of Evolution. The 
Evolution speculation is also to a great extent responsible for that 
thirsty craving after materialistic satisfaction which is a characteristic 
of our age, and of which the inevitable tendency is, as stated on 
p. 172 of the paper, ‘‘to concentrate attention on the visible and 
tangible, and to forget the unseen and spiritual.” 

But behind these “‘ second causes” lies the love of the pleasures 
of sin in the fallen hearts of men. Difficulties of belief of God’s 
word have their roots, and find their nourishment, here. We are 
reminded of this by Holy Writ, “. . . they do always err in 
their heart.” “Out of the heart of man proceed evil thoughts . . 
foolishness.” 


184 RIGHT REV, THE BISHOP OF DOWN, D.D., ON 


The CHAIRMAN in closing the discussion said: With regard to 
the contradictions among modern critics I should like to refer to 
The (Quest of the Historic Christ by Schweitzer, where these 
contradictions are admirably shown in historic detail. The author 
criticizes each but seems to think that there has been some general 
result from the investigations. ‘That result seems to me to be purely 
negative, and that it leaves us in the position of rejecting or accepting 
anything that Christ said or did, according as it suits any precon- 
ceived theory, until nothing is left at all. 

We cannot get away from three facts: The fact of Christ, the 
fact of His teaching, and the fact of the results. 

And in this connexion it is clear we must expect something 
unique in the circumstances of His earthly history. 

He then called upon the Bishop to reply. 

The BisHop oF Down in reply said: Mr. Chairman and friends, 
I have to thank you very warmly for listening to my paper 
with such close attention and I have to thank the speakers for their 
kind words of appreciation. 

Though certain criticisms have been made, I feel that I need not 
detain you long with any reply. A few words will suffice. Dr. Woods 
Smyth seems to me to underestimate the volume and amount of the 
unbelief which bases itself on the ideas and principles due to modern 
science. We must take account of things as they are. As regards 
modern criticism, I do not think it can be dealt with in the way he 
proposes. Criticism must do its work and do it thoroughly. Only 
thus can the truth emerge. 

I cannot agree with his estimate of Bergson. There never was a 
great thinker, but people said of him, “ We have heard all this 
before.” But it-is one thing to put forward an opinion, it is another 
thing to open up a path by which that opinion may be justified. 

Some speakers have mistaken what I said about the laws of nature. 
A law of nature is, of course, only a statement of the way in which 
things are found to happen. Its constancy is a witness to the 
trustworthiness of the power which is manifested in nature. My 
point is that our experience shows that this constancy, instead of 
limiting man’s freedom, gives to that freedom its great opportunity. 

In connexion with the remarks of Mr. Drawbridge, while I agree 
with him that we should ever seek truth for its own sake, we must, 
T hold, consider that we prize our Christian Creed not merely because 


DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF. 185 


we believe it to be true, but also because we have found in it the satis- 
faction of all the deepest needs of our spiritual nature. It is the 
greatest of our treasures. And just as a man will fight for his daily 
bread so a Christian will contend for his faith. He has found it so 
good that he must struggle to hold it fast when an effort is made to 
take it from him. 

I must confess that I disagree considerably with Sir Robert 
Anderson. Christ says ‘I am the light of the world.” He says “I 
am the way, the truth, and the life.” He does not say “A book 
which shall be written is to be the light of the world, the way, the 
truth, and the life.” The supreme value of the Bible is to be found 
in its witness to Christ. 

Communication from Rey. A. IrvinG, D.Sc., B.A.— 

While appreciating very warmly the excellent paper of the 
Bishop of Down on ‘“ Difficulties of Belief,” and as one who for 
more than half a lifetime has given his best thoughts to the subject, 
I crave permission to offer a little friendly criticism on several 
points, on which I think the argument of the paper might be 
strengthened— 

1. There seems to me a certain weakness in Dr. D’Arcy’s remarks 

about what he calls the “scientific creed” and “thinking in water- 
- tight compartments.” They suggest the unsatisfactory position of 
those people who have a “ mere reading acquaintance with science,” 
as Professor Michael Foster, F.R.S., put it in his Presidential 
Address to the British Association at Dover, in 1899. To think in 
watertight compartments seems to me to set up a barrier to any 
advance towards the establishment of those harmonious relations 
between the scientific Geist and the theological (Geist, which are 
essential to the working out of a Christian Philosophy, such as 
Dr. Arnold Whateley has contended for (Transactions of the Victoria 
Institute, vol. xliti)—a philosophy which shall include in one 
perspective the truths of Nature and the truths of Revelation. 

2. “ Pragmatism does not deny the validity of Science,” writes 
Dr. D’Arcy (p. 167). It would talk nonsense if it did so. But 
surely Faith (which is wider in its scope than the mere intellectual 
process of “‘ belief”) has its pragmatic value. 

5. Not having seen the recent articles in the Hzbbert Journal, to 
which the Bishop refers, I may say that two years ago I suggested 
an affirmative answer to that question,—“ Is there one Science of 


186 DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF. 


Nature ?”—the possible answer being found in the full recognition 
of the Divine Immanence, as the consistent and persistent (though 
not of necessity rigidly uniform) expression of Transcendent 
Creative Thought and Will*; and the able paper by Dr. D’Arcy, 
supplemented by Bergson’s Creative Evolution, lends strong support 
to the contention that any complete theory of Evolution must 
‘include the immanence of Divine power.” 

4. The “revolt against mechanism” in recent years, and its 
necessary challenge to the mechanistic (so-called) philosophy of the 
Herbert Spencer school, following upon the re-affirmation of the 
reality of the spiritual side of existence, and the reference in that 
connexion to Henri Bergson, is upon the whole well considered. 
But one feels a sort of twinge at the phrase ‘the re-discovery of the 
soul.” There is no “re-discovery”’ in our later advance, except to 
those whose acquaintance with science has been mainly formed from 
the superficial magazine literature of the last two or three decades, 
which too often displays a conceited unconsciousness of the 
limitations of science. 

5. In the second part of his paper Dr. D’Arcy deals with the 
difficulties of belief which arise from modern criticism. Here he 
seems thoroughly at home. As the author leads on to the ineffable 
Personality of Jesus of Nazareth he reminds one of Archbishop 
Temple’s Bampton Lectures (1884)— 

“Tn the midst of present conflicts, in the war of opinion, and 
amid the fires of criticism, let us ever bear in mind the fact that 
Christianity is much more a living and life-giving principle than a 
theological system ; that it is not so much a philosophy as loyalty to 
G life, as that life was manifested in the Son of God.” 


* See my paper on “Light, Luminaries and Life,” Trans. Vict. Inst., 
vol. xlii. 


529TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 


HELD IN THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS LECTURE HALL 
(BY KIND PERMISSION) ON MONDAY, MARCH 18ru, 1912. 


JAMES W. TuirTLe, LL.D., M.R.A.S., IN THE CHAIR. 


The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed, and 
the following elections were announced :— 


Mempers: Frank W. Challis, Esq., M.A.; R. Maconachie, Esq., B.A. 


AssociATE: Mrs. G. Barbour. 


SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 
By Lieut.-Col. G. MAcKINLAY, late R.A. 


HE publication of the Oxford Studies in the Synoptic 
Problem last year, edited by Canon Sanday, had long been 
looked forward to, and the volume is a very valuable one, 
because it embodies the carefully considered results of several 
_ years of study by leading scholars, with the added advantage 
that they had continuously conferred together on the topics 
with which they dealt. 

None of the Problems which they considered are more 
interesting than those which are to be found in St. Luke’s 
Gospel. This Evangelist plainly states in his opening sentences 
that he writes “ having traced the course of all things accurately 
from the first . . . in order.”’* Nevertheless, his central 
chapters seem to be arranged in a manner which has long 
defied explanation. 

These problems attract very considerable attention among 
thoughtful Christian people at the present time, and they may 
profitably be discussed at the Victoria Institute. 

We begin our investigation by considering the sources from 
which the inspired Evangelist may have derived his information. 
We must confess that we have no means of knowing with 
certainty what they are; many different theories of the depen- 
dence of the three synoptics on each other, and on other sources 


* Luke i, 3. 


188 LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 


have been put forward at different times; but the following is 
in broad outline, the scheme which is very generally accepted by 
scholars and Bible students at the present time. Without 
necessarily accepting it as a perfect statement of the case, it 
forms a convenient working hypothesis for our investigations. 

The Gospel of Mark is generally believed to be the oldest of 
the synoptics ; rather more than three-quarters of Matthew and 
rather more than two-thirds* of Luke are in close verbal corre- 
spondence with it, and they are thought to be based upon it. A 
portion of the remaining third part of Luke has close verbal 
resemblance with the parts of Matthew, which are not similar to 
Mark ; this portion of Luke, therefore, is thought to be founded 
upon Matthew’s Gospel, or possibly on some unknown docu- 
ment, called (Q) for brevity, which may have served as a source 
for both Matthew and Luke. The remaining portion of Luke, 
which is not similar to either Mark or Matthew (though, of 
course, it may be similar to (Q)) is considered to come from 
some source or sources special to Luke. 

The sources of St. Luke’s Gospel thus appear to be three— 
(1) Marcan, (2) Matthaean (or Q), and (3) Special Lucan. 

As such a large proportion of the Gospel cf Luke corresponds 
verbally with Mark, it is all the more strange to find that 
sources other than Mark are continuously employed in the 
numerous consecutive chapters (eight and a half, and one and 
two-thirds respectively) of the so-called “great” and “lesser 
Insertions ” (Luke ix, 51, to xviii, 14, and vi, 20, to vui, 3). It 
is also very striking that all record of the incidents and sayings 
in the considerable period covered by Mark vi, 45, to vii, 26, is 
omitted by Luke. Not only is there a disuse of the Marcan 
narrative as in the cases of the two Insertions, but no 
information is supplied from any other source of the events and 
sayings of the period to which the Marcan chapters reier. 
This so-called “ great Omission ” is most abrupt, it occurs between 
the verses 17 and 18 of Luke ix. 


These then are the special problems which we propose to 
investigate— 


(a) The great Insertion (Luke wx, 51, to xvii, 14). 


* Three limitations to St. Luke's use of St. Mark’s Gospel, p. 29, Rev. Sir 
John Hawkins, Bart., M.A., D.D., in Studies in the Synoptie Problem 
(abbreviated title S.S.P.). Edited by Rev. Canon Sanday, M.A., D.D., 
1911. 


LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 189 


(b) The lesser Insertion (Luke vi, 20, to virt, 3). 


(c) The great Omission between verses 17 and 18 of Luke ix, 
of all the matter contained in Mark v1, 44, to vine, 26. 


We shall first of all briefly summarize the explanations of 
these problems suggested by the Rev. Sir John Hawkins in his 
very careful and scholarly paper in the recently published 
Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem. 


EXPLANATIONS OF THE LUCAN PROBLEMS. 
(a) and (b) The two Insertions. 


He states that in both of the Insertions Luke has certainly 
deserted* his usual Marcan source. Our author suggests as an 
explanation of the great Insertion (Luke ix, 51, to xviii, 14), 
which very largely treats of journeying towards Jerusalem— 

(1) Before Luke adopted the Gospel of Mark as his source, 
he may have drawn up this “travel document” and “he may 
thus have had it ready to his hand for incorporation here.”t 

(2) Luke may have already been in possession of the Marcan 
document, but he may have deliberately laid it aside, in 
preference for another account, which may have been more in 
order and first hand than that of Mark. 

Our author, however, warns us that such conjectures “are 
easily made too much of, and when that is the case they bring 
discredit upon the serious study of the Synoptic Problem.”’{ But 
he offers no further explanation for the existence of the great 
Insertion, and he does not suggest any reason at all for the 
lesser one. 


(c) The great Onssion. 


Sir John gives much fuller and very interesting suggested 
explanations for the employment of the great Omission} which 
we briefly summarize— 

(1) The copy of Mark which Luke used may have been an 
early one, deficient of the verses under consideration. Our 
author,|| however, does not consider this more than a bare 


¥ SS.P., pp. 33 and 59. 
t S.S.P., pp. 55, 56. 
é SL Peale: 
S.S.P., pp. 61-74, by Rev. Sir John Hawkins, see also pp. 24, 25, by 
Canon Sanday. 
|| SuSP., p. 66. 


190 LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 


possibility, and in this conclusion Canon Sanday* agrees with 
him. 

(2) If St. Luke referred to a copy of Mark such as we now 
have, he may have “ accidentally left it unused, having perhaps 
been misled into doing so by passing in his MS. from the 
mention of feeding multitudes in Mark vi, 42-44, to that in 
Mark viii, 19-21, or from the name Bethsaida in vi, 45, to the 
same namef in vill, 22 (the place being nowhere else mentioned 
in Mark). . . The evidence for it is greatly strengthened 
by consideration of the physical difficulties that must have 
beset compilers and copyists in the first century as compared 
with our own literary conveniences.”{ Sir John Hawkins 
thinks that this is a more than possible solution, but he admits 
that some will be unable to accept this explanation. , 

(3) St. Luke may have intentionally passed over this 
division of Mark’s Gospel as unsuitable for his purpose for 
the following reasons§ : two of the miracies which it contains, 
the healing of a man who was deaf and had an impediment in 
his speech, and the giving of sight to a blind man, may seem 
to detract from the dignity of Christ; in the one case our Lord 
“spat, and touched his tongue,’|| and in the other the healing 
was not immediately complete, because at first men were only 
seen “as trees, walking.”{1 A tendency has been observed in 
Luke to avoid the narration of events and sayings which are 
somewhat similar to others, thus the omission of—(a@) The feeding 
of the four thousand.** (6) The second storm on the lake.t} 
(c) The general account of many miracles.j{ And (d) the 
refusal of Christ to give a sign,§§ may be accounted for. It 
is also thought that Luke generally hmits the recital of anti- 
Pharisaic controversy, hence the omission of the discourse 
which contains the charge against the Pharisees, that “ye leave 
the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” ||| 
Another tendency of St. Luke is “‘ to spare the twelve ’— to say 
comparatively little as to their faults and failings "17 ; this may 


* SSOP. pp. Sey, X00 

+ There is, however, our author pcints out, a Western reading 
BnOaviar. 

é S.S.P., p. 66, by Rev. Sir J. Hawkins ; also p. 16 ff., by Canon Sanday. 

SuSP., pp. 67-74. || Mark vii, 33 J Mark viii, 24. 

** Mark viii, 1-9 (c), with Mark vi, 34—44. 

tt Mark vi, 45-52 (c), with Mark iv, 35-41. 

{t Mark vi, 53-56 (c), with Mark ii, 7-11. 

§§ Mark viii, 11, 12 (c), with Luke xi, 16, 29. 

\||| Mark vii, 8. Tt S82P. See 


LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 191 


account for the omission of any record of the disciples forgetting 
to take bread* in the boat. Finally it is suggested that the 
mention of the term “dogs,’t apphed to the Syrophcenician 
woman and her daughter, would not be pleasing to the Gentile 
readers to whom St. Luke’s Gospel is chiefly addressed, and 
therefore the story by Mark in which this word appears is not 
reproduced by Luke. 

Our author, however, repeatedly} warns us that much stress 
must not be laid on the supposed tendency of Luke to avoid 
the narration of somewhat similar incidents and sayings, 
because there are several instances where such duplcations§ 
exist in his Gospel. He also warns us not to exaggerate Luke’s 
general avoidance of anti-Pharisaic controversy “for we have 
to bear in mind the unparalleled reference to the Pharisees as 
‘lovers of money’ in Luke xvi, 14, 15, and the rebukes 
delivered at the tables of the Pharisees in Luke vii, 36 ff., and 
xiv, 1-14.”|| We may further add that too much stress must 
not be laid on Luke’s tendency “to spare the twelve,” because 
he twice] records the unseemly strife as to who should be the 
greatest among them; the failure of nine of them to cure the 
demoniac, and the Lord’s remark when He heard of it,** are 
also recorded by this Evangelist. With regard to the last 
incident it would be easy to argue, as our author hints might 
~be done, that the story of the Syrophcenician woman might 
well have appeared in St. Luke’s Gospel as an encouragement 
to his Gentile readers, because she received such very high 
praise and commendation from the Saviour. 

It w an objection to the whole of this last method of 
explanation that a long consecutive portion of Mark’s Gospel, 
containing a series of nine incidents and sayings, should all be 
considered unsuitable by Luke for a variety of reasons. As he 
generally follows a Marcan source, we should expect to find that 
the parts of Mark, which Luke might have considered unsuit- 
able for his purpose, would be interspersed more uniformly in 
the narrative of the former, and not all clustered close together 
in one long consecutive passage. 


* Mark viii, 14. 
S.S.P., p. 73, Mark vii, 27, 28. 
S.S.P., pp. 35, 56, 68. 
§ Compare Luke ix, 1 ff., with x, | ff.; v, 12 ff., with xvii, 12 ff. ; viii, 
19-tf., with xi, 27 ff. ; and ix, 46, with xxii, 24. 
Ep et aden sO 
4] Luke ix, 46-48 ; xxii, 24-27. 
** Luke ix, 40, 41. 


++ 


192 LIBUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 


We thus find that the most recent explanations of the 
problems presented by the two Insertions and by the great 
Omission, under the generally accepted theory of the structure 
of St. Luke’s Gospel, are not very satisfactory. 

Are there not any other possible explanations which may be 
carefully weighed and considered? Let us see. 

It has lately been stated that the structure of the central 
chapters of St. Luke’s Gospel consists of three overlapping or 
parallel narratives, called for convenience Luke (A), Luke (B), 
and Luke (C), each containing an account of Christ's last 
journey to Jerusalem, as well as other subjects. This statement 
is supported by reasons* which cannot be reproduced here from 
want of space. Supposing, however, for-the sake of argument, 
that the existence of the three narratives is accepted, it will be 
of interest to search and see if we can obtain any fresh reasons 
for the use of the two Insertions, and for the great Omission in 
the Gospel of Luke. 

Our first step will be to indicate the new theory of the 
structure of St. Luke’s Gospel with the aid of a diagram 
(facing p. 218). 


DESCRIPTION OF DIAGRAM (facing p. 218). 


It is affirmed (see diagram) that the gospel of Luke leads on 
in regular, though at times interrupted chronological sequence 
from the beginning up to the arrival at Bethany, near the end 
of the Ministry, at the end of Chapter x. This is indicated by 
the highest of the three horizontal bands in the diagram. It 
will be noticed that the right hand part of the band is widened : 
this indicates the first, or Luke (A), narrative in the scheme. 
It begins with the Sermon on the Mount? in the early summer 
of A.D. 27. An open space is observable in it: this points out 
the great Omission, between verses 17 and 18 in Luke ix, of all 
contained in Mark vi, 45, to vill, 26,{ during the six months, 
spring to autumn, A.D. 28. : 

The left hand thinner part of this highest band contains the 
single account of the earlier part of the Ministry. It, too, has an 
open space, indicating a greater Omission, between verses 13 and 
14 in Luke iv, of all that is narrated in John i, 35, to (about) iv, 
54, during the period autumn A.D. 2d to autumn A.D. 26. This 


* “St. Luke’s threefold Narrative of Christ’s last journey to 
Jerusalem,” by Lieut.-Col. G. Mackinlay in The Interpreter, April, 1911. 

+ Luke vi, 20. 

t See also Matt. xiv, 22, to xvi, 12, and John vi, 15-71. 


LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 193 


Omission at the beginning of the Ministry is a feature common 
to all the Synoptic Gospels. 

The second, or Luke (B), narrative is indicated by the middle 
horizontal band in the diagram, It begins immediately after the 
end of Luke (A), at Luke xi, 1, as indicated by the dotted 
arrows which follow a serpentine course. It goes back 
to the same time as the beginning of Luke (A), to the 
Sermon on the Mount in the early summer of A.D, 27. 
It also leads on in regular, through interrupted, sequence from 
its beginning until its close with the Parable of the great 
Supper, ending at Luke xiv, 24—-some little time nearer to the 
Crucifixion than the ending of Luke (A) narrative. An open 
space is observable in this band also, indicating a greater 
Omission between the verses 21 and 22 in Luke xii of all that 
is contained in Mark iv, 33, to ix, 50,* during the twelve months 
winter A.D. 27-8 to winter A.D. 28-9. 

There are thus three considerable Omissions? in the Lucan 
account of the Ministry; but no hint whatever is given in the 
text of their employment. It is only by induction and 
comparison with the other gospels that we know that Omissions 
have been made. The first of these is also made by both 
Matthew and Mark,? but they both indicate that some period of 
time had elapsed because they refer to the imprisonment of 
John the Baptist. But Luke makes no such reference—an 
instance of the hidden method which he not unfrequently employs. 

The third, or Luke (C), narrative is indicated by the lowest 
and shortest of the three horizontal bands in the diagram. It 
begins immediately after the end of Luke (B), at Luke xiv, 25, 
as indicated by the dotted arrows which follow a serpentine 
course. It only goes back to about the time of the Transfigura- 
tion (autumn A.D. 28). It leads on in regular uninterrupted 
chronological sequence to the end of the Gospel. It will be 
noticed that the right hand part of this band is narrowed ; this 
indicates the resumption of the single narrative. Luke (C)- 
concludes at the end of Luke xx, at a time nearly coinciding 
with the ending of Luke (B). The single narrative then 
continues from the beginning of Luke xxi, andit leads on to the 


* See also Matt. xiii, 34, to xviii, 35, and John vi, 1, to x, 39. 
+ Between verses 13 and 14 of Luke iv. 


39 ” A ij 9 18 ” 1X. 
99 9 21 >) 22 9 X11. 

I 3 e Il ,, 12 of Matt. iv. 
” i 13 ,, 14 of Mark i. 


194 LIBUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 


account of the Crucifixion, indicated by the cross, and to the 
Resurrection and Ascension, indicated by the arrow pointing 
upwards. There is no open space in the lowest band, because 
there is no noticeable long Omission in Luke (C) as there is in 
Luke (A) and in Luke (B). 

The single account at the beginning blends into Luke (A), so 
that it is not very easy to say for certain where the latter 
actually begins. Similarly Luke (C) blends almost imper- 
ceptibly into the single account which follows it, 

It will be observed that there are several beginnings or re- 
beginnings in the three narratives ; these are very clearly marked 
in the diagram, but they are not at once apparent in the text. 
The chief of these are the beginnings again after the two great 
Omissions, and the beginnings of Luke (B) and Luke (C). It 
is an acknowledged fact that Luke starts again* most abruptly 
after the great Omission, there being no explanatory words 
such as “afterwards” or “after these things” to indicate that 
any period of time had elapsed. The same remark also applies 
to the greater Omission between the verses 21 and 22 of 
Luke xii. Hence it is by no means improbable that the 
beginnings of Luke (B) and Luke (C), though not indicated 
in any direct manner in the text, may also have been discovered 
by careful induction and comparison. 

As arule the narratives do not relate the same events, but 
an exception is made in the case of the start for the last journey 
to Jerusalem, indicated in the diagram by the rectangle 
on each band in the winter A.D. 28-9. This is alluded to in 
each narrative,+ though in different words, but always in a some- 
what abrupt manner, as if to draw special attention to this 
deliberate progress and to its tragic ending. 

The blackened parts of the bands represent the narratives 
which have a considerable Marcan source, and the shaded parts 
represent the Insertions; it will be noticed that the lesser one 
is in the first half of Luke (A); the great one begins towards 
the end of Luke (A), it continues through the whole of Luke (B) 
and finishes with the first half of Luke (C). The a.D. scale 
helps to indicate the dates. The generally accepted date A.D. 29 
is assumed for the Crucifixion. Though the actual year is nota 
matter of importance for our present investigation, yet the use 
of some definite date simplifies language, as thus we avoid the 


* Luke ix, 18. 
+ Luke ix, 51 ; xiil, 22; xvii, 11. 


LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 195 


use of such awkward expressions as the autumn of the second 
year before the Crucifixion, etc. The bracket shows the 
Sabbath year.* 

Reference verses are given at various places. It will be 
noticed in the diagram that spaces are alloted according to 
chronology and not according to the number of chapters and 
verses assigned to different incidents. Thus, the events at 
Jerusalem before, at, and after the Crucifixion occupy five long 
chapters at the end of the gospel; but as they all occurred in 
‘a short period of time, a short space only is given to them at 
the end of and just after Luke (C). 

We have thus briefly shown the structure of the central 
chapters of the Gospel of St. Luke according to the new 
explanation. The object of this threefold arrangement is 
doubtless to draw emphatic attention to that which comes just 
after the end of all the narratives—the Death and Resurrection 
of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is pre-eminently the aim and 
object of the whole gospel. It is fully in accord with St. Luke’s 
methods to make use of threefold repetition in order to give 
great emphasis.t+ 


NEw EXPLANATIONS OF THE LUCAN PROBLEMS. 


Granting then the existence of the three narratives, it is 
natural to expect— 


(a) Some distinctive feature in each. 


(b) Some general resemblances or interdependence of arrange- 
ment between them. 


We propose to show that the great Insertion materially aids 
to differentiate the narratives from each other, and that the 
lesser Insertion and the great Omission create resemblances in 
the general arrangement of each narrative. Fresh explanations 
will thus be given of these three Lucan problems. 


* For the demonstration of this date see The Magi, how they recognized 
Christ’s Star, p. 103, Lieut.-Col. G. Mackinlay, 1907. 

+ Emphatic attention is drawn by Luke vii, 12; viii, 42, and ix, 38, to 
the Death and Resurrection of the “Only” Begotten Son of God. By 
Luke xv, 4, 8 and 32, to Luke xix, 19; by Acts ix, 3-19 ; xxii, 5-16, and 
xxvi, 12-20, and also by Acts x, 1-48; xi, 4-18, and xv, 7-9, to the 
preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles; St. Luke gives several other 
instances of threefold repetition with the same object in view. 


@ 2 


196 LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS, 


(a) Some distinctive feature in each narrative, 


We find the narratives differing from each other, because a 
different source predominates in each; the proportions are 
approximately as under, the heavy type showing the amount of 
the chief source in each case. 


TABLE. 
Source. 
Narrative. 
| | Matthaean Special to 
| Marcan. or (Q). Luke. 
Lake (Rei ee 0-5 0-2 | 03 
Luke (B)... a a3 Nil* 0°55 | 0°45 


Like (0) OPS 0°35 02 | 0°45 


Though Luke (A) contains the whole of the lesser Insertion 
(Luke vi, 20, to viii, 3), and also a small part of the great one 
(Luke ix, 51, to x, 42) (see diagram), yet, nevertheless, on the 
whole, the usual Marcan source predominates. Luke (B) is 
wholly contained in the great Insertion, hence the Marcan 
source is thought to be entirely absent ; it begins with extracts 
from the Matthaean (or Q) Sermon on the Mount in the 
summer of A.D. 27, and we find the Matthaean source pre- 
dominating. The first half of Luke (C) consists of the last part 
of the great Insertion, and thus the predominance of the usual 
Marcan source is suppressed in this narrative, taken as a whole ; 
Luke (C) is rich in special parabolic discourses, and the special 
Lucan source predominates. 

If, as seems probable, the Evangelist wished that there should 
be some distinctive feature in each narrative, we see a good 
reason for the employment of the great Insertion, for it has 
materially contributed to cause this result by helping to make 
a different source predominate in each. 


* There are some slight resemblances to Mark in the great Insertion, 
but they are not numerous. Even if taken into account they would not. 
materially affect the proportions given in this table. 


LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 197 


(b) Some general resemblances or interdependence of arrange- 
ment between the narrates. 


Coming now to resemblances in arrangement between the 
narratives, we find that the employment of the lesser Insertion 
allows Luke (A) to begin, as does Luke (B), with extracts from 
the Sermon on the Mount, or other addresses, in the summer of 
A.D. 27. These are to be found in Matthew (or Q) but not 
in Mark. Hence a reason is suggested for the employment of 
the lesser Insertion. 

We now proceed to search for the reason for the great Omission, 
which is in Luke (A) narrative. On looking at the context we find 
that it embraces a period of six months, as indicated in the 
diagram, for Luke ix, 17, tells of the miracle of feeding the five 
thousand, which was at Passover* (early spring) A.D. 28, and 
Luke ix, 18, was a week before the Transfiguration, which is 
generally allowed to have been in the autumnt (A.D. 28). 

Luke (B) covers much the same total period of time as 
Luke (A) (see diagram). We might naturally expect that this 
second narrative, following as it does a Matthaean (or Q) and 
also a special Lucan source, would supply the deficiency caused 
by the great Omission in Luke (A). But as a matter of fact, 
we find a greater Omission in Luke (B), which includes the 
great Omission of Luke (A) with three months added both before 
and after it. For Luke xii, 18-21, tells of the Parables of the 
Mustard Seed and the Leaven; according to both Matthew? 
and Mark§, the Parable of the Mustard Seed was spoken at 
the same time as that of the Sower (winter A.D. 27-8), and 
Matthew also adds that the Parable of the Leaven was given 
at the same time; Luke xu, 22, tells of the start for the final 


* John vi, 4-14. There was according to Matt. xiv, 19, “grass”; 
Mark vi, 39, “ green grass” ; John vi, 10, “much grass.” Grass is only 
toe be seen in Palestine for a few weeks in spring. It isafterwards burnt 
up by the dry summer heat. 

+ Peter’s suggestion to make three tabernacles (Luke, ix, 33) was 
almost certainly a reference to the booths them being made at the Feast 
of Tabernacles (autumn). 

{ Matt. xiii, 31-33. It is generally thought that Matthew often 
collects together the sayings of Christ uttered at different times, but 
on this occasion, according to Dean Alford, The New Testament, note on 
Matt. xiii, 1, 2, “The Seven Parables related in this chapter cannot be 
regarded as a collection made by the Evangelist as relating to one subject, 
the Kingdom of Heaven and its development ; these are clearly indicated 
by verse 53 to have been all spoken on one and the same occasion, and 
form indeed a complete and glorious whole in their inner and deeper 
sense.” The italics are the Dean’s. 

§ Mark iv, 31, 32. 


198 LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 


journey to Jerusalem, which was not undertaken till the next 
winter A.D. 28-9. Consequently a greater Omission of twelve 
months elapsed between the verses 21 and 22 of Luke xui of 
all the events contained in Matthew xii, 34, to xviii, 35.* In 
other words, the great Omission in Luke (A) is intensified by a 
greater one in Luke (B). ) 

As the Omission in Luke (B) is of greater length than the 
other, there can be no ground for any idea of a suggested 
mistake in copying or in reference, because there is no oppor- 
tunity in it for confusing the accounts of the two feedings of 
the multitudes or the two mentions of the name of Bethsaida. 
On the contrary the inference to be drawn from the employ- 
ment of this second (greater) Omission is surely that there is 
a design to draw decided attention to a definite meaning for 
the other, the so-called great Omission (Luke ix, 17, 18) in 
Luke (A). We must remember that a good historian, who 
makes a skilful use of the materials at his disposal, may some- 
times effect his purpose by his omissions as well as by his 
statements ; just as a skilful artist will at times draw a veil of 
cloud or shadow over one part of his picture in order to 
strongly emphasize some other feature to which he wishes to draw 
special attention. In accord with this view we may remark, 
that if the great Omission represents the cloud or shadow, the 
events and sayings which are not recorded+ are not of importance 
for the main object of the Evangelist, as they do not touch at 
all upon the coming Death of the Lord. It is true that the 
cloud of the greater Omission veils some prophecies of the 
coming Passion, but they have already been recorded in Luke 
(A).~ In each case the cloud lifts at a point when the clearest 
light shines on the sad preliminaries of the fateful climax. 

We are now in a position to consider the resemblances in the 
arrangements of the narratives a little more fully; these are 
strongly affected by the great and greater Omissions. Both 
Luke (A) and Luke (B) begin as we have already noticed with 
extracts from the Sermon on the Mount, these are followed in 
each case by the record of certain incidents combining to form 
an introduction. We may notice a gradation in the introductions, 
the first one in Luke (A) covers a period of about ten months 
(see diagram); that in Luke (B) is curtailed to only seven, 


* Corresponding to an Omission of all contained in Mark iv, 33, to 
ix, 50. 

+ Mark vi, 45, to viii, 26. 

{ Luke ix, 22-45. 


LIEUT.-COL, G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS, 199 


because the greater Omission begins earlier than the other, 
and in Luke (C) the introduction disappears altogether. The 
parts after the Omissions in Luke (A) and Luke (B) both 
resemble Luke (C), and they differ greatly from the introduc- 
tions ; the conditions after the Omissions are utterly changed, 
we then come, as it were, under the more immediate shadow of 
the cross, when many prophecies of the coming Crucifixion are 
plainly expressed. 

Does not the arrangement caused by these two Omissions 
“remind us of some masterly piece of music, in which after 
sweet restrained melodies, there comes a pause,—a pause of 
expectation, to be followed by some crashing notes of an utterly 
different, perhaps almost of a discordant character ?— a striking 
contrast to that which had gone before. So in each of the 
introductory parts in Luke (A) (vi, 20, to ix, 17) and Luke (B) 
(xi, 1, to xii, 21) we have the quiet Ministry of the Lord 
undisturbed by any great alarms; but after the Omissions, 
corresponding to the pause in the music, we find ourselves in 
each case plunged at once into deeply moving scenes; in Luke 
(A) we have sudden and very plain prophecies of the coming 
Passion,* and in Luke (B) we abruptly begin the account of the 
startt+ for the last journey which led to death at Jerusalem. 

This explanation of the reason for the great (and also for the 
greater) Omission is surely in keeping with the methods of the 
skilful and accurate historian Luke is universally allowed to 
have been, and it avoids all suggestion of mistake in reference 
or in copying, which must run counter to the opinions of those 
of us who believe that St. Luke was divinely guided and inspired 
in the preparation of his Gospel. 

We have as yet but little considered the arrangement of 
Luke (C). As this is the last of the three, we do not wonder 
that an introductory part is no longer employed, but the 
narrative begins chronologically just after the time of the end 
of the great Omission of Luke (A) (see diagram), autumn 
A.D. 28: this last account then only records the last six months 
of the Ministry. In general arrangement it may be said, as 
already mentioned, to resemble the second parts of Luke (A) 
and Luke (B). It plunges immediately “in medias res,” the 
Cross is brought into view at once, and the cost is deliberately 
counted.§ But though Luke (C) covers a shorter period of time 


* Luke ix, 22, 31, 44. +t Luke xiii, 22. 
t Luke xiv, 27. S Luke xiv, 28. 


200 LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 


than either of the others, its actual length in verses is almost as 
long as the longest. It seems as if the Evangelist hesitates to 
hurry on to the narrative of the great tragedy, and so he lingers 
over the recital of Our Lord’s teaching in many of the gracious 
Parables which are special to his gospel. 


SUMMARY. 


We briefly summarize the explanations of these Lucan 
Problems under the ordinary, and under the new supposition of 
the construction of the Gospel of St. Luke. 

Sir John Hawkins himself generously criticizes the possible 
explanations which he has suggested for the great Insertion, 
calling them conjectures which may be harmful if made too 
much of. He does not bring forward any reason for the use of 
the lesser one. With regard to the great Omission, he makes 
objections to each of the three explanations which he has 
suggested as follows—he considers the first only a bare 
possibility, the second will not be accepted by some, and parts 
of his third explanation are supported by arguments on which 
he warns us not to lay very much stress. 

If we assume the existence of the three narratives, Luke (A), 
Luke (B), and Luke (C), and that the Evangelist wished to give 
(2) Some distinctive feature to each, and (0) Some general 
resemblances or interdependence of arrangement between them, 
the following explanations suggest themselves for the employ- 
ment of the two Insertions, and of the great Omission. 

(2) The great Insertion materially helps to enable a different 
source to predominate in each narrative, for it annuls the 
Marcan source in whole or in great part in both Luke (B) and 
Luke (C), and thus it allows the Matthaean or (Q) source to 
prevail in the former, and the special Lucan one in the latter, 
the usual Marcan source predominating in Luke (A). 

(b) The lesser Insertion, by forsaking the ordinary Marcan 
source, allows Luke (A) to begin with quotations from the 
Sermon on the Mount, and thus it resembles Luke (B). 

The great Omission which occurs in Luke (A) evidently 
corresponds to and resembles the greater Omission in Luke (B). 
Each of them cuts its narrative into two parts, the second part 
of each resembling the whole of Luke (C). The great Omission 
therefore plays an important part in causing a general resem- 
blance in the construction of the three narratives. 

By the use of the great Omission in Luke (A) the Evangelist 
says in effect, “ Enough of this comparatively tranquil narrative, 


LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 201 


we must concentrate the space now at our disposal on 
the short period containing the more immediate premonitions of 
the coming death of the Lord, in order to give emphatic atten- 
tion to this great theme of my gospel.” This idea is supported 
and emphasized by the greater Omission in Luke (B), the 
existence of which has not, apparently, hitherto been noticed. 

We may notice incidentally that the abruptness of the great 
Omission and also of the two other greater ones,* are good 
examples of Luke’s habit of hiding his methods. A reply is 
‘thus suggested to meet an objection which has been made by 
some to the existence of the three parallel narratives, that it is 
unlikely that the Evangelist would have employed them, unless 
he had said so, and unless he had plainly indicated the beginning 
and end of each. He did not do so, because it is the habit of 
the Evangelist often to conceal his methods. 

Our study of these Lucan problems causes the intellect 
to admire the wondrous skill which the Evangelist has 
displayed in the presentation of the Gospel story, and the heart 
is deeply impressed with the immense grandeur of his sublime 
theme. 


Nott.—In the foregoing paper each of the two interruptions of the 
ordinary Marcan source is called an “ Insertion,’—a designation which 
- has been employed for some time, and which seems to be suitable. In 

the Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem this term is also employed by 
one of the authors, but the three others, who write on the subject, use 
the word “ Interpolation” instead. Surely this is an unfortunate desig- 
nation, because, according to the English Student’s Dictionary, J. Ogilvie, 
1908, the meaning of the word ¢o ¢nterpolate, is “to insert a spurious 
word or passage in a MS. or book.” 


DISCUSSION. 


Mr. WALTER MAuNDER, F.R.A.S., said: I was very pleased that 
Colonel Mackinlay in his valuable paper spoke of the additions 
made by St. Luke to the synoptic narrative as the greater and 
lesser ‘“‘Insertions” rather than ‘“Interpolations.” To interpolate 
is ‘to insert” some foreign material in a fabric or substance in 
order to improve its appearance; it is, in short, adulteration. 


* Luke iv, 13, 14, and xiii, 21, 22. 


202 LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 


When the word is applied to manuscripts or documents it necessarily 
has the same significance, it is falsification. So Cicero, in his second 
oration against Verres, accuses the latter of having falsified the 
judicial registers during his term of office by deleting names, by 
altering them, and by interpolating them. And St. Ambrose uses 
the word in the same sense with respect to attempts to falsify the 
Holy Scriptures. It is true that in modern science (as in astro- 
nomical calculations) “ Interpolation” is the name given to a well 
recognized and perfectly legitimate process. But in general, and 
especially where we are dealing with documents, “ Interpolation ” 
has a sinister meaning, and hence it is not right that it should be 
used in the present connection. 

The Rey. A. Irvine, B.A., D.Se., welcomed Colonel Mackinlay’s 
attempt to present some results of recent research, he thanked the 
author for the great pains and labour bestowed upon his paper and 
for the ingenious construction of the diagram, But he could not 
resist the conclusion that the facts had been represented in an 
untrue perspective. 

In the first place the fact that the Lucan evangelium was only the 
first of two volumes of one continued history seemed to have been 
lost sight of. It appeared to be a fundamental misconception to 
make Luke’s arrangement of his materials focus on the Crucifixion 
of the Lord Jesus as the final goal. Luke looked forward beyond 
the gloom of Calvary, to the great Pentecostal Illumination, and to 
the opening of the door of faith to the Gentiles. 

In the second place it appeared that the author seemed to have 
forgotten that St. Luke, as an educated Gentile, had the instruction 
and edification of the Gentile churches for his primary object : and 
a careful perusal of the remarks relating to both the great Omission 
and the two main Insertions dealt with in the paper might enable 
anyone to see that our Evangelist had made his additions to the 
Marcan narrative, while omitting from his own history large por- 
tions of what had been already well recorded by Mark. 

Mr. Martin Rouse, B.A., said: Most assuredly Colonel Mac- 
kinlay is right in saying that Luke, from the end of his tenth 
chapter, goes back to a time just preceding the Sermon on the 
Mount, when the Saviour had taught men how to pray, and had 
given the same pattern of prayers that we find at the outset of 
chapter xi. Now the sermon was delivered in the middle of the 


LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 205 


second year of His Ministry, and the Transfiguration (which Luke 
has narrated in his ninth chapter) took place at the end of the third 
year ; therefore, if Luke’s account were consecutive from his tenth 
to his eleventh chapters, we should have one disciple on behalf of 
the rest (including the twelve) asking his Master how to pray nearly 
two years after He had taught them how to do so, although they 
had been in His company ever since. 

But by comparing Matthew’s with Luke’s story of the Sermon on 
the Mount, we perceive that the Saviour first spent a whole night 
in prayer high up on the mountain; then at daybreak called His 
disciples around Him, discoursed with them privately and chose 
from among them His special witnesses, the twelve: and then 
descended with them and the rest to a “level place,” where He 
preached to multitudes (cf. Matt. v, 1, 2; Luke vi, 17-20 e seq. ; 
Luke vii, 1; Matt. vii, 28, 29). In His more private discourse 
He uttered the blessings generically, “ Blessed are the poor in 
spirit, etc.” ; im His fully public discourse, “ lifting up His eyes upon 
His disciples,” and thus pointing them out to the multitude, He 
said specifically, ‘‘ Blessed are ye poor, etc.” (cf. Matt. v, 2-12, with 
Luke vi, 20-23). In the same way, as we may well conclude, one 
_ of Christ’s disciples, who had been standing near Him while He 
was still at prayer at the close of that night on the mount, requested, 
as soon as He called them around Him, that He would teach them 
how to pray, even as John the Baptist had done for his disciples. 
In response the Blessed One taught them His pattern of prayer, 
and afterwards, when He went down with the disciples to the 
level place, He repeated this pattern as a sequel to other counsel 
regarding prayer. 

On the other hand, Mr. Rouse objected that the lament over 
Jerusalem (Luke xiii, 34) and the parable of the great Supper 
(Luke xiv, 16-24) could not have been spoken at the time of the 
similar lament in Matthew xxiii, 37, and of the somewhat similar 
parable of the Marriage of the king’s son narrated in Matthew xxii, 
1-14. Because the two latter were spoken after Christ’s entry into 
Jerusalem upon the colt (Matthew xxi, 1-11), while the two former 
must have been spoken before it; for the Lucan Parable (spoken 
after the Lucan lament) was on a Sabbath (Luke xiv, 1). It is 
readily seen that the entry into Jerusalem must have been on a later 
day than Christ’s last Sabbath on earth (John xii, 1-12). 


204 LIEUT.-cOL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 


Mr. Rouse thought that the words “ Get thee out, and go hence, 
for Herod would fain kill Thee ” (Luke xiii, 31), pointed to the fact 
that Christ was far from Jerusalem, and so he considered that the days 
in the passage “I must go on My way to-day, and to-morrow, and the 
day following ” (Luke xiii, 33) could not mean literal days, as Jeru- 
salem could not be reached so quickly, especially as one of the days 
just before the entry on the colt was a Sabbath. Mr. Rouse 
therefore concluded that the days mean years, as in Ez. iv, 4-6, and 
therefore the lament recorded by Luke was spoken two years before 
the Crucifixion, at the time of the Sermon on the Mount. He said of 
the lament, ‘‘the words are prophetic, not beginning to be fulfilled 
until after the Crucifixion ; so they may have been uttered upon an 
occasion noticed by Luke and have been repeated upon the Lord’s 
last visit to Jerusalem, as told by Matthew.” He also thought that 
the Lucan lament could not have been spoken near the very 
end of the Ministry, because in a later chapter (Luke xvii, 11) our 
Lord is spoken of as travelling between Samaria and Galilee ; he 
therefore did not see any reason for supposing that Luke made a 
third beginning just after the parable of the great Supper at 
chapter xiv, 25. 

Mr. SIDNEY COLLETT said: I am sure we all recognize that 
Colonel Mackinlay must have spent an immense amount of time and 
pains on the preparation of this subject, but is there really after all 
such a “Lucan Problem ” with its “ Insertions” and ‘ Omission ” as 
he has submitted to us this afternoon ? 

I notice that the whole argument of his lecture is based upon a 
pure supposition, as stated by himself (p. 188), that “the Gospel of 
Mark is generally believed to be the oldest of the synoptics.” But we 
do not really know for certain in what order those gospels were 
written. And if it is some day discovered that St. Mark did not 
write his gospel first, then the whole structure of this elaborate argu- 
ment falls to the ground. 

St. Luke tells us himself his source: in his opening sentences in 
chapter i, 3, he makes the remarkable statement that he had 
“nerject understanding of all things from the very first.” Therefore, 
as his understanding, according to his own testimony was both perfect 
and complete, how could there be any necessity for him to borrow 
any of his matter from Matthew or from Mark ? 

After describing the purpose of each Gospel, Mr. Collett drew 


LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 205 


attention to the many striking differences between them, which he 
thought clearly precluded copying one from the other; and he 
pleaded for a more simple reading of scripture recognizing the 
Divine statement of 2 Peter i, 21. 

Mr. F. W. Cuatuis, M.A., said: While heartily endorsing the 
principle on which Mr. Collett has just been insisting—viz., the 
supernatural guidance afforded the Evangelists in framing the 
Scripture—I cannot altogether appreciate his present application 
of it. 

Broadly speaking, it seems to me that the whole drift of Colonel 
Mackinlay’s able paper has been missed in this discussion. I 
attribute this largely to the evident fact that most of the present 
audience have not perused his previously published brochure, which 
elaborated the original thesis—that there 1s in St. Luke’s Gospel a 
threefold narrative of the last journey to Jerusalem. It is this thesis 
which has been attacked in discussion to-day ; and the main point 
of the paper (which applied that thesis to the particular problem 
of “Omission” and ‘ Insertions”) has evoked practically no 
comment. 

Now the matter of the thesis (since this is the point of 
attack) stands thus :—The words of Luke 3, 3 (‘“‘in order”), suggest 
~ some kind of chronological sequence. Grant this, and the question 
arises: Is the sequence unbroken, or is it interrupted by 
retrogressions 4 

Some say that there is only one line of narrative, and they 
deny retrogression. But is this possible? For if chapter ix 
admittedly deals with the last journey to Jerusalem, in chapter x 
we reach Bethany, on the outskirts of the city. Yet in chapter xix 
we are passing through Jericho ! 

Mr. Rouse admits this and agrees that a fresh thread of narrative 
begins in chapter xi, 1, but he admits only this and claims uninter- 
rupted sequence from chapter xi, 1, onwards. But can we accept 
Mr. Rouse’s contention that chapter xiii, 32, etc., dates back two 
years from the end? He is asking us to believe that the lament 
over Jerusalem and the doom pronounced (34, 35) were in the 
third year before the completion of the Lord’s ministry ! 

It seems, therefore, that the closing verses of chapter xiii provide 
a further clear landmark, and that a threefold narrative must be 
adnutted, 


206 LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 


This was Colonel Mackinlay’s former thesis (assumed in to-day’s 
paper). It was helped by his recognition of three distinctly 
prominent spiritual notes dominating these three passages of 
incident. In Luke (A) the Lord’s requirement from all, *‘ the obedience 
of faith” ; in Luke (B) the Lord’s warning against that indifference 
and worldliness which register themselves in unbelief and rejection 
of the Gospel ; in Luke (C) the Lord’s encouragement to individuals 
who—while the shadows deepened through the general public 
attitude of pride and hostility—might humbly and gratefully accept 
His proffered grace to meet their need. 

This commends itself as possible to the spiritual mind. 

The following written communications have been received :— 

The Rev. Sir JoHN Hawkins, Bart., M.A., D.D., writes: 
I quite agree with you that “ Insertion” is a better, because a more 
neutral term, than “Interpolation.” I remember hesitating before 
using the latter, but when I began to write on this particular 
subject some ten years ago, it seemed to have established itself as 
the ordinary designation of Luke ix, 51, to xvii, 14. AndI consulted 
the great Oxford dictionary, which shows that the word has been 
by no means limited to unjustifiable insertions, though it has been 
“especially ” applied to them.’ 

The Rev. J. Orr, D.D., writes: Ihave read with care and much 
interest your valuable discussion on the Lucan Problems. The 
questions about Luke have naturally occupied my own mind a good 
deal, and there are points in your view of the matter which are new 
to me, and from which I hope I may derive help. Whatever our 
theory of the Synoptic Gospels, the facts of what you call the 
‘great Insertion” and the “ great Omission,” are there as problems 
to be solved. I am more impressed by what you say about the 
parallel narratives in the Gospel, than by your explanations of 
Luke’s “‘ Omission ” of a long Marcan passage. I agree fully with 
Sir John Hawkins that the suggestions offered for the ‘‘ Omission,” 
as detailed by you, and considered on pp. 189-191, are in no way 
adequate. But the esthetic reason—or artistic (“the cloud or 
shadow ” of p. 198)—hardly seems to me one which a critical treat- 
ment of the Gospel is likely to regard as sufficient either. May Isay 
that my own feeling is perhaps slightly affected by the fact that I am 
personally unable to accept the theory which regards Matthew and 
Luke as based—in their common parts—on Mark’s Gospel. 


LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 207 


Instead of regarding Luke as omitting, a good deal may be said 
for thinking of Mark’s sections as an “ Jnsertion” on his part into the 
general Synoptic tradition, with help from the so-called Matthaean 
source—for Matthew does seem to be the ultimate authority for 
most of the discourses and some incidents. 

The Rev. J. VERNON BARTLET, M.A., D.D. (another of the 
authors in Studies in the Synoptic Problem) writes: You claim for 
your theory that it illustrates Luke’s skill in using his sources, viz., 
that he uses them in such a way as to “ draw decided attention ” to 
a definite meaning for the so-called “ great Omission,” viz. (p. 201, 
top), “ to give emphatic attention ” to the coming death of the Lord 
“as the great theme” of his Gospel. I object that he failed to 
secure this end, since it has escaped observation from all his readers 
until your own notice was, by critical study, directed to it. This zs 
an objection, not to there being three such sources used by Luke, 
and only detected by a scholar in the twentieth century, but to the 
“skilful ” use to which you assume he put them in directing attention 
to his ‘“‘ definite meaning ”—for his use of them, in particular, the so- 
called ‘“ great Omission ”—though in vain until recently! Surely 
these are different things. The “skilful” use was intended to be 
perceived from the first and all along; and was not, so far as the 
“definite meaning ” for the so-called ‘‘ Great Omission ” goes. 

The Rev. F. H. Woops, M.A., writes that he thinks the most 
probable explanation of “the great Omission” by St. Luke was his 
wish to avoid the duplication of incidents which resemble each other. 
He continues, ‘‘I should be inclined to agree so far with Colonel 
Mackinlay as to admit that one, perhaps the chief, reason why 
St. Luke did not wish to duplicate was to allow space for all that he 
wished to write concerning our Lord’s Death and Resurrection. I 
further agree with him also in thinking that we are right in making 
a break at the end of chapter x, and that the teaching that follows 
belongs to an earlier period. But his main theory appears to me 
unproven. It rests mainly on three grounds, no one of which 
appears sufficiently established.” 

These grounds are briefly summarized as follows :— 

(a) It is improbable that there should be such a “ strange literary 
procedure” as the splitting up of the Matthaean Sermon on the 
Mount into two parts by Luke, part in chapter v ff, and part in 
chapter xi ff. In support of this objection he refers to the fact 


208 LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 


that a large number of fragments of St. Matthew’s sermon are 
found scattered in other parts of St. Luke’s Gospel ; ¢.g., Matthew v, 
13, corresponds with Luke xiv, 34; Matthew v, 15, with both Luke 
vill, 16, and xi, 33. 

He considers it more likely that St. Matthew collected in one 
discourse what he found scattered in different parts of Q. 

(6) He thinks that the references in Luke to journeying (which 
he quotes) refer to a single account of one journey, but he admits 
that parts of it are obviously in the reverse of chronological order. 
For instance, he thinks that the passage, ‘I must go on My way, 
to-day and to-morrow, and the day following” (Luke xiii, 33), shows 
that Christ was then only two days’ journey of slow progress from 
Jerusalem. 

He states that this chronological difficulty is met by the three 
narrative theory, but he is himself unable to accept the explanation 
which it gives because “there is not the least hint or suggestion in 
Luke xiv, 25, that we are reading about the beginning of a journey, 
the impression left on the reader’s mind is that it is the same of 
which St. Luke has been speaking throughout.” 

He thinks a simpler explanation is “ to suppose that St. Luke had 
before him a collection of incidents connected with the journey, but 
not arranged chronologically, that into these he inserted a portion 
of Q, probably in the order in which he found it, and finally inserted 
the whole bodily into his revised Marcan document.” 

(c) He does not see any analogy between a supposed three-fold 
narrative in Luke and the two thrice repeated narratives in the 
Acts of the Conversion of St. Paul and of the visit to Cornelius by 
St. Peter, “ Neither of these cases are parallel, because in both cases 
the first record is the writer’s narrative, the other two are records 
or references of speakers, and there is not the slightest literary 
difficulty or obscurity involved.” 

He concludes, “while I feel that I have no right to argue 
a priori, the exact degree of accuracy on such a point as chrono- 
logical order that inspiration involves, I should personally be very 
sorry to discover that it permitted the use of a method of composi- 
tion which, if true of St. Luke, has deceived every reader and 
commentator up to the present time.” 

The Rey. H. Gaussen, M.A., writes: On reading this very inter- 
esting paper the following points struck me, (a) On p. 190 mention 


LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 209 


is made of a class of miracles, which might seem to detract from the 
dignity of Christ. It has to be remembered on the other hand 
that St. John’s Gospel contains accounts of gradual miracles in 
which means are employed (John ii, 7, ff. ix, 6, ff.). It is evident 
that the writer of the fourth Gospel does not consider such miracles 
detracting from the dignity of Christ. 

(b) On p. 198 the words about St. Luke’s purpose shown by his 
Omissions as well as by his statements are very interesting. His 
omission of, 

(1) The flight into Egy pt, 
(2) The appearances of Christ after His Resurrection in Galilee, 
(3) The retirement of St. Paul into Arabia, 


are instances of omissions which may be accounted for on the ground 
of their being in a sense diversions from the main subject, on 
account of the change of scene involved. 

(c) The same feature in lingering over Our Lords’ teaching, 
‘“‘ before the narrative of the great tragedy” is found in Matthew 
Xxlvy, xxv, and in John xii to xviii. 

The Rev. Canon R. B. GIRDLESTONE writes: Colonel Mackinlay 
deserves all our thanks for his effort to give reverent scientific 
- treatment to the Gospels. I doubt, however, if we have attained a 
complete solution. Certain first principles are to be remembered. 


1. We have only a tiny fraction of what our Lord said and did. 

2. He probably often repeated his words and deeds under 
similar circumstances. 

3. St. Luke had special qualifications which he sets forth in his 
Preface, moreover, he was a trained observer. 

4. St. Luke and St. Mark were with St. Paul at the end of 
Paul’s career, and perhaps St. Peter (the true author of 
Mark’s Gospel) was there also. 

5. Perhaps the tradition is right that St. Luke was a proselyte, 
a Syrian and one of the seventy. 


At any rate he had his own methods of writing. He hardly ever 
uses notes of time. There are about twenty places in which the 
Authorized Version puts “ then,” where St. Luke uses “‘ but” or ‘‘and.” 
He condenses, repeats, groups, and follows the order of thought, regard- 
less of time or place. Even such an expression as “after these 
things” simply means “on a subsequent occasion,” and his “ next 

P 


210 LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 

day ” (vii, 11) simply means “later on.” Again, his tenses have to be 
carefully watched, especially the imperfect journeying tenses. The 
chapters peculiar to St. Luke do not give new teaching but new 
illustration of the teaching. He leaves his readers to intercept 
spaces, as in the case of the forty days (chapter xxiv), the treading 
down (xxi, 24, 25), the mission of the seventy (x, 16, 17), Saul’s 
stay at Damascus (Acts ix, 19). He was in one sense quite original, 
and used many words not found elsewhere, and I think his 
conception of Christ’s Ministry was also original. He always looked 
forward to the “ Receiving up” (ix, 51), just as Christ looked 
forward to His departure to the Father. What a debt we owe to 
him! You will see from this note that I have no scientific solution 
as to “ sources,” for I think that the personal Christ was the true 
source. 

Sir WILLIAM HERSCHEL, Bt., writes: The idea you put forth is 
evidently to my mind vwraz semblable, as a suggestion of what may 
have been working in St. Lukes mind. But Sir William adds later 
on, I think Luke found the difficulty of attaining the chronological 
‘order ” (at which of cowrse such a man did aim), to be insuperable. 

The Rev. T. J. THorBuRN, M.A., writes: I think your view is 
—speaking broadly—quite borne out by the inner structure of the 
Gospel, and moreover is the only scheme I know of that takes away 
the reproach of confusion in the historical order of events in the 
narrative. Assuming Luke as the author of both Gospel and Acts, 
each of them seems to be compiled by a writer with ideas of 
sequence and arrangement, peculiar, in a sense, to himself, and both 
are difficult to reconcile with modern notions of history. Your 
theory of a threefold narrative from various sources, put 
together on the oriental principle of embodying every account that 
is to be met with, so that nothing may be omitted, and arranging the 
whole for purely didactic purposes, seems fully to explain the 
difficulty. | 

The Rev. T. Nicot, D.D., Professor of Biblical Criticism, 
University of Aberdeen, writes: It is a very helpful contribution 
to the discussion of the Synoptic Problem, and the diagram which 
you have provided enables the reader to take in the situation better 
than any amount of description. I hope to devote special attention 
to the questions you have raised and discussed. Meanwhile, my 
view of your solution is most favourable, and I feel indebted to 


LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 211 


you for putting the structure of the third Gospel in such a lucid 
and instructive way. 

The Rev. J. J. B. Cotes, M.A., writes: Studies in the Synoptic 
Problem are at present very superficial. Colonel Mackinlay’s 
suggestions as to a specially arranged order are very helpful, and 
may lead to a more reverent and a more spiritual grasp of the very 
deep subject of the inter-relationship of the four Gospels. 

The Rev. A. H. F. Boucuey, M.A., writes: You put the case 
forcibly and clearly, and on the whole I fully agree with you. 
Apart from his inspiration I have an unlimited admiration for 
St. Luke as a literary genius. He was a born historian. I doubt 
if St. Luke has any superior in any language as a historian, unless 
it be Thucydides, whom St. Luke, a trained man of science and 
literature, probably studied. Some years ago one of the Cambridge 
teachers wrote an interesting monograph pointing out the many 
and remarkable resemblances between St. Luke (in the Acts especially) 
and Thucydides, both in language and in style. One mark of a 
great historian is the skilful selection and arranging of his materials, 
especially with a view to making his readers grasp some important 
point ; and as you have so ably shown, this is one of the striking 
merits of St. Luke. 

Colonel MACKINLAY in a considered reply writes: I am grateful 
for the good reception given to this paper, and my thanks 
are especially due to those who have taken part in the discussion, 
or written to me on the subject. 

It is satisfactory that the term ‘ Insertion” is preferred to 
“Interpolation” by such a distinguished and careful scholar as 
Sir John Hawkins, supported as it is by the sound reasons adduced 
by Mr. Maunder. It is of considerable importance that the most 
suitable nomenclature should be employed in all investigations 
which claim to be of an exact nature. It is hoped that in future 
the term “ Insertion” may be employed by all. 

Coming to the “ Problems” considered in the paper, Mr. Collett 
contends that they would cease to exist, if for instance it were 
discovered that St. Mark’s were not the first Gospel written. That 
is what Professor Orr does think, and yet he tells us that the 
Problems exist. They must do so, even if it is thought that each 
evangelist wrote his Gospel quite independently. Why, for 
instance, does Luke not tell us any of the events of the last summer 

P 2 


212 LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 


of Christ’s ministry, while all the other evangelists give some 
account of that period? Professor Orr demurs to the aesthetic or 
artistic reason suggested for the employment of the great Omission 
(the cloud or shadow, p. 198), but surely sound criticism should take 
account of the purport of a document. When a picture is painted 
or a history is written for a purpose, stress is always laid by various 
means on important features, while details, which might divert atten- 
tion from the main object, are either omitted altogether or lightly 
indicated. The purpose of this Gospel is given in Luke xxiv, 46. 

Mr. Vernon Bartlet objects that, if the reason for the use of the 
great Omission is to draw decided attention to that which came 
afterwards, it does not argue skill on the part of the evangelist, 
as this reason has hitherto escaped observation. Mr. Bartlet adds 
that the skilful use should be perceived from the beginning and all 
along. We must remember that authors write for people of their 
own times, though the sacred ones also wrote for posterity, among 
whom they have had the majority of their readers. But even the 
sacred authors employed the literary methods of their day and they 
referred at times, incidentally, without explanation, to facts well 
known to their first readers, which became more or less hidden from 
succeeding generations. 

Let us try to imagine the conditions of St. Luke’s first readers. 
The ancient Greek was perceptive, and doubtless the Greek 
speaking peoples of other lands had imbibed something of his 
character in this respect, as well as his language. Those 
interested in the Christian religion, when Luke’s Gospel was 
written, had probably access to some who had actually seen our 
Lord, and to many written accounts of His life ; thus the order of 
the main events in His Ministry must have been well known to them 
by word of mouth, and also from writings. They were also familiar 
with the Scriptural employment of triple repetition to denote 
intensity or emphasis, as at the Temptation, by the denials of Peter, 
and by the three questions aiterwards put to that Apostle by the 
Lord. Is it not reasonable, therefore, to suppose that a contempor- 
aneous intelligent Greek speaking convert under these circumstances 
should readily recognize the threefold narrative in the Gospel of 
Luke ? 

But as time went on the intimate oral knowledge of the events of 
Christ’s ministry passed away with the passing away of the first few 


LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 213 


‘generations, and there remained only the written documents. Then 
came the Dark Ages, and subsequent translations of the New Testa- 
ment into modern European languages. Is it wonderful that the 
Gospel of Luke then came to be regarded as a chronological tangle, 
instead of a well ordered record pointing emphatically to the Death 
and Resurrection of the Lord? With the revival of learning the 
Greek of the New Testament has been well studied with regard to 
grammar and textual criticism, especially during the past few 
years ; butisit not possible that we may still have something to find 
out about the general arrangement and purport of the Gospel of 
St. Luke? Bearing the foregoing considerations in mind Mr. Wood’s 
assumption, if the threefold narrative plan has really been adopted 
by St. Luke, that every reader has been deceived, seems to be too 
sweeping ; as there is good reason to suppose that the first readers 
must have thoroughly understood the threefold arrangement and its 
intention. 

Dr. Irving proposes a solution of the problems of the Insertions 
and of the great Omission by suggesting that, as Luke made additions 
to the Marcan narrative, so he omitted from his own history 
much which was to be found well recorded by Mark. But these 
questions still remain: as Luke omitted some parts recorded by 
Mark, why do about two-thirds of his Gospel closely correspond 
with the record of the second evangelist ? And why is this verbal 
correspondence concentrated in some chapters of Luke, and entirely 
absent from others ? 

Mr. Gaussen’s suggestions for the reasons which Luke had for 
the omission of all record of certain important events in his Gospel 
and in the Acts, are worthy of careful consideration. 

Let us now consider the criticisms in the discussion of the 
suggestion of a threefold narrative in the Gospel of St. Luke. 

Mr. Woods upholds the view (popular among many scholars), that 
the sentences of the so-called Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 
were not all spoken at one time, but the evangelist grouped or 
arranged them without much regard to chronology from sayings 
found in Q. It is difficult to see how this can be proved. The 
surmise may probably be chiefly based on the following con- 
siderations, if the ordinary view of the construction of St. Luke’s 
Gospel is accepted. The sermon consists of 111 verses, 72 of 
these reappear in Luke slightly modified or abbreviated. In the 


214 LIEUT.-cOL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 


latter Gospel about half (or 50 per cent.) of these sayings of the 
Lord are recorded as delivered at the same time as that implied 
by St. Matthew, but Luke places the other half at later dates ; 
hence it would appear to be difficult to say when all the sentences 
recorded in Matthew vy, vi, and vii were actually delivered, as 
there thus seems to be considerable chronological divergence 
between Matthew and Luke. But if the threefold narrative is 
accepted and also the “strange literary procedure” by Luke of 
splitting up the Matthaean sermon—one part being contained 
in Luke (A) (vi, 1-49) and the other in Luke (B) (xi, 1—xii, 
59)—it will be found that about 86 per cent. of the sayings recorded 
in the Matthaean sermon (which are reproduced in Luke) agree 
chronologically with the records of the first evangelist. Luke con- 
sequently only records 14 per cent. of his extracts from the Matthaean 
sermon as spoken at later dates—a much less chronological dis- 
crepancy than under the ordinary assumption of one continuous 
narrative in the third Gospel. Mr. Woods himself admits that the 
teachings given in Luke xi indicate a retrogression in point of time. 
It is usually admitted that our Lord gave a distinctive teaching at 
the early part of His Ministry, while different truths were pro- 
pounded by Him at the end ; other teachings, however, may well have 
been common to several periods, and our Lord doubtless repeated 
many of His sayings, hence we have a good reason for the 14 per 
cent. of sayings which are recorded by Matthew and by Luke as 
given at different times, without having much recourse (if any) to 
a supposed ‘“ grouping” or “arranging” by Matthew. In his two 
accounts, which each contain parts of the Matthaean sermon, Luke 
(vi, xi and xii) adds other sayings, many of which are recorded by 
Matthew (vili-xi1) as spoken during the same summer, but this fact 
does not affect the argument which we have just considered. 
Mr. Woods further thinks that all the notes of travel contained in 
the middle chapters of Luke refer to only one account of one 
journey. Mr. Challis points out the chronological contradictions 
which such a supposition involves. Although Mr. Woods allows 
that his theory involves this discrepancy, he nevertheless holds to 
it, because he objects to the threefold narrative explanation, that 
there is not the least hint or suggestion in Luke xiv, 25, that we 
are reading about the beginning of a journey. He misunderstands ; 
no such claim has been made in the paper. The beginning of the 


LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 215 


journey in Luke (C) is stated in the diagram and elsewhere in the 
paper to be narrated in Luke xvii, 11. Whereas Luke xiv, 25, 
gives the beginning of Luke (C) narrative—a very different thing. He 
also objects that the impression left on the reader’s mind is that 
Luke xiv, 24, 25, is continuous—there is nothing to indicate a 
chronological break between the two verses. This objection has 
been anticipated on pp. 193, 194 and 201, of the paper, where it is 
pointed out that Luke had a habit of frequently not indicating 
- fresh beginnings, but he left his readers to infer when they occurred. 
Mr. Woods fails to see an analogy between the thrice repeated 
narratives of St. Paul’s conversion and St. Peter’s visit to Cornelius— 
and a supposed threefold narrative in the Gospel of Luke, because 
he states that in the repetitions in the Acts not the slightest literary 
difficulty is involved. It may be questioned if such repetitions as 
those referred to in the Acts are usual among authors; most 
historians would surely prefer to give but one full narrative of 
each incident, with perhaps subsequent incidental allusions, and 
they would thus save space which they would use for recording 
other events. It is of course granted that the threefold method of 
repetition adopted by Luke in the above cases in Acts is not exactly 
the same as the arrangement of the suggested threefold narrative 
in the Gospel; Luke had a beautiful variety in his methods of 
threefold narrative in order to give emphasis, and some of them 
demand a little searching in order to be recognized, as is briefly 
indicated in the second note on p. 195 of the paper. 

Mr. Rouse’s argument that the request by Christ’s disciples to be 
taught how to pray, Luke xi, 1, indicates an early period in Christ’s 
ministry appears to be unanswerable, and it is a strong argument 
in favour of a second or repeated narrative. 

Mr. Rouse is correct in saying that the lament and the parable of 
the Great Supper in Luke could not have been spoken at the same 
time as the same lament and the similar parable of the marriage of 
the King’s son in Matthew, because he has shown that the Lucan 
utterances were before Christ’s entry into Jerusalem on the colt, and 
the Matthaean utterances were both after it. But I think it can be 
shown that the lament and parable in each Gospel must have been 
spoken within afew days of each other, though probably to different 
audiences. Not unfrequently we find the same subject discussed 
in the Gospels at different places, but at consecutive, or nearly 


216 LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 


consecutive, times. Thus our Lord fed the five thousand, and on 
the next day at a different place spoke of Himself as the Bread of 
Life (John vi, 5-14, 22, 48); the teaching of the first being last 
and the last first was put forward on the last journey (Matt. xix, 
30, xx, 16), and again shortly afterwards in Jerusalem (Matt. xxi, 
31, 32). The teaching of the lament and also of the parable of the 
great Supper in Luke refers in both cases to the coming severe 
judgment on the Jews—a subject which elsewhere in the Gospels 
we find confined to the teaching of the Saviour at the very end of 
His Ministry ; hence it is fair to conclude that these Lucan utter- 
ances were also spoken towards the end—not at the time of the 
Sermon on the Mount as Mr. Rouse suggests. 

It is interesting to note that the verse “I must go my way to- 
day, and to-morrow, and the day following,” Luke xiii, 33, is 
interpreted by Mr. Woods (who denies any repetition of narrative) 
to refer to days, and he thinks it was spoken within about two days’ 
journey of Jerusalem, while Mr. Rouse thinks the days mean years, 
and he concludes that the words were spoken at a more distant 
spot. The nearest part of Herod’s trans-Jordanic dominions, where 
our Lord most probably was when these words were uttered, is only 
some twenty miles distant in a direct line, though 3,700 feet below 
that city, hence a couple of days would probably suffice for the 
journey. Alford favours the interpretation of literal days, but the 
passage is a difficult one, and as commentators are not agreed as to 
its exact meaning, it seems hardly wise at present to base any 
theory of chronology upon it. 

Mr. Rouse adduces the fact that in a later chapter, Luke xvii, 11, 
it is recorded that our Lord passed between Samaria and Galilee, as 
a proof that the Lucan lament and parable were not spoken near 
the end of the Ministry, but is not this rather a begging of the 
question? If it is allowed that the Lucan lament and parable 
were spoken towards the end of the Ministry, and that a third 
narrative begins at Luke xiv, 25, the passing between Samaria and 
Galilee comes correctly in due chronological order in the third 
narrative. 

If Canon Girdlestone’s statements can be substantiated, that 
St. Luke “hardly ever uses notes of time,” that he “groups, 
follows the order of thought regardless of time and space,” then 
the arguments for a threefold narrative rest upon such slender 


LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 217 


foundations that they are worthless. But can these things correctly 
be said of the evangelist who gives two very distinct dates, by 
referring to well known secular events—the “decree from Cesar 
Augustus that all the world should be enrolled” (Luke i, 1), and 
“the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cesar” (chapter iii, 1), 
after the manner of the historians of his day? Luke also gives a 
Jewish dating for the vision of Zacharias (i, 5, 8, 11), because 
it is known from Jewish records when the course of Abia served 
in the Temple. St. Luke also tells us that our Lord came to 
the Temple at the age of twelve (ii, 42), and that He began 
His Ministry when He was about thirty years of age (iii, 23). 
The fulfilment of periods of time (i, 57, 1, 6, 43, xxi, 24), also of 
years (ii, 37, iv, 25), months (i, 24, 26, 56), days (i, 59, 11, 21, 22, 
44, iv, 2, xxii, 7, etc.), and hours (xxii, 14, xxiii, 44, xxiv, 33), are 
each referred to repeatedly. The near approach of summer is also 
pointedly alluded to (xxi, 30). In the central chapter of Luke, 
with which we are now especially concerned, we find attention 
directed to the near approach of the time (ix, 51) when our Lord 
should be delivered up. Various periods are stated in years 
(vill, 42, 43, xiii, 7,11) and others in days (ix, 28, 37, x, 35, xii, 
_ 32, 33). In one place (vi, 1) the time of year is plainly shown to 
be that of harvest, and in another, the Sabbath year then 
present is clearly indicated by the reference to the fulfilment of 
of one of its obligations (cf. xi, 4, with Deut. xv, 1, 2). Sir Isaac 
Newton noticed that Christ referred in His parabolic teaching to 
things actually present, for instance, to the lilies of the field 
(xii, 27), indicating that it was the summer. Archbishop Trench 
has suggested that sowing was actually in progress when the 
parable of the sower was delivered ; thus we have winter indicated 
at a certain part of Luke (A) (viii, 4-15), and also at a place in 
Luke (B) (xiii, 18, 19). There are also several other indirect 
allusions to the season of the year in Luke’s Gospel, but we have 
not space to refer to them ; they all harmonise chronologically with 
the threefold narrative theory. Another chronological indication is 
furnished by the teaching of the Lord,—it was only after the 
Transfiguration, during the last six months of the Ministry, that 
the clearest indications were given of the offer of salvation to the 
Gentiles; consistently with this fact we find references to their 
acceptance at the end of Luke (A) (x, 33, 36, 37); of Luke (B) 


218 LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON SOME LUCAN PROBLEMS. 


(xili, 28-30, xiv, 23, 24) and of Luke (C) (xvu, 16, xx, 15, 16). 
Which of the other evangelists gives so much chronological 
information ? Luke, too, is the only evangelist who definitely 
states that he writes ‘in order,’ not necessarily in an ordinary 
chronological arrangement, but in an ordered arrangement of some 
sort. All will agree with Canon Girdlestone in his statement that 
Luke “had his own methods of writing,” but up to the present 
time the method of arrangement of his central chapters has been a 
great puzzle to most; some assert that these chapters demonstrate 
an order of thought or teaching, but what the special teaching may 
be has not been set forth and generally recognized. If, however, 
the threefold narrative scheme is accepted, we find a distinctively 
prominent spiritual teaching in each narrative* as recognized by 
Mr. Challis in the discussion, and by Canon Dodson in the Record 
of 4th August, 1911. 

Dr. Irving thinks the fact has been lost sight of in the paper that 
the Gospel of Luke and the Acts are two volumes of one continued 
history. I quite agree that the two are closely linked together, but 
the Gospel was written first, and it is a separate treatise (Acts i, 1), 
culminating not only with the Crucifixion, but also with the 
Resurrection and Ascension. The paper is confined to Problems 
in the Gospel, and considerations of space prevented reference to 
other subjects. 

Sir William Herschel thinks that Luke of course aimed at 
chronological order, but found the difficulties to be insuperable. If 
this be so, it is very difficult to understand the Evangelist’s opening 
words that he had “ traced the course of all things accurately from 
the first,” and that he wrote ‘‘in order ” (Luke i, 3). 

The remarks of Mr. Challis, Revs. Thorburn, Nicol, Coles, and 
Boughey are all in agreement with the paper and call for no 
remark except hearty thanks for the encouragement they have 
given. 


* See St. Luke’s Threefold Narrative, etc., pp. 15, 17, 19. 

t There are still a few reprints of the ‘article, “St. Luke’s Threefold 
Narrative of Christ’s Last Journey to J erusalem,” from The Interpreter, 
of April, 1911; should any Member or Associate of the Victoria 
Institute wish to read one, the Secretary will gladly supply him with a 
copy, on loan, on application. 


Diagram of the Three parallel Narratives 


in St. Luke’s Gospel. 


‘9 i) ieee Med 
4 AZ UIDIPLLIS AI 
_ SE) 
hRUDYIIA Saar y a da 7ASIGILIE BY/7 
ny SEX | gD “oye98, v ARES FI-H Peeve me WE Ly aLDMOT 
: Ulf 7S D7 C) Sz. hawshol 7627 ausnol 28D) 
LOS 74028 J a zak L04 GLOZS nord 
CZ-9/ 07910 t 
y oo of? biayae H N “AI A wsaJJaS 
eS NS ed (27-27 171509008, PS 
ray BU2MM08 ) 
= 5 & WA: eS 
Zz a ig) ie, WERE ay Ey ole ta 
Re: {surtopar | Te. x} $u2ba9 3Jy 
re 07 | wo uowsay U0 UOWUWLAE 
~~ \ h 
Ni 
| |? AT 9377709) 7 2 JIG” ae te ees Se Bk ACA RS oa ee ee a ee 
5) 
See isee ree 
Si | 
< ede 27 2 AD , way 


12: usiqdog 


192-197. 


For EXPLANATION SEB Pr. 


530TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 


MONDAY, APRIL Ist, 1912, at 4.30 p.m. 


E. J. SEWELL, EsQ., TOOK THE CHAIR. 


The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed. 


The SECRETARY announced that Miss Morier had been elected as an 
Associate. 


The CuarrMaAn then called upon Mr. TuckweE.t to read his paper. 


ARCHAOLOGY AND MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLAR- 
SHIP. 


By the Rev. JonN TucKWELL, M.R.AS. 


ODERN Biblical scholarship is a development. By a 
brief glance at its origin we shall the better understand 
its relation to modern archeological discoveries. 

During the first three hundred years of the history of the 
Christian Church the progress of the truth with which she was 
entrusted was phenomenal. But the next thousand years, and 
especially that part of it which followed immediately the 
breaking up of the Roman Empire, was a time of alinost universal 
arrest of human progress. The ignorance and degradation of 
the populations of Europe rendered them powerless to civilize 
the barbarians who brought them under their martial sway. 
“These were times,” says Hallam in his Middle Ages, “ of great 
misery to the people, and the worst, perhaps, that Europe has 
ever known. Even under Charlemagne we have abundant 
proofs of the calamities which the people suffered. The light 
that shone around him was that of a consuming fire.” 

The first gleam of a new dawn was due to an awakening of 
interest in classical learning. Manuscripts began to be collected 
and libraries to be formed, while the opportune invention of 
paper rendered books cheaper, and quickened and extended the 


220 REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S., ON ARCHEOLOGY AND 


book trade. It was only incidental to this general movement, 
at first, that attention began to be directed to the contents of 
Holy Scripture. Then in the fifteenth century came the 
invention of printing. 

It has often been affirmed as an apology for certain modern 
views of Scripture that, at the Reformation, men discovered 
that the Church’s claim to infallibility was invalid, but feeling 
the need of some infallible basis on which to ground their faith, 
invented the theory of an infallible Book. Was this so? 
Was it not rather the rediscovery of the Book which 
gave militant effect to the intellectual and moral shock 
which mankind was beginning to experience at the Church’s 
condition and claims? It was the use of a manuscript 
copy of the Scriptures that shed the light upon the mind of 
John Wycliffe—* the morning star of the Reformation.” It was 
the publication of the Greek text of the New Testament and his 
scholarly Latin translation and their circulation in the universi- 
ties and among the learned and noble that caused it to be said 
that “Erasmus laid the egg which Luther hatched.” It was 
the perusal of the New Testament which first set free and then 
set on fire the great prophetic soul of Martin Luther. It was 
with the Book in their hands, as the final Court of Appeal, that 
the Reformers fought and won their battles,and whatever value 
they attached to it as the standard of Christian Truth they 
attached to it from the very beginning. Nothing, therefore, 
could be more remote from the true history of the conflict than 
the supposition that the degree of inspiration the Reformers 
attached to it, whether they were right or wrong, was an alter- 
thought. 

What happened was this. After the Reformation, when 
freedom of thought and speech could no longer be suppressed, 
the contestants over the subject of supernatural religion came 
from all sides into the arena. Lecky, in his History of Rational- 
ism, writing of “the moral chaos that followed the death of 
Louis XIV.,” says of Voltaire and Rousseau that “the object of 
these writers was not to erect a new system of positive religion, 
but rather to remove those systems which then existed and to 
prove the adequacy of natural religion to the moral wants of 
mankind. The first of these tasks was undertaken especially 
by Voltaire. The second was more congenial to the mind of 
Rousseau.” The Christian apologist had to face this new 
condition of things, and in Germany, as Canon Cheyne admits 
in his Founders of Old Testament Criticism, a party arose under 
the influence of eighteenth-century Deism which adopted that 


MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. yp 


method of treating scripture which Eichhorn, one of its earliest 
advocates, called the “Higher Criticism.” The term in a 
narrower sense is sometimes used in contradistinction to the 
term “lower” or “ textual criticism.” It would be a mistake to 
suppose, however, that even in its wider sense it represents 
a form of scholarship or spheres of investigation entirely new. 
The older scholarship included in its enquiries such subjects 
as the authorship, the languages, the human element, the 
diversities of style, the uses of metaphors, parables, similes, 
-and various other figurative forms of speech found in Scripture. 
It welcomed all the light it could obtain from comparative 
philology, from such science as was available and from all known 
history. It is not here that any difference exists. Much more 
light has come in modern times both to and from some of these 
sources, and this heht has compelled the opponents of super- 
natural religion to change their polemical tactics. Such a work 
as Volney’s Ruins of Hmprres, thought to be brilliant and trium- 
phant in its own time, would be as out of date now as the bows 
and arrows of the ancient Babylonians. It is in those particu- 
lars, in which the German theologians have made compromises 
with the older Deism, that the divergence has arisen, and it is to 
mark that divergence that the term “higher criticism” is 
generally employed. Among these particulars may be included 
the attitude of mind in which the study of Scripture is 
approached ; the too exclusively philological and hterary basis 
of enquiry into the origin and composition of its various books ; 
the excessive application of subjective tests in judgment of the 
value and trustworthiness of the records; the adhesion to 
obsolete ideas concerning the beginnings of human and of 
Israelitish history ; the substitution of hypothetical evolutionary 
processes for inspiration and revelation in dealing with the 
contents and order of the historical records; the too hasty 
rejection of the historicity and truthfulness of those records 
and the general discredit cast upon the supernatural element in 
the whole volume and the consequent weakening of its Divine 
authority. It will not be possible in this brief paper to deal 
adequately with all these particulars, I shall confine myself for 
the most part to those of them upon which the modern 
discoveries of Archeology have a special message to convey. 
Upon the general question of the relation of this method of 
dealing with Scripture to the older Deism, I shall not, I hope, be 
accused of making a partisan appeal to prejudice if in justifica- 
tion of Canon Cheyne’s admission and my own contention I 
refer to the “ Twentieth Century ” Edition of Zhe Age of Reason. 


222 REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S., ON ARCHZOLOGY AND 


The editor of that edition points out that in Tom Paine’s 
denunciation of the Jewish wars; his denial of the Mosaic 
authorship of the Pentateuch; his rejection of the Davidic 
authorship attributed to so large a number of the Psalms; his 
assertion of the composite character of the book of Isaiah; his 
views of the Virgin Birth predicted in the Old Testament and 
recorded as a fact in the New; and the discredit he casts upon 
the authorship of Gospels and Epistles, he anticipated the views 
held by many German and English divines of the present day. 
The same thing is also shown by the late Dr. Parker in his 
remarkable little book entitled None Like It. He says, “ It must 
be clearly understood that the name of Tom Paine was not 
introduced by me, but by Mr. H ; and it must be further 
understood that I quote it to prove one point only, namely, that 
Paine anticipated in substance the main contentions in literary 
criticism of the Higher Critics, and it can be further proved 
that Paine himself, so far as this point is concerned, was only an 
echo of a much older Deism. All this should be remembered 
when considering the supposed originality of recent writers” 
(p. 216). Now astatement would not be untrue because Paine 
made it, and I offer these quotations in confirmation of the view 
expressed concerning the historic relationship between the 
present and the past. 

My purpose in this paper is to present in as concise a form as 
possible some of the best-known results of modern archeological 
research, and to claim for them a fuller recognition and a larger 
place in the Biblical scholarship of the day, however it may have 
arisen. The justice of this claim is forcibly represented by 
Professor Eerdmanns who, himself, formerly accepted the con- 
clusions of the Higher Critical school and still oceupies the 
professorial chair at Leyden in succession to the celebrated higher 
critical scholar Kuenen. He says: “ The time in which the now 
dominating school of criticism arose was prior to the many 
discoveries made in Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt and Syria . . . 
The theory of evolution was then prevailing in science and 
philosophy, and its influence was doubtless felt in critical and 
historical studies on Old Testament subjects . . . The many 
contradictions which even the ordimary careful reader of the Bible 
was often able to discover gave the ardent scholar the means ior 
constructing a new building out of the scattered pieces of Hebrew 
literature. In erecting this building, scholars did not always see 
the great difficulties of their position and the traps that were 
to be avoided.” 

At the time to which Professor Eerdmanns refers Dr. Young 


ES ee ee ee eee 


MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. pipers 


and Champollion were just beginning to unravel the intricacies 
of the Egyptian hieroglyphics ; Niebuhr, Tychsen, and Grotefend 
were making their first imperfect efforts to decipher the cuneiform 
inscriptions of Persia ; while Rich, Botta,and Layard had hardly 
begun to reveal beneath the mounds of Babylonia and Assyria 
those rich stores of historical knowledge which were destined to 
revolutionize our conceptions of the civilizations of the past. 
These stores are so vast and their testimony so incontrovertible 
that we are justified in saying that Archeology has shown that— 


I. 


The practice of literature existed at a much earlier period than 
modern Biblical scholarship at first supposed. The supposition 
was, that except perhaps within the colleges of the Egyptian 
priesthood and in a few incoherent scratchings upon rocks, 
human knowledge was generally communicated from generation 
to generation by unwritten tradition, folklore and the songs of 
wandering bards. 

Canon Driver says : “ The date at which an event or institution 
is first mentioned in writing must not be confused with that at 
which it occurred or originated : im the early stages of a nation’s 
history the memory of the past is preserved habitually by oral 
tradition ; and the Jews, long after they were possessed of a 
— literature, were still apt to depend much upon tradition” (p. i118). 
The first part of this statement needs qualification, and the 
second is the rock upon which the “Higher Criticism ” splits. 
Even the elegance, power, and precise descriptions of the Iliad 
and Odyssey were attributed to a blind bard who could not 
write. As late as 1884 the Revisers of the Old Testament 
changed the perfectly accurate translation of Judges v, 14, in the 
Song of Deborah and Barak,“ out of Zebulon they that handle the 
pen of the writer,’ into “ they that handle the marshal’s staff.” 
Thus a number of the accredited authors of Scripture have been 
substituted by a countless array of unknown writers of later 
date whose discovery, had it been true, would have been a more 
astonishing display of the acuteness of the human intellect than 
the discovery of the Réntgen rays, or of radium, or even of the 
infinitesimal electrons that are supposed to operate in the 
invisible electric current. The products of the pens of these 
hypothetical authors and redacteurs are represented by such 
symbols as J, J', J®, HK, E}, E?, JE, P, D, D?, D®, D%, etc., R, R®, 
R’£, JED, etc., ete. 

This amazing analysis, to quote Professor Kerdmanns again, 
“leads to highly improbable results. Words; half verses, 


224 REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S., ON ARCHMOLOGY AND 


quarters, eighth and sixteenth parts of verses, belonging to 
different sources, are combined in the most various ways. .. . 
By the acuteness of scholars, contradictions and parallels are 
discovered in chapters and verses of the most harmless and 
harmonious appearance.” The hypnotic influence which this 
analysis has had over certain scholars is extraordinary, and even 
Professor Orr can say concerning the Yaweh-Elohim theory, 
“This result also, whatever explanation may be offered, has stood 
the test of time, and will not, we believe, be overturned.” If 
that be so, his case against the Higher Criticism is gone, and even 
our Lord took up a fallacious position when He said of the 
supposed Mosaic writings: “If ye believe not his writings, how 
shall ye believe My words?” for in all the letters used in the 
analysis of those writings the letter “ M” never once appears 
for a single verse or word. All that Professor Orr will allow is 
some quality which he describes as “ Mosaicity.” But it is not 
a question of “ time” but of evidence, and evidence has become 
available now, which was not available when the foundations of 
this analysis were laid by Jean Astruc with his theory of 
Elohistic and Jehovistic and nine minor documents. For 
instance, we now know that the art of writing goes back to very 
remote antiquity in the history of man, for even the cuneiform 
characters of Babylonia were the offspring of an earlier picto- 
graphic form of writing in use before the adoption of clay as a 
writing material by the early inhabitants of the plain of Shinar. 
Further, 

(1) By what seems lke a perversity designed to provoke every 
sense of the fitness of things in the order of Biblical truth, the 
story of the Creation in Gen.1i, so fundamental to the mono- 
theism of the whole Bible, is affirmed to be among the latest pro- 
ducts of Hebrew literature: It is said to belong “ approximately 
to the period of the Babylonian captivity ” and to be “ later than 
Ezekiel” (Driver). We are to suppose that the Hebrew religion 
and nation existed for a thousand years before it possessed any 
adequate cosmology! Or again, it is said to have been derived 
from a Babylonian original, and an eminent Assyriologist has 
even attempted, by translating some of the Hebrew into Baby- 
lonian, to reconstruct that supposed original! But the two 
languages are sufficiently near of kin to make such an effort 
absolutely devoid of evidential value. Were the original Greek 
of the New Testament to be lost, an accomplished German and 
English scholar in five thousand years’ time, finding the first 
page of one of the Gospels in English, would have no difficulty in 
turning the English into German and proving most conclusively 


~~ ee ee ee ee oe 


MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. 225 


to his contemporaries that the English derived the story 
from their very intellectual German neighbours. Or again, it 
is even said that the Genesis record is sifted out of the Baby- 
lonian legend. | 

But if we are right, as seems almost certain, in identifying 
Marduk with Nimrod, then that legend must be later than the 
fact recorded of him in Gen. x, that “the beginning of his 
kingdom was Babel, Erech, Akkad and Calneh.” Further, the 
deified Nimrod, Marduk, only takes the supreme place in the 
Babylonian pantheon in succession to Enlil of Nippur (Calneh) 
as the natural corollary to the rise of Babylon to the 
imperial sovereignty over the other cities of Babylonia under 
“The First Dynasty of Babylon.” The legend, therefore, 
eannot be earlier than about 1900 Bo. Yet, further, Mr. 
Maunder, in his Astronomy of the ible, tells us that the 
astronomical allusions in it to the Signs of the Zodiac forbid 
that it should have appeared in its latest form earlier than about 
700 B.c. This does not mean that the legend was first con- 
structed then, for there is a part of what may be a version of an 
earlier date contained in a bi-lingual tablet, and which appears 
to have been used as an incantation formula. JBut it is 
anachronistic, unmethodical, and incoherent. One of these 
languages is Sumerian, and contains the words “ Adam” and 
. “ Eden” ; the other is a Semitic translation. But the priority of 
the Hebrew story to these and all other versions is plainly im- 
pled by a comparison of their contents. It would be super- 
fluous to recapitulate the well-known version of the seven, or 
more correctly six, tablets. But it is necessary to notice that 
the four first are occupied with the account of the destruction 
by Marduk of the old goddess Tiamat, the goddess of the stormy 
deep, whose body he splits into two parts, “ like a flat-fish,” one 
part being used to support the upper waters, while watchmen 
are placed to see that they do not break forth again. 

Now when a legend is formed on the basis of a fact or truth, 
it is manifest that the fact or truth must be known before the 
legend can be compiled. The fact underlying the contents 
of these four tablets is the creation of the “firmament” to 
“divide the waters from the waters,’ which is related with such 
beautiful simplicity, dignity, and brevity in the Hebrew story. 
The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that the Hebrew story, 
whoever wrote it and wherever it came from, must have been 
known to the old Babylonian poets, who elaborated it into their 
grotesque legend. Of the fifth tablet we have only some twenty 
or thirty complete lines assigning to Marduk the work of fixing 

Q 


226 REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S., ON ARCHEOLOGY AND 


the Signs of the Zodiac, causing the moon to shine by 
night and establishing a lunar year of twelve months. It is 
this tablet, with its allusion to the Zodiac, which suggests to 
Mr. Maunder the date of 700 B.c. Of the sixth tablet we have 
ouly about a dozen complete lines, which appear to refer to the 
creation of man by Marduk out of his own blood, and perhaps 
to the creation of woman also. The number, variety, and 
importance of the works recorded upon the tablets represented 
‘by these two fragments were out of all proportion to the single 
creative task described on the other four. It would not be at 
all surprising, therefore, were we to find that their contents were 
an adaptation of some older version tacked on to the other four 
to complete the story. 

In contrast with all this, the Hebrew story is so pure, so 
lofty, so impressive, and thrown into such language, as to teach 
the unity, sovereignty, goodness and omnipotence of God to 
every age and in every tongue, and to minds of every degree 
of culture and knowledge. It seems an outrage upon our 
reason and our moral sensibilities to ask us to regard it as 
derived from a composition so impossible, so grotesque, and 
so degrading to the Deity as the Babylonian legend. “Who 
can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.” We 
are driven to the conclusion, therefore, that the Genesis account 
cannot be of such recent date as modern Biblical scholarship 
has supposed. It may be but a fragment (if you will), but it 
is literature of great antiquity, conveying to man, from some 
superhuman source, a knowledge of events which transpired 
before his own existence, intended to win his obedience, worship, 
and love, to the One Author of his being, the Creator of the 
Universe. 

(ii) Let us pass now to the second and more detailed version 
of man’s creation, and the account of the creation of woman, 
and the institution of marriage, in Genesis 1. It is very 
significant that there should be these two versions, and that 
there should have been two or more versions of the creation 
legend among the Babylonians. But if the Biblical record be 
true,it may suffice to say that this ampler version, ike the more 
general, must have got there by some means other than deriva- 
tion from the Babylonian legends or than mere happy guess- 
work. Men and women of past ages were as little likely to 
have been able to give an account of their own creation as an 
adult person to-day to give an account of his own birth. 

Let us add to this the story of “The Fall”; whether we 
regard it as symbolical or literal, or partly both, is immaterial to 


MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. 297 


our present purpose. The well-known Babylonian seal, which 
cannot be of later date than 2500-2000 B.c., representing a man 
and a woman and a tree bearing fruit and a serpent behind the 
woman, presents a combination of details which irresistibly 
points to the conclusion that the engraver was familiar with 
some such story as that in Genesis 111. 

The contents of both these chapters are assigned by the 
critics to the “J” document. But no adequate attempt is made 
to account for their origin or for their preservation during so 
many thousands of years. It is not enough to say that “J” 
committed to writing a previous oral tradition, whether 
amongst Hebrews or Babylonians. If they contain truth, 
however veiled, oral tradition cannot account for man’s 
knowledge of that truth or of the events concerning his own 
existence, which transpired before the dawn of his own 
consciousness. Moreover, oral tradition is scarcely likely to 
have preserved in any form a faithful account of what our 
translators have not inaptly described as “man’s shameful fall.” 
The only reasonable way out of these difficulties is to admit 
the supernatural and to regard the original records, in whatever 
language composed, as literature of far greater antiquity than 
modern Biblical scholarship has been disposed to admit. 

Gu) Let us now look fora moment at the story of Cain and 
' Abel. Like the two previous stories, the New Testament puts 
its imprimatur upon its historicity (Heb. i, 4), and modern 
Biblical criticism assigns it to the “J” document. It is true 
we do not find its exact parallel in any of the legends of 
antiquity, but what appear to be different forms of one original 
story are found among different nations, looking much like a 
legendary superstructure upon the Cain and Abel basis. It is 
that of— 


Dumuzi and Innana among the Sumerians. 

Tammuz and Ishtar among the Semites. 

Osiris and Isis among the Egyptians. 

Adonis and Aphrodite, or Venus, among the Greeks and 
Latins. 


The subject of the story dies a violent death ; in one instance 
he is a shepherd, and it is his brother who strikes the blow; or 
it is supposed to have been transformed into a meteorological 
myth and the summer is destroyed by the winter and reappears 
to bring joy to earth again. In the sixth tablet of the 
Gilgamesh series it is the youthful husband of the goddess 
Ishtar who has come to a premature end, and growing out of it 

ee 


228 REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S., ON ARCHHOLOGY AND 


is the story of Ishtar’s Descent into Hades for the recovery of 
her youthful spouse, which the Babylonians commemorated by 
an annual festival. This festival was among the “ abominations ” 
denounced by the prophet Ezekiel (ch. vii, 14). The first part 
of it was kept by bitter wailing and lamentation over the tragic 
death of Tammuz, then on the last day his return to the land 
of the living, anointed with oil and clad in a new garment, was 
celebrated by unbounded expressions of joy when all moral 
restraints were loosened and unbridled licentiousness prevailed. 
Ishtar was also the pre-Israelite Astarte of the Canaanites, whose 
worship was celebrated by the sacrifice of infants, as excavations 
by Professor Macalister at Gezer have disclosed, and by the 
obscene rites of the grove, or Asherah, denounced so often in 
the Old Testament. 

Once more then it must be said that known truth must 
precede the possibility of any legendary embodiment of it, and 
if the story of Cain and Abel be the basis of these legends 
then we have in it another proof of the great antiquity of the 
practice of literature which modern Biblical scholarship has 
been so slow to recognize. 

(iv) But what I venture to think is the most conclusive proof 
afforded by all these old Biblical records of their priority over 
all other records in whatever language preserved, is that 
furnished by the parallel accounts of the Hebrews and Baby- 
lonians of the story of the Deluge. It is no longer possible to 
deny it as an historical fact, nor to treat it as an astronomical or 
meteorological myth. Mr. Maunder, in the volume already 
referred to, has also given us good reason for believing that it 
must have been known to the astronomers who pictured for 
themselves upon the midnight sky the figures of the con- 
stellations, 2700 B.c. or earlier. These figures are not suggested 
by the natural arrangement of the stars, as Volney and many 
other advocates of solar-myth theories have supposed, but are 
arbitrarily assigned to the stellar universe. But whoever did 
this extraordinary work so long ago, the Babylonians accepted 
it. There are the ship, the water-snake, the raven, the 
mountains, the altar, the sacrifice and the man. I have by my 
side a cutting from Zhe Daily Telegraph of December 4th, 1872, 
containing the report of Mr. George Smith reading before the 
Society of Biblical Archeology the first translation of the 
Deluge Tablet ever given to the world. Sir Henry Rawlinson 
was in the Chair, and Mr. W. E. Gladstone, who was present, 
uttered these memorable words, “I do not know whether it is 
supposed that the enquiries of archzeological or other sciences are 


MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. 229 


to have the effect of unsettling many minds in this our genera- 
tion, but I must say for myself that on every point at which 
I am enabled to examine them, they have a totally different 
effect (cheers).” May I humbly say that it is with exactly the 
same experience that this paper is written. Modern critics 
analyze the story into “J” and ‘ E” documents, which some 
unknown redacteur combined into a single whole about the 
eighth century B.c. As separate documents they are supposed 
to have existed a century or two earlier. The following analysis 
of the Hebrew story is taken from Canon Driver’s Jntroduction. 
From the parallel column in which I have placed the Assyro- 
Babylonian story, it will be seen that the supposed “J” and 
“E” elements of the one appear to a remarkable degree in the 
same order of succession as in the other. 


Hebrew Story. Cuneiform Story. 


J Chapter VI. 1-8 | 


E fo 3 o's. | ol, E1478 ig The gods. 
x = 14-22 x 20 to II 9... Build a Ship. 
J Pt VII. 1-5 | 
E » ” 6 | 
“od 3 : 7-10 | Col. II. 22-31 Collecting Cargo. 
Sa re a 11 | 
J ” ” 12 
VD) 3 a eat er N Got * 32-344 Entering Ship. 
J i eas the tT» | a 346-36 Beginning of Storm. 
E a i 18-21 £ 34-47 ... The Storm. 
J < eA 22-23 | Col. III. 1-17 Destruction of Life. 
E - = 24 b 18-19 Duration of Storm. 
E : 0 as eae a 20-22a Abating of Storm. 
J 5 e 2b-30 Zl 226 ... End of Storm. 
K “a ki ab) “ 23-34 Mountain of Nizir. 
J * ‘s 6-12 a 35-41 Dove, &c., sent out. 
E mz f 13a 
J ‘ , 130 
K es - 14-19 | Y 42a .... Leaving Ship. 
J . - 20-22 426-47... The Offerings. 
E ~ 1, bri Cals LV. 1-35 ie The Oath. 


How are we to account for the “J” and “E” elements of the 


230 REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S., ON ARCHEOLOGY AND 


Hebrew story appearing in so close an approximation to the 
same order in the Babylonian? If, according to the commonly 
held critical theory, the Genesis story was derived from the 
Babylonian, then two theories more are necessary to complete 
the explanation. First, that two Hebrew writers split up the 
Babylonian story, each leaving out parts essential to its com- 
pleteness, which the other selected, and one using the name 
“Yaweh” and the other the name “ Elohim” to designate the 
Deity. Second, that a redacteur of a later period found these 
two bi-sections and spliced them together again in almost the 
same as their original Babylonian form. Can we be reasonably 
expected to prefer such an anomalous congeries of theories as 
this to the simple and obvious one that in the Hebrew and 
Babylonian records we have two versions of one original event, 
the former, simple, credible, and true, and the latter, distorted, 
perverted, and heathenized, coloured by the customs and 
prejudices, and debased by the false religious conceptions, of the 
channel through which it flowed ? 

But, further, there is in the Pierpont Morgan Library of New 
York a fragment of a tablet containing this story dated in the 
reign of Ammi-zaduga of “The First Dynasty of Babylon,” 
some eighteen hundred years before Christ. Dr. Pinches also, 
in a paper read before this Institute last year upon a fragment 
discovered at Nippur and now in the Philadelphia Museum, 
U.S.A., possibly the oldest fragment in existence, called our 
attention to the fact that although its contents consist mainly 
of the so-called “ EK” (P) element, yet it contains a reference 
to the birds which are supposed to belong to “J.” 

With all this evidence before us, what reason can there be 
except the persistent adhesion to an arbitrary literary hypothesis 
for supposing that the Hebrews, with a Babylonian parentage and 
with the starry heavens whispering it to them night by night, 
had no consistent and coherent story of the Deluge until two 
thousand years later? Surely, if modern Biblical scholarship 
is to maintain its claim to the possession of a scientific spirit, it 
must condescend, either to rebut this evidence or frankly to say, 
with Professor Eerdmanns, concerning its late dates and composite 
hypotheses, “I believed so myself for many years, but I no 
longer hold that opinion.” 


EL 


Another part of the message which Archeology has to convey 
to modern Biblical scholarship is that the early history of man, 
as it has come down to us, can no longer be treated as mythical. 


MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. Tat 


It is not probable that the discoveries of the archeologist carry 
us back into antediluvian times, though it is not improbable 
that the break which the geologist finds between paleeolithic 
and neolithic man may enable us to locate it in the history 
of the race. But Archeology has certainly dispelled the illusion 
that the traditional belie’s of every nation concerning its origin 
and early history are untrue or even untrustworthy. It is forty 
years since this illusion receivedasevere shock by Dr.Schliemann’s 
excavations at Hissarlik. That some indeterminate substratum of 
‘truth might underlie Homer’s story of Troy was thought to be 
remotely possible, but for the most part that story was regarded 
as imaginary and legendary. The spade revealed what the 
wildest literalist never dreamed of, viz., that no less than nine 
successive strata of civilized settlements, of which Homer’s Troy 
was the sixth, had been left upon the site. The earliest goes 
back to about 2500 B.c., almost to the time of Sargon of Akkad. 
Another surprise has lately come to us. Excavations in the 
Island of Crete have verified the old Greek tradition that 
Greece derived her civilization from that island. Mr. Arthur 
Evans at Knossos, Professor Halbherr at Pheestos, Mr. and Mrs. 
Hawes at Gournia, and otbers in other places have opened up 
historical remains which go back into neolithic times, and show 
us that the neolithic men were not all savage, cave-dwelling 
huntsmen. Even the truth about the famous Labyrinth and 
the man—and maiden—eating Minotaur has been brought to 
hght, and the Scripture statement confirmed that Caphtor is 
Crete and the original home of the Philistines. 

By the earlier achievements of Archeology the settlement of 
post-diluvian man in the plain of Shinar was established as an 
incontestable fact. That the Kengi-Urite (Sumero-Akkadian) 
culture which flourished there was indigenous no one believes, 
but that it. was brought there from some mountainous region, 
according to Genesis xi, no one doubts. Excavations initiated 
by the Carnegie Institution of Washington, in 1903-4, con- 
ducted by Mr. Raphael Pumpelly, in the plains which lie 
around and beyoud the Caspian Sea, and others conducted by 
Mr. Stein on behalf of the Indian Government as far away as 
Chinese Turkestan, have brought to light the remains of a long- 
forgotten civilization in the form of ruins of many ancient 
cities. The hope has thus been revived that we may yet find 
the original home of the Kengi-Urite race. At various times 
the populations of these regions have been driven out, and 
the excavators believe that their discoveries have thrown 
some light upon the causes of these excursions. Important 


232 REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S., ON ‘ARCHEOLOGY AND 


climatic changes appear to have taken place from time to 
time, so that regions which had been plentifully supplied 
with water became arid and barren and unable to sustain 
their inhabitants. The geological formation known as the 
“loess” is now no longer considered to be of glacial or 
fiuviatile origin, but to consist of fine dust blown up by high 
winds and deposited against the sides of hills and mountains. 
We must therefore cease to adduce it in evidence of the 
Noachian Deluge. 

Thus also the building of the Tower of Babel has been 
changed from a subject of ridicule into one of amazement. As 
one after another the ruins of the cities of Babylonia have been 
explored the remains of ziggurats have been revealed not less 
astonishing than the solitary instance recorded in Scripture, 
whose erection was associated with a degree of folly and sin 
which excited the Divine displeasure and judgment. 

Even for the Confusion of Tongues evidence is not wholly 
wanting. Here, in a little tract of country, not more than three 
or four hundred miles long, inhabited by a people whose 
language was originally one, that language, in some mysterious 
way back in the earliest times of their settlement, became broken 
into two dialects, the southern and the northern, with the city of 
Babylon somewhere near the line of demarcation between them. 
The Hebrew record uses two words, riDw and OMVT, “lip” 
and “words,” and tells us that it was the “lip” which was 
confounded, by which we may no doubt understand the 
pronunciation, and now, four thousand years afterwards, tablets 
are found which had to be written in parallel columns giving 
the equivalent words in the two dialects. 

On the other hand, in the vicinity of this people was another 
race, the Semitic, whose language was spoken side by side with 


the Sumerian, and yet retained its unity through so many ages 


that an Assyriologist who can read a Semitie inscription of 
Sargon of Akkad, written some 2700 years B.c. can, without 
difficulty, read one of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, written more 
than 2,000 years later. No doubt the word “ Babel” is a Semitic 
pun upon Sab-ilu, the translation of the Sumerian nameof the 
city Ka-dingirra, “The Gate of God.” Possibly the jibe of the 
Semites may indicate that they were not implicated in the 
impious scheme. But in any case the suggestion thrown out by 
Rev. C. J. Ball that the Semitic languages may have been 
developed from the Sumerian is worth considering, whatever 
may prove to be its ultimate value. The chief characteristic of 
the latter is the monosyllabic and bi-consonantal form of its 


a = ee ee |. ee 


MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. nee 


roots, while that of the former is its triconsonantal. But in not 
a few cases the Semitic roots have the appearance of being formed 
out of the Sumerian by lengthening, by prepositional additions 
or by reduplication, eg. BAR “to split,” “to divide,” N12 “ to 


cut,” “to carve,” “to create,” LAM “to shut up,” nds “ to 
curb,’ “to restrain,” ete. 

At all events, with so much evidence at its command, 
Archeology may fitly urge that the early history of man which 
has come down to us from Hebrew sources should not be treated 
as mythical, and its compilation be thrust forward to a time 
when the shattered fragments of the nation gathered themselves 
up after seventy years of humiliating captivity under the 
yoke of a kindred people far behind them in religious knowledge 
and scarcely their superiors in any oi the arts of civilized life. 

But it can go further, and show that instead of legendizing 
the historic heroes of antiquity, we ought rather to reverse the 
tendency, and humanize the legendary heroes. In Egypt, 
Menes, the founder of the First Dynasty, is now regarded as an 
historical personage by Professor Flinders Petrie, and his tomb 
is believed to have been discovered at Abydos; so also with 
Minos IL., the Cretan sea-king and descendant of Zeus, and 
even Father Zeus himself is in danger of losing his divinity. 
The cave of Dicte, where his mother, Rhea, is said by one 
tradition to have brought him forth, and Mount Juktas, where 
he is said to have been buried, have been identified by the 
excavators at Knossos. Just as in the case of Marduk or 
Nimrod, the chief deity of the later Babylonians, the cities 
which constituted the beginning of his imperialism have, with 
the excavations of the Philadelphia expedition at Nippur, all 
been made known. 

What wonder then if Archeology should be able to give an 
emphatic denial to the theory that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob 
were Canaanitish demi-gods? In 1869, Professor Noldeke 
declared that “criticism had for ever disposed of the claim” 
that Genesis xiv was historical. But thanks to Dr. Pinches for 
his decipherment of the Chedorlaomer Tablets the historicity of 
that chapter has “ for ever” been put beyond reasonable doubt. 
With our knowledge of “The First Dynasty of Babylon” and 
their successors, the Kassites, we are able to follow the history 
of the Hebrew patriarchs as it flowed on side by side with the 
Babylonian and Egyptian. Thus :— 


i. Abraham must have been born in the reign of 
Sumu-la-ilu. 


234 REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S., ON ARCHEOLOGY AND 


ii. He left Ur of the Chaldees in the reign of Sin- 
muballit. 

ill. He began his nomadic life about the time of the 
accession of Khammurabi: and the birth of Isaac 
and most of the remaining events of his life took 
place during the time of that monarch. 


iv. If Khammurabi reigned fifty-five years, as one of the - 
tablets affirms, Sarah must have died about the same - 


time as he. 

v. Abraham in any case must have died in the reign of 
Abeshu. 

vi. Isaac must have died just at the time when the great 
Hittite invasion occasioned the fall of that Dynasty. 

vil. Jacob went down into Egypt ten years later and 
therefore in the time of Gandash, the founder of the 
Kassite Dynasty, and in the time of the first Shepherd 
Dynasty of Egypt. 


Egyptology bears witness to the fidelity of the record of life 
in Egypt in the time of Joseph, while Professor Hull and his 
colleagues have proved by going over most of the route the 
accuracy of the account of the journey of the Israelites from 
Egypt, and the Tel-el-Amarna tablets have testified to the 
anarchic state of the land of Canaan facilitating the Israelitish 
invasion, which followed not long after. Time would fail me to tell 
completely of the evidence which Archzology has furnished to 
modern Biblical scholarship, all bidding it rectify the premature 
theories which were formed a generation ago concerning the 
supposed mythical character of the historical records of the Old 
Testament. 


Il. 


The message of Archeology in the next place calls for the 
correction of the results arrived at by a misapplication of 
evolutionary theories to the Biblical records. It is necessary to 
remember that the Old Testament, like the New, professes to 
be an historical record. It is difficult, therefore, to see how an 
evolutionary process can have any place in such a composition. 
If there be any such process in the case it must have occurred in 
the events and not in the record. If Lord Macaulay’s pen had 
given us the result of an evolutionary process we might have 
had a brilliant romance, but we certainly should not have had a 
History of England. Hence for Biblical scholarship to follow 
the lead of an evolutionary theory in the study and interpretation 


Ae « 


MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. 235 


of an historical record is to follow a will-o’-the-wisp. To act 
scientifically, it should first acquaint itself with a sufficient 
number of facts independent of the record from which it might 
deduce the presence of such a theoretical process in Israelitish 
national life. But to take almost the only existing record of 
that life, which certainly is not compiled in conformity with any 
such process, and cut and hack, twist and transpose, deny and 
_ disfigure it to fit such a theory is, figuratively speaking, both as 
cruel and unscientific, as it would be to insist that a man should 
wear a garment of an artificial pattern, and to bend and break, 
distort and disfigure his limbs to make them fit it. 

The Biblical record, as it stands, is the record of a national life 
supernaturally directed and controlled, with an ultimate purpose 
in view, by a Power interposing at every stage to check the 
evolutionary results of moral evil, and to preserve that national 
life from self-destruction, until the purpose of the controlling 
Power should be accomplished, in the advent of One into the 
world from without the kosmos—an inearnation of a Divine 
Person, and not the final result of an evolutionary process. 
With the history as it stands, the testimony of Archzology is in 
complete agreement, and gives not the least sanction to the 
results which have been made to follow from the application to 
it of an evolutionary theory. The question at issue is—did the 
- events take place, and did the agents concerned in them feel, 
think, say, and act at the time, and in the manner asserted by 
the record? The answer of Archeology, so far as its testimony 
goes, is most emphatically “ Yes.” The only answer which the 
evolutionary hypothesis can give is “No, it is impossible.” 
Hence it is believed to be— 


(a2) Impossible that the national life and polity should 
have been founded upon any legislative basis approxi- 
mating to that of the record, so that “ The Law was 
not given by Moses ” (John i, 17), no matter who says 
it. There may have been a “ Mosaic nucleus” in it or 
“ Mosaicity,” but that is all. 

(6) Impossible that the alleged lapses of the people from 
the so-called Mosaic iaw recorded in the history and 
denounced by the prophets should ever have occurred. 
The record must therefore be regarded as anachronistic ; 
interpolated, or later ideals were projected back into 
earlier times, while a higher religious faith was being 
evolved. 

(c) Impossible that such conceptions of the Deity and 


236 REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S., ON ARCHEOLOGY AND 


such religious worship required to be rendered to Him 
as those assigned to the beginning of the nation’s 
history, should have existed at that time. The national 
faith at first must have been heathenish and polytheistic 
until the conception of Jehovah as a tribal God had 
had time to develop into that of a universal Deity. 

(2) Impossible that the higher religious and spiritual 
experiences attributed to the historic characters in 
pre-prophetic times could have been true of them. 
Accordingly with a strange want of knowledge of the 
psychology of the religious .life, the keen sense of sin, 
the humble submissiveness of will, as well as the lofty 
and sublime ecstacies, attributed in the Book of Psalms 
to David, are denied to that strong, passion-torn warrior. 
To satisfy the theory, therefore, they are given over to 
some unknown exilic or post-exilie writer whose 
personality was not conspicuous enough to win for him 
any known place in the nation’s history, and whose very 
name 1s lost in oblivion. 

These are a few of the conclusions which follow from the 
apphcation of an evolutionary theory to the Biblical record. 
To state them is almost sufficient to refute them, but Archzo- 
logy in its message to the modern Biblical scholar has some- 
thing to say concerning them. 

First, with regard to the Mosaic legislation. The scholarship 
in question answers itself concerning the military element in it 
by denouncing it as revoltingly cruel and therefore by no 
means anachronistic nor requiring any evolutionary theory to- 
explain or to post-date it. Yet, it should ever be remembered 
that war is never a dainty business, and the little Hebrew 
peoples had to take it upon the terms imposed upon 
them by the older and greater and indeed by all the military 
nations around them. Amongst these nations, however, in 
later times, the reputation of the Kings of Israel is testified 
to by the servants of Benhadad, king of Syria, who say to 
hin, “Behold now we have heard that the kings of the 
House of Israel are merciful kings” (I Kings xx, 31). The 
justness of this contrast cannot be doubted by anyone who has 
read in the original the unabashed boastfulness of Sennacherib 
upon the Taylor Cylinder, in his description of the unmitigated 
and disgusting cruelty with which he treated the living, dying and 
dead upon the battlefield. There are no signs of an evolution- 
ary process there. But when we are sliocked at the militarism 
of the past it may be well to remember that under the coming 


MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. 237 


reign of “The Prince of Peace” the happy people may be not 
less shocked when they learn that we could ever have believed 
in the Christianity of a Hedley Vicars,a Havelock, or a Gordon. 

With regard to the civil legislation of Moses, if one may 
distinguish it from the religious, when compared with the famous 
Laws of Khammurabi, codified five or six hundred years before the 
time of Moses, and separated by a thousand years from the sup- 
posed “J,” “KE” and “ P” documents, there is no sufficient differ- 
ence to call for any theory of evolution. The lex talionisis found 
in both. Khammurabi, it is true, put a man to death for sheep- 
stealing, and so did the English law of the eighteenth century, 
while the Mosaic law more wisely and more humanely required 
restitution and a fine—a principle which, if applied to-day, 
would soon put a stop to pocket-picking and burglary; and 
there are other cases of greater humanity. But both sanctioned 
polygamy, and both sanctioned divorce for causes other than 
unfaithfulness. The reason given by our Lord for the latter 
continuing up to His own time,—a reason for all defective 
legislation—shows no evolution on the subject for nearly two 
thousand years but a retrogtession,—“ For the hardness of your 
heart he wrote you this precept, but from the beginning it was 
not so.” 

It is, however, in the religious legislation that the process is 
supposed to have most effectively operated. The limits of 
space prohibit a reference to more than the one outstanding 
case supposed to afford conclusive evidence of religious evolu- 
tion. I refer to the composition of the Book of Deuteronomy. 
Though founded upon the contents of the Books of Exodus, 
Leviticus and Numbers, it is considered to show a considerable 
advance upon them. To account for it the discovery of “ The 
Book of the Law” by Hilkiah, the priest, in the days of King 
Josiah, is fixed upon, although there is nothing whatever in 
the narrative to show that the book found was the Book of 
Deuteronomy, nothing else and nothing more. It is surmised 
that there was a “Mosaic party” formed six hundred years 
after Moses was dead, and that to strengthen their influence 
the Book of Deuteronomy was forged. Kuenen says: “ Deuter- 
onomy was written not for the sake of writing, but to change 
the whole condition of the kingdom. The author and his 
party cannot have made the execution of their programme 
depend upon a lucky accident. If Hilkiah fownd the book in 
the Temple, it was put there by the adherents of the Mosaic 
tendency.” Thus, a book devised to promote the pure and 
reverent worship of God was a forgery, concocted by godly 


238 REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.B.A.S., ON ARCHEOLOGY AND 


men concerned for truth and righteousness. Surely a strange 
alliance between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, to 
advance the cause of a truth-loving God. 

In opposition to this incredible theory Archeology has 
brought to light the fact that as far back as two thousand 
seven hundred years before Christ the custom existed of 
burying written documents at the foundations or in the walls 
of important buildings. Nabonidus, King of Babylon, in his 
well-known inscription of the sixth century B.C., says of the 
Temple of Sippar, “ That temple I excavated, and its ancient 
foundation I sought, fifteen cubits I dug up and the foundation- 
stone of Naram-Sin, the son of Sargon, which for 3,200 years 
no king before me had seen, etc.” (This date is now known to 
be erroneous.) Excavations conducted by M. Naville in Egypt 
have brought to our knowledge the fact that in that country 
also, thousands of years ago, copies of portions of “The Book of 
the Dead” were buried within temple-walls. Surely it is more 
reasonable to conclude with M. Naville that the Book of the 
Law found by Hilkiah had been actually buried there, probably 
at the building of the Temple by Solomon, and that it was a 
genuine Book of the Law of Moses. There is thus no need to 
cast moral aspersion upon the Jewish high-priest, or upon the 
divine methods of insisting upon truth and righteousness in 
the world. 

Before closing this subject one more discovery may be referred 
to. The supposed late date of Deuteronomy is based partly 
upon what is called the “ Law of the Central Sanctuary ” con- 
tained in the twelfth chapter. But the recent translations of the 
Aramaic papyri found in the island of Elephantiné in Egypt 
have revealed the fact that as far back as the middle of the 
seventh century B.c. when Psammetichus I. drove the governors 
of Assurbanipal out of Egypt, a costly temple was built there 
for the use of a Jewish colony. Here burnt-offerings and sacrifices, 
meal-offerings and frankincense were being presented continually. 
This temple was the only one of its kind known to have been 
standing during the seventy years of the Babylonish captivity. 
The importance of this discovery lies in the fact that while 
modern Bbiblicai scholarship has been confidently affirming that 
the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and the whole “ Priestly 
Code” (part of “P”) were not the work of Moses and that the 
latter did not come into operation until after the exile, these 
bits of papyri show us the Levitical code in full operation 
150 years earlier. 

But it is replied that at all events the Book of Deuteronomy 


ee es ae 


MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. 239 


could not have been known, because of the Law of the Central 
Sanctuary which would not have been thus violated. To which 
the question may be reasonably returned: Did the Jews in 
Egypt understand the Law as modern criticism has interpreted 
it? Would it not be more reasonable to understand it as 
applying only to the land of Canaan? Are we to suppose that 
a colony of Jews in a distant land were prohibited from 
practising their religious rites? Did Isaiah understand it so 
when he wrote, “ In that day there shall be an altar to Yaweh 
in the midst of the land of Egypt” (xix, 19)? In the next 
place, even were the Law of the Central Sanctuary what 
criticism affirms, the fact that the Jews in Egypt did not 
observe it, would be no proof that it did not exist. The vapyri 
show that they did not observe the laws forbidding participation 
in heathen idolatries, but their non-observance of these laws is 
no proof that they had no existence. 

On all the questions touched upon in this paper, and on many 
more, it is necessary that the voice of Archeology should be 
heard. Too httle attention has been given to it by modern 
Biblical scholarship. We gladly recognize all the good that 
that scholarship has done in quickening the spirit of enquiry 
and constraining the students of Scripture to make sure of the 
correctness of their interpretations. But if its influence is to 
_be wholly good, it must be content to correct the follies of its 
youth and make the attainment of truth its only aim. 

‘We search the world and truth we cull— 
The good, the pure, the beautiful— 
From graven stone and written scroll, 
From all old flower-fields of the soul ; 
And, weary seekers of the best, 

We come back laden from our quest, 
To find that all the sages said 
Is in The Book our mothers read.” 


DISCUSSION. 


The CHAIRMAN said: I feel no doubt whatever that I am giving 
utterance to the general feeling of those present when I say that 
we have listened with great interest and pleasure to Mr. Tuckwell’s 
paper. Most of us have listened to him and read his writings 
before, and knew what to expect, and it is pleasant to find this 
afternoon that our expectations have been fully realized. 


240 REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S., ON ARCHEOLOGY AND 


Well now, as we all know, one of the great difficulties in treating 
a subject like archeology and modern Biblical scholarship in half 
an hour or three quarters of an hour is the great number of 
important things that must necessarily be left unsaid. Still, in 
spite of these obvious limitations, I feel a little surprised that 
Mr. Tuckwell should so uniformly identify “Biblical scholarship ” 
with the methods and results of one particular party among Biblical 
scholars, namely, those who, assuming that the course of progress 
in religious thought and belief is in all nations and ages necessarily 
the same, consider themselves authorized in rejecting any historical 
statement, however well supported, which is not in accord with this 
assumption, and those, very commonly the same men, who believe 
themselves able, in dealing with documents written three thousand 
years ago, and in a language no longer used, one in which there is 
nothing else that can be used for test or comparison, to pick out 
clauses and passages in close connection with one another, and say 
that the one was written by a quite different person to the other, 
and many hundred years before or after the other. 

I must say that it is to me very remarkable that the men who 
allege this are very often men who deny the possibility of miracles. 

I think we must allow the existence of Biblical scholarship, and, 
thank God, ripe and sound scholarship too, which endeavours to 
base itself on really ascertained facts, including those of archeology, 
and is very cautious in admitting the results of so-called literary 
analysis. 

My second caveat is that “ Biblical” seems used throughout the 
paper as equivalent to the Old Testament alone. I admit, of course, 
that the bearing of archzology on New Testament scholarship could 
not have been included in Mr. Tuckwell’s paper in the limits of time 
and space imposed upon it. But do not let us forget that what is 
true of this matter in regard to the Old Testament is true to an 
even greater extent in regard to the New, and that the school of 
Biblical critics referred to have been forced, by general consent, to 
abandon many of their most confidently asserted positions as to 
the New Testament mainly by the results of the discovery of old 
books, long lost sight of, and by the results of excavating and 
inscriptions which have brought out the historical character of 
narratives whose truth had been questioned because they did not 
fit a “ critical” theory. 


MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. 241 


One last point and [ have done. We must frankly admit that in 
questions of natural science truth has often been reached by the 
framing of theories as an attempt to give a connected account of 
a number of observed facts. Of course, the next step must be 
rigidly to test the theory to ascertain whether it really does explain 
and connect the observed facts, and in those sciences which admit 
of it experiment is the obvious method of doing this. But in 
applying this test to sciences or branches of knowledge dealing with 
the past, such, for instance, as geology or history, we cannot easily 
make experiments, and this. particular test resolves itself into this: 
can we, by means of our theory, predict the existence of facts 
which subsequent research may show to have really occurred. 

As we all know there have been striking instances of this in the 
history of natural science. The existence of the planet Neptune 
was discovered as a consequence of the working out of a theory 
that observed variations in the movements of the planet Uranus 
were due to the action of an unknown planet. 

Again, quite in our own days, the famous Russian chemist 
Mendeléeff framed a theory known as the Periodic Law, with 
regard to the relation of the atomic weights of the elements. In 
accordance with this theory he asserted the existence of certain 
unknown elements, three of which were afterwards discovered. He 
also questioned the correctness of certain “ accepted atomic weights ” 
because they did not correspond with his theory, and here also his 
predictions were justified by the result of subsequent experiment. 

Now, while we cannot object to the framing of theories with 
regard to the character and composition of the books of the Bible, 
we are fully entitled to demand that the most searching tests shail 
be applied to those theories before we accept them. And, in 
so doing, we are acting in a truly “scientific” spirit. Now, as 
Mr. Tuckwell has shown us, the discovery of new facts by archeo- 
logical research supplies the means of applying this very test. 
Did the Biblical “critics” with whom he is dealing truly predict, as 
a consequence of their theories, any facts which have subsequently 
been discovered? The only possible answer is that they did not. 

Did they, on the other hand, assert, as a consequence of their 
theories, that many accepted facts were not, in fact, true? We 
know that they have done that in great number. Then, has sub- 
sequent archeological research in any important instances verified 

R 


242 REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S., ON ARCHHOLOGY AND 


these corrections? I, for one, am not aware of a single such 
instance. 

It seems to me, therefore, that the “critical theories” on the part 
oi certain Biblical scholars with which Mr. Tuckwell has dealt this 
afternoon are discredited by the test of their comparison with the 
results of archeological discovery, and that as regards the Old 
Testament this is very convincingly set forth in Mr. Tuckwell’s 
paper. 

The Rev. CHANCELLOR L1As said: As one of the oldest members 
of the Council, I am pleased to congratulate the Institute on the 
striking and picturesque paper which has been read to-day. I say 
picturesque because of the graphic language in which the author 
has put his points before us. It is now some years since the 
learned Professor Flint, the great authority on Theistic philosophy, 
remarked that the time had come when ‘the critics should be 
criticized.” They have been criticized to-day. It is a pity that 
they should, as I fear they do, resent such criticism; and should 
be unwilling, or at least seem to be unwilling, to come out into the 
open to discuss the questions at issue. For they claim for their 
criticism that it is “scientific.” Yet it cannot be rightly called 
‘“‘scientific” until it has been tested and has stood the test. 
Especially is the claim so frequently made for the Biblical criticism 
of the hour that it represents ‘‘the final and unalterable results of 
scientific criticism” essentially unscientific. For scientific theories 
are constantly liable to be corrected by fresh discoveries, ¢.g., the 
recent discovery of radium has profoundly modified the hitherto 
accepted theories about heat and matter. If the Biblical critic, on 
scientific grounds, can claim finality for his conclusions, he not only 
sets the history of Biblical criticism at nought—since it has been 
constantly replacing one theory by another—but on his principles 
the supposed discovery of radium ought to be resolutely disallowed 
as contrary to the “final and unalterable” conclusions of modern 
physical science. That were to return to the old dogmatism which 
barred the progress of scientific discovery from the days of Aristotle 
to those of Bacon. 

I have only one or two remarks to make in support of Mr. 
Tuckwell’s paper. Professor Orr seems to think (see p. 224) that the 
theory that the use of the names Jahweh and. Elohim are character- 
istic of different authors has been conclusively established. ‘This 


MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. 243 


idea is very commonly held. But a little more familiarity with the 
history of Biblical criticism would entirely dispel it. Astruc, it is 
true, about the middle of the seventeenth century, propounded this 
theory. But Hupfeld, in a most able, learned, and ingenious essay, 
published in 1853, gave Astruc’s theory its death blow. He showed 
beyond dispute that a great part of the “‘ Elohistic” portions of the 
Pentateuch, as recognized in his day, displayed a far closer resem- 
blance to the work of the ‘‘Jehovist” than to some of the portions 
of the “ Elohistic” narrative itself. So he insisted that there must 
have been two Hlohasts, the writings of one of which displayed a 
much closer affinity to that of the Jehovist than to the writings of 
his brother Elohist. The latter Hupfeld supposed to have written 
a brief and elementary outline of Hebrew history with no great 
literary skill. This discovery was embodied in the critical scheme, 
and from that time the use of Elohim and Jehovah practically 
ceased to be distinctive of different authors. When Professor 
Driver acknowledged that “J H,” that is to say, the narrative of 
the Jehovist and one of the Elohists as combined by a subsequent 
editor, could not with certainty be divided into its component parts 
(Introduction, p. 109), the theory in question may be said to have 
been decently interred. Another point made by Mr. Tuckwell in 
the same page may be allowed to receive additional illustration. 
The criticism which assigns Genesis i to an unknown post-exilic 
author carries its own refutation with it. Mosaism is unquestion- 
ably, however it came into existence, one of the foremost religions 
of the world. And Genesis i is an embodiment in the forefront of 
the narrative of one of the most important of its tenets. In the 
east and west alike great philosophers and the founders of great 
religions placed man’s source of weakness in the material organiza- 
tion which formed a part of his composite personality. Plato, for 
instance, contended that man’s great duty was to separate himself 
as far as: possible from the body, which was the source of all his 
moral errors. Mosaism starts with the fundamental assumption 
that this theory was untrue. “God saw everything that He had 
made, and behold it was very good!” (Gen. i, 31). So that it 
was not to the fact that he was encumbered with a body that man’s 
transgression was due, but to another fact, namely, that being 
endowed from the first with freedom of the will, without which he 
would have been a mere machine, he deliberately chose to have 
R 2 


244 REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S., ON ARCHEOLOGY AND 


experience of evil as well as good (Gen. ii, 17; ii, 6). Matter was 
not, therefore, the source of contamination to the human race, but 
is eternally pure and unpolluted, as the handiwork of God. Man 
cannot shift on God the origin of the Fall, but to his own misuse of 
what God had given him. To suppose that this important doctrine 
was tacked on at the last moment to a religion which has subsisted 
for countless generations, by an unknown writer, in days of depres- 
sion and even despondency, can hardly be regarded as either 
philosophical or probable. 

Mr. MAUNDER said: I should like to join with Chancellor 
Lias in expressing the great pleasure with which I have listened to 
Mr. Tuckwell’s address. It has always seemed to me that if we but 
read the books of Moses through, as we have them at the present 
time, they bear upon their face the evident marks of unity of 
purpose. Take for instance the book of Genesis, and look at it as 
you would at any other piece of literature. It doesnot matter what 
sources were used in the composition of the book, but its writer 
from the beginning to the end works upon one clear, definite plan ; 
and that plan finds its completion in the closing chapters of 
Deuteronomy. There again in that book, if we simply read the 
book as it stands, as Professor Moulton has shown us in his Modern 
Reader’s Bible, we find that book an essential unity ; four noble 
orations, the one arising out of the other, lead up to the great 
Song of Moses ; and orations, more eloquent, more masterly, do not 
exist in any literature whatsoever. Looking at the question from 
the point of view of literature alone, the books of Moses are 
evidently the work of a single master mind. 

There is one trifling matter on which I differ from Mr. Tuckwell. 
I do not think that the well-known Babylonian seal to which he 
refers, “irresistibly points to the conclusion that the engraver was 
familiar with some such story as that in Genesis i.” It is possible 
that the engraver was trying to show some such incident, but the 
evidence is very slight. In all the many references to the seal which 
I have come across, not one points out that the seal was engraved on 
a cylinder, which necessarily has in itself no beginning nor end. 
The serpent on the cylinder is not more behind the one figure than 
the other. I have made a very rough little representation of the 
cylinder, which I will hand round, and it is sufficient to show that 
we might begin the seal on either side of the supposed snake. It is 


MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. 245 


not quite clear to me indeed that the snake is a snake, or anything 
more than a dividing line to show how the cylinder was to be 
placed when an impression was to be taken. Nor is it certain that 
either of the two figures is intended to be a woman. Moreover, 
they are both clothed, an important difference from the narrative in 
Genesis, and neither has taken the fruit from the tree, nor is giving 
it to the other; both are in exactly the same attitude. I therefore 
think it very: doubtful whether we have the right to assume 
that there is any reference to the story of the Fall. 

Mr. JOHN SCHWARTZ, Jun., described the paper as ‘able special 
pleading,” and said the real conclusions of archeology were against 
the Lecturer, that evolution of morality and the spiritual was proved 
all along the lines, that the degradation theory of savages was 
exploded, and that the Jews, like others, had developed in the same 
way as other early peoples, and that the prophets alone could be said 
to be inspired. 

After a few remarks from Professor LANGHORNE ORCHARD— 

Rev. W. R. WHATELY said: There are two points raised by a 
previous speaker on which I should like to say a few words. He 
referred to the degeneration of savages as an exploded theory. I 
should rather describe it as (in some instances) a demonstrated fact. 
I believe that the Australian aborigines speak a language which must 
have been developed by ancestors in a higher state of civilization 
than the present race. 

Secondly he spoke of the evolution of an ethical monotheistic 
religion in Israel as an instance of the general law of religions. The 
“‘oeneral law!” Where is there another instance, apart from the 
Bible, of an ethical monotheistic religion? There is absolutely none. 
So far from being an instance of a general law, the appearance of 
such a religion in Israel is absolutely unique.. Nor does the suppo- 
sition of a gradual evolution from lower forms of religion render 
it any less unique. 

Rev. JOHN TUCKWELL in reply said: Mr. Chairman and ladies 
and gentlemen, I beg to thank you very cordially for the appreciation 
with which you have received my paper. The little criticism it has 
received will not need any lengthy reply. With regard to our 
Chairman’s remarks, the use of the word “ modern ” in the title shows 
the limitation of the professed scholarship with which it deals. The 
existence of other Biblical scholarships I have clearly recognized on 


246 ARCH EZOLOGY AND MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. 


p. 221. And with regard to the New Testament branch of the 
subject that will be dealt with in the forthcoming Gunning prize 
essay. 

To the Rev. Chancellor Lias my thanks are due for a very 
suggestive and helpful supplement to the contents of my paper. 

As to Mr. Maunder’s remarks concerning the Babylonian seal, if 
the supposed serpent be only a dividing line then that disposes of 
his suggestion that because it is in the form of a cylinder the en- 
graver intended his design to be “ without beginning or end.” 
Moreover, viewed in this position the two figures are back to back— 
a relationship which was certainly not an integral part of the design. 
It is quite true that the Babylonians of the same period made profuse 
use of dividing lines in their inscriptions, separating sentences and 
even words by them, but they invariably ruled them straight. I do 
not remember ever to have seena wavy dividing line like this one. I 
do not know whether Mr. Maunder can give us another instance. 
Moreover, the formation at one end of the line differs from that at 
the other and might quite easily have been meant to represent the 
head of the serpent. Then as to the difference of sex in the two 
figures that is indicated by the head-dresses. One is adorned with 
horns, the emblems of authority, which may be taken to represent the 
authority given by the Genesis narrative to man over woman at 
“The Fall.” The other figure has no doubt what was intended to 
be a female’s head-dress. The deviation in other particulars from 
the Genesis narrative is quite in accordance with the analogy of the 
Creation and Deluge stories as Professor Orchard has pointed out. I 
am afraid, therefore, I must still retain my own opinion on this 
subject. 

Mr. Schwartz’s somewhat digressive criticism was sufficiently 
and very aptly answered by Rev. W. R. Whately, so that I need not 
occupy your time by any further remarks on the matters referred to 
by him. 

In reply to Mr. Oke’s enquiry I may say that by the kind 
permission of the Council I hope to have this paper published in 
pamphlet form. Again let me thank you, ladies and gentlemen, 
for the patient and sympathetic hearing you have given me. 


53lst ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 


MONDAY, APRIL 15rn, 1912, at 4.30 p.m. 


PROFESSOR EDWARD HULL, LL.D., F.R.S., VICE-PRESIDENT, 
TOOK THE CHAIR. 


The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed, and 
the following elections were announced :— 


Associates: The Rev. D. A. Stewart, M.A.; G. W. Maunder, Esq. 


The CHAIRMAN : I have the pleasure to introduce to the Members 
of the Institute the Rev. Professor Henslow, who through a long 
and useful life has been investigating the structure and origin of 
plants and animals, and will expound to you his views on one of the 
most mysterious of physical problems, the development of species as 
far as human investigation is capable of carrying us under the term 
of “ Directivity,” which for good reasons he prefers to that of 
Darwin under the term of “ Natural Selection.” If the problem 
is incapable of solution at the lecturer’s hands, it is only because it 
baffles the ken of human investigation. 


ADAPTATIONS IN PLANTS AND ANIMALS TO 
THEIR CONDITIONS OF LIFE ARE THE RESULT 
OF THE DIRECTIVITY OF LIFE. By the Rev. 
Professor G. HEnstow, M.A., F.L.S., ete. 


N studying nature one must clearly understand what we 
mean by Natural Science, and what are the methods of 
proof at our command to establish any theory or interpretation 
of nature’s methods of procedure. Apart from Psychology, 
natural science embraces: (1) the accumulation and classifica- 
tion of facts appreciable by the senses; (2) the investigation 


248 REV. PROF. G. HENSLOW, M.A., F.L.S., 


into their correlations and causes ; (5) the generalizations from 
them and the consequent discovery of natural laws; (4) the 
search for proofs of all inferences, deductions, hypotheses, etc. 
These must be based, first on /nduction, 2.e., the accumulation 
of coincidences, all conspiring individually and collectively to 
establish the same probability as a fact. Secondly, whenever 
possible, induction must be corroborated by Experimental 
Verification. 

The objects of natural science also include an investigation 
into all the phenomena of physical forces. But the nature of 
them, as well as the wltimate origin or Final Cause of both 
Matter and Force are unknowable to science. 

Scientists are perfectly satisfied with inductions, or the 
accumulations of probabilities, in all the physical sciences, and it 
is my object to show that we depend largely and legitimately 
upon them in Biology. Thus the conviction of the truth of the 
doctrine of Evolution of all living beings, including man, is based 
both on induction and experiment. By means of these it has 
been incontestably and permanently established. I assume 
that everyone here present is a believer in Evolution, though, 
hke myself, he may not accept Darwinism, 7.¢c., Darwin’s theory 
of the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, the title 
of his well-known work, to account for evolution. 

Without transgressing the bounds within which a student of 
nature has wisely confined himself, namely, all that can appeal 
to his senses as far as observation and experiment can carry 
him, as well as just and logical inferences from them—my 
object, I say, is to show that the nearest approach to a Final 
Cause possible to the scientist is that we must look to Life 
alone as being endowed with the capacity of directing the lifeless 
physical forces of nature, so that they act upon the also lifeless 
matter, in order to compel them to form what we are justified 
in calling purposeful structures, i.e., each of them is of some 
definite use to the plant or animal. 

Botany and Zoology have acquired a new name, that of 
“ Ecology.” In former days the structure of plants and animals 
was only studied for the sake of their classification. Anatomy 
and Physiology were matters of independent laboratory work. 
Ecology brings every kind of study to bear upon the organism 
as it lives wild in nature. The word means “ Study ” at “Home,” 
z.¢., the natural surroundings of the organism ; just as “ Economy ” 
means the “ Ordering of the House.” 

This new method of pursuit in Biology leads to the recognition 
of “ Associations,” all the species of which live under the same 


ON THE DIRECTIVITY OF LIFE. P49 


conditions, in the case of plants, such as dry, moist, water, 
alpine, arctic, &c., and the first observation is that plants of no 
relationship whatever, but living under similar conditions, are all 
equally adapted to them; and that even in different continents 
they often assume the same forms with regard to their vegetative 
organs, 2.¢., the roots, stems, and leaves; but are distinguished 
by their flowers and fruits, which record their right positions of 
classification. 

This leads to the question :—Why are they alike ? 

The inference of a very wide induction is that the Cause lies 
in the Direct Action of the external conditions of life to which 
the plant responds, and the result is Adaptations to those 
conditions. Such are the consequences of the Dvrectivity of 
Ivfe. Lastly, I repeat, experiments verify this induction. 

The conclusion is that Ecology proves that Evolution is the 
result of spontaneous adaptability to changed conditions of life. 
In other words Self-Adaptation is the Origin of Species. 

The word “ Directivity ” is new, and does not occur in any 
dictionary. 

We are indebted to Sir A. H. Church, F.R.S., the eminent 
chemist, for the use of it. He invented it for he felt a want 
when lecturing on the making of organic products in the 
laboratory. “I coined it,’ he writes me, “to avoid the use of 
. force, energy, etc., when describing the parallelism between the 
chemist directing in his laboratory practice chemical forces in 
making true organic compounds, and that mysterious something 
which employs the same forces to make the same compounds in 
the plant or animal.” 

That mysterious “something,” as far as human observation 
can carry us, is Zzfe, and Life’s Directivity apphes to every part 
of an organism, from the original cell to, the structure of every 
tissue and every organ. 

When we remember that the universe contains nothing but 
matter and force, that the former consists of about eighty 
so-called elements, that none of these per se is alive or has any 
spontaneous power to move ; for there must be some extraneous 
force to cause their motion, 1f matter be moving in any direction ; 
and again that no force can direct viself or act upon matter im a 
determined, purposeful manner ; then it becomes obvious that 
life cannot arise out of non-living forces or non-living matter. 
It is not that protoplasm creates life, but the reverse; no new 
protoplasm (“The physical basis of Life,” as Huxley called it) 
is ever made except through living protoplasm, or rather by 
the life init; since protoplasm consists of some half dozen 
inert elements chemically combined in certain proportions. 


250 REV. PROF. G. HENSLOW, M.A., F.L.S., 


Sir A. H. Church only appled his term to the manufacture 
of some definite organic products, as indigo, madder, some 
sugars, etc., but it-covers really the whole field of the entire 
structure of animals and plants, and when these change under 
changed conditions of life, it lies at the root of Evolution itself. 
Every cell implies a “purpose,” which the elements C,H,O, 
combined to form “cellulose” could never per se accomplish, 
and when the organs of an animal or plant change, to become 
adapted to new uses under new conditions, nothing but 
directivity could effect the alteration. Thus paws of some 
terrestrial quadrupeds became paddles in whales, seals, and 
other marine mammalia; non-sensitive leaves and normally 
flowering branches have become tendrils sensitive to the 
slightest touch to enable them to be used as climbing 
organs. 

Nothing of the sort or any adaptations exist in the mineral 
kingdom, though certain kinds of constant directivities prevail ; 
thus, not only gravity but the planets’ motions are expressible 
by mathematical formule. The forms of crystals are constant 
so far as the angles between their facets are concerned. 
Chemical combinations of elements are made according to fixed 
Jaws and in all cases matter moves under strictly directed forces ; 
but they never change. 

Now let us turn to the organic world. Animals and plants 
srow by means of food. This is a mixture of matter and force 
or energy. In the case of animals, it reaches nature’s internal 
laboratory, where, just as a chemist mixes various substances in 
his laboratory, ferments, bile, acids, alkalies, ete., are severally 
suppled by secreting organs as required. The result is blood. 
Leaving the chemical department, this is now ready for distribu- 
tion by means of the action of the engine or heart, which transmits 
it to every, the minutest part of the body; for if one pricks 
any spot with the finest needle, blood is sure to come out. We 
might compare the circulation of the blood to a train leaving 
a terminus, laden with all sorts of parcels directed to various 
stations along the line, which the train deposits on arriving at 
them respectively. Just so is it with the blood, for lime js 
deposited in larger quantity where bones are forming, as well 
as to the teeth. Silica or flint is conveyed to the teeth, nails 
and hair. The scarce mineral fluor—which is the material made 
into vases and ornaments of purple, yellow, and other colours 
in Derbyshire, known as “ Blue John” or Fluorspar—is found 
located in the enamel of the teeth. Salt reaches the tears but 
does not stop at the mouth. Phosphorus is an important 


ON THE DIRECTIVITY OF LIFE. 251 


ingredient in the brain; and iron gives the red colour to the 
blood, etc. Beside all this, the blood never stops to deposit its 
ingredients ; asa train does its parcels. In addition it picks up 
Oxygen at the station called the Lungs for all the body to 
respire, by oxidising it, supplying warmth and energ oy for all the 
work to be done. 

Lastly, as a train takes back “returned empties,” so the blood 
brings to the lungs and discharges the waste product of Carbonic 
acid gas into the air. 

Similar procedures take place in plants, though in a simpler 
way. A plant is built up of cells, and the cell- walls are composed 
of a substance containing only the three elements C,H,O, called 
“Cellulose.” How could this inert vegetable matter be shaped 
into cells having ali sorts of sizes and forms by “ blind forces ” 
without some directivity to guide them? A lump of clay might 
just as easily form itself into a brick, as Carbon, Hydrogen and 
Oxygen construct a cell. The cell-wall is not living, it is the life 
in the protoplasm within the cell which makes the former secrete 
the cellulose and so construct the cell. 

Some writers would place the “directivity” in the matter of 
the protoplasm and consequently call it “purposive matter” ; 
but the elements composing it are U,O,H,N,S,P, etc., but not 
one of these has, nor any, nor all in combination, any power 
per se to do anything. It is solely the /zfe in the protoplasm 
which is the possessor of directivity. 

But where or what is it that may be called the “centre of 
life.” It is the nucleus within the protoplasm, whether this be 
bounded by a cellulose covering, or not, as in animals. The 
nucleus is one of the most extraordinary things in the world. 
Omitting many details, it looks like a chain lying loosely, but 
not neatly coiled, within a spherical membrane, outside of which 
is the protoplasm of the cell. Its first duty is to make two 
cells out of one. The chain divides into a definite number ot 
pieces of the same lengths which take the form of a U. Now 
appear fine lines like a spindle, the ends forming two “poles,” 
the broader part is on the “equator.” Each U splits in two, 
forming two U’s. These arrange themselves round the equator 
and are attached by their ends to the “meridians.” Half of 
them glide along these lines till they reach one pole, the other 
half similarly reach the other pole. There they appear to 
exude some substance which unites the U’s, end to end, so that 
a new chain is formed, now called the daughter nucleus. Now 
begins the formation of the new cell-wall right through the 
equator up to the old cell-wall; and thus two cells are formed. 


252 REV. PROF. G. HENSLOW, M.A., F.L.S., 
These increase in size, till they are able to be divided in the 
same way. Thus a “tissue” of similar cells is made. It seems 
that the fine meridial lines of protoplasm remain and pass 
through the new cell-wall; so that a// the cells have what is 
called a “protoplasm continuity,’ perhaps forming a sort of 
elementary nervous system. | 

How could all the preceding, and much detail is left out, be 
done without directivity ? At first the new cells are all alike; 
but they soon have to acquire a variety of forms according ‘to 
the plant’s requirements. Under life’s directivity some will 
elongate into spindles to make wood with thick and hard walls 
to support the stem, others will elongate much more, and 
instead of hardening the walls they become thick but remain 
fiexible and so form the fibre of flax and tow. Other cells 
assume a drum shape, one over the other in along line. Their 
partitions are absorbed and a long tube or “ vessel” is thus 
made ior the rapid and easy conveyance of water. To 
strengthen these the vertical wall of the cylinder is thickened 
in various ways; such as by a spiral band, just as a garden hose 
may have a coil of strong wire round it. 

On the exterior surface of a leaf the cells are flat, for the 
purpose of making a skin, and if the plant grow in a very dry, 
hot district, as a desert, the outer surface is made very thick by 
forming a coat of substance somewhat akin to indiarubber. 
This prevents the loss of water. On the other hand, if the 
plant grow submerged, the skin is not wanted nor is any strong 
supportive tissue ; so these are not formed. ~ 

Everywhere are to be seen innumerable, purposeful arrange- 
ments and the necessary structures to meet the necessities of 
plant life under all conditions wherever plants can grow. 
Without this capacity to make these adaptations, vegetable 
and animal life would either be extremely limited or cease to 
eX1st. 

This capacity is shown by the Response to the Conditions of Life; 
so that when seeds get dispersed and find themselves in some 
different kind of surroundings, and germinate, the plantlets at 
once begin to assume new features under the “direct action of 
the changed condition of life,” as Darwin expresses it, and so 
develop “acquired characters” in adaptation to their new 
surroundings. Thus, an inland plant may acquire the fleshiness 
of a maritime plant when growing near the sea in consequence 
of the influence of the salt. Or a sea-side plant may become 
quite thin-leaved if grown inland. The changes may be enough 
to satisfy a systematic botanist that the plant can be called 


ON THE DIRECTIVITY OF LIFE. 253 


anew species. When Arvabis anchoretica was grown at Kew, 
the seeds having been gathered from plants growing in crevices 
in high alpine rocks, and cultivated in the Kew Gardens, they 
became A. alpina. 

There is, of course, nothing new in calling attention to 
purposeful structures; for such has been the theme oi all 
natural theologians, whether it be Paley or Darwin. But the 
question is how have they come about? Paley drew an analogy 
between man’s designing and God’s designing, as in the well- 
‘known argument about the watch. 

As long as comparatively few animals and plants, whether 
living or extinct, were known, they seemed to be very distinct ; 
so that even Sedgwick argued against Evolution because in his 
day the several strata seemed to reveal distinct series of fossils. 
This led him to believe in a succession of separate creative 
acts. 

The progress of research has revealed many groups of 
transitional forms, both in fossil animals and plants, often with 
almost insensible gradations, especially among living species. 
Thus Mr. G. Bentham tells us that in preparing the Genera 
Plantarum he could find no well-marked differences between 
any of the ninety genera of Asteroidee,a tribe of the Composite ; 
and every genus has one or more species. It is on such 
induction as this that Evolution is strongly supported, while 
Darwin argued upon the data supplied by Domesticated Plants 
and Animals. 

Besides his theory of natural selection, upon which 
Darwin laid most stress, as the chief means by which Evolution 
or the Origin of Species was supposed to have been 
worked out in nature, he gave us an alternative solution, 
barely hinted at in the first edition, but much more strongly 
emphasized in the sixth and last. He said that the “ direct 
action of the changed conditions of life” leads to “ definite” 
or “indefinite” results, and adds “by the term ‘ definite’ 
action I mean an action of such a nature that when many 
individuals of the same variety are exposed during several 
generations to any change in their physical conditions of life, 
all, or nearly all, the individuals are modified in the same 
manner. A new sub-variety would thus be produced without 
the aid of selection.” 

This change of view with regard to the source of Evolution 
was first introduced into his Variation of Animals and Plants 
under Domestication, II, pp. 271 ff, and subsequently into the 
sixth edition of the Origin, etc. As an example we read in the 


254 REV. PROF. G. HENSLOW, M.A., F.L.S., 


first edition (p. 102): “ Within a confined area, with some place 
in its polity not so perfectly occupied as might be, natural 
selection will always tend to preserve all the individuals 
varying in the right direction.” In the sixth edition (p. 80) 
this passage runs as follows after the word “polity”: “All the 
individuals varying in the right direction, though in different 
degrees, will tend to be preserved.” 

In his letter to Professor Moritz Wagner he wrote (1876): 
“Jn my opinion the greatest error which I have committed has 
been not allowing sufficient weight to the direct action of the 
environment, «e., food, climate, etc., independently of Natural 
Selection. . . . When I wrote the Origin and for some 
years afterwards, I could find little good evidence of the direct 
action of the environment; now there is a large body of 
evidence.”* 

There would seem to be no doubt that it was in consequence 
of his ecological investigations into the wses involving adap- 
tations of structures for special purposes, eg., of climbing, insect 
fertilisation, etc., that led him to this important change of 
view. 

Darwin alludes to “ all the individuals (say of plant seedlings) 
varying alike.” Such is always the case and none have the 
requisite “injurious characters”+ for natural selection to 
eliminate. What, then, supples its supposed use in destroying 
the vast majority of offspring? It is what Darwin called 
“fortuitous destruction.” Of a million or more eggs of an 
oyster, Sir E. Ray Lankester tells us that perhaps one only is 
“lucky enough” to fall on a suitable spot whereon to grow into 
an oyster; all the rest are eaten by fishes, etc., or fall on un- 
suitable ground. It is obvious, therefore, that there can be 
no “fittest to survive.’ And if the above be true of one oyster, 
we are led to infer that it is true of al. 

Yet there are varieties among oysters, ¢.g., in the Baltic with 
less salt in the water the shell assumes a different form. There 
are also small and large varieties; presumably, therefore, they 
were the “definite results” of the direct action of different 
environments, including different kinds of food. 

This alternative explanation of Darwin’s has been amply 
established as the true one.t The theory of “ Natural 


* Infe and Letters, 111, p. 159. | 

+ Origin, ete., sixth edition, p. 64. “ Injurious” means “ inadaptive.” 

t I called it the TrRuz Darwinism, see The Nineteenth Century, Nov., 
1906, p. 795. ? 


ON THE DIRECTIVITY OF LIFE. 205 


d 2 


Selection” and “Self-adaptation” are mutually exclusive. In 
fact the former has really no facts whereon to base it, only 
assumptions. 

In conclusion, how do we now stand with regard to Evolution 
by the Directivity of Life ? 


1. Far more offspring are born than can possibly live. 
The majority perish by fortuitous destruction. 

2. As long as there is no change in the environment, the 
species remains unchanged; the slight individual 
differences occurring in all organisms are of no 
account, as a rule, in species-making. 

3. By emigration or transference to a different environ- 
ment, a// the offspring of the same kind, if any change 
is necessary, change accordingly; the adaptations 
appearing during growth to the adult stage. 

4, If such changed organisms live for a sufficient number 
of generations under the same conditions in which 
their variations were evolved; then, if they be 
restored to the old environment or to some other new 
one, the variations may be hereditary and mostly are 
permanent ; and Evolution will be thoroughly estab- 
lished, without the aid of Natural Selection. 


DISCUSSION. 


The Rev. A. Irvine, D.Sc., B.A., proposed a hearty vote of thanks 
to Professor Henslow for what might perhaps be considered, from 
the scientific side, the most important paper read before the 
Institute during this session. He thought it would be found to 
answer the criticisms of those who had attacked his views as to 
(a) the truth of Evolution as a theory (within its proper limits) ; 
(b) the necessity of recognising directivity as a factor of Evolution 
itself. The speaker quoted the words of Professor Henslow’s paper 
(p. 248) :— 

“T assume that every one present is a believer in Evolution, 
though, like myself, he may not accept Darwinism, 2.¢., Darwin’s 
theory of the Origin of Species by Natural Selection, to account for 
Evolution.” 

The author of the paper had confined himself to the strictly 
scientific side of the question, and had thus placed the whole matter 


256 REV. PROF. G. HENSLOW, M.A., F.L.S., 


in a masterly way before those who (with some knowledge of 
paleontology) were capable of following his arguments. He 
understood the Professor to use the term “man” (on p. 248) as 
connoting only his physical organism, the mere homo, as the crown 
and summit of the fauna of this planet, while, at the same time, 
recognizing that the term man (in the sense of Scripture and 
Philosophy) connoted a vast deal more, as he had himself contended 
in his published writings for years past. 

Thought on this matter had moved on so far since Darwin’s Origin 
of Species by Natural Selection appeared, that the speaker found 
himself in entire agreement with Professor Henslow in his state- 
ment (p. 255) that the theory of ‘“ Natural Selection ” and that of 
“ Self-adaptation ” were mutually exclusive, and that to the theory of 
self-adaptation ‘ Directivity” is absolutely essential. He further 
pointed out that Sir E. Ray Lankester’s illustration from the 
multiplicity of the eggs of the oyster (p. 254) had its parallel in 
the plant-world in the tremendous waste of pollen of the conifers, 
which was a matter of common observation to those who lived in 
the heart of the pinewood country, giving rise to the phenomenon 
known by the natives as ‘“‘sulphur-rain.” In connexion with the 
remarks (on p. 249) on protoplasm as ‘‘the physical basis of life,” 
the speaker reminded the meeting of Professor Burden Sanderson’s 
remark in his Presidential Address to the British Association 
(Nottingham Meeting, 1893) that ‘in another sense life may 
be said to be the basis of protoplasm,” a thesis which still holds 
the field. 

Mr. ARTHUR W. SuTTON said: I fully appreciate the responsibility 
of responding to the Chairman’s request that I should say a few 
words in reference to this most interesting paper we have just 
listened to. 

Forty years ago I had the privilege, with my friend Mr. Martin 
L. Rouse, who is present to-day, of sitting under Professor Henslow 
when he was Professor of Botany and Geology at the Royal 
Agricultural College, Cirencester. Since that time the Professor, 
who was then master of these subjects, has been continually 
accumulating knowledge in the pursuit of Natural Science ; my time 
has been spent in the study of plants themselves and their surround- 
ings, under ordinary conditions of culture. 

May I mention that it was extremely difficult in the five minutes 


ON THE DIRECTIVITY OF LIFE. 257 


allowed me to offer any adequate remarks in reference to a paper 
which has taken more than an hour to read, and is so exhaustive in 
its details. J am extremely grateful to our Secretary for allowing 
me to revise and supplement what I said at the meeting. 

Evolution. At the outset I much regret that Professor Henslow 
has used the term ‘“ Evolution ” as descriptive of, or to denote, such 
modifications of plants or adaptations in plants as may be due to the 
change of environment. 
~ I doubt very much whether any two persons in this meeting 
understand precisely the same thing by the term ‘“ Evolution,” but 
I am quite certain that nine out of ten of those present, if not more, 
understand that by the word “ Evolution” is meant some progress 
or development from a lower or more rudimentary organism to 
another which is higher and more complex. I have not the slightest 
hesitation in affirming that in no single instance among the many 
examples to which the Professor has called our attention by the 
drawings and specimens submitted to us, is there the slightest 
evidence that the changes he claims to be due to changed environ- 
ment have resulted in any advance from a lower to a higher 
organism or from a relatively simple to a more complex one. If 
this is so, the term ‘‘ Evolution,” as almost universally understood, 
is incorrectly applied to such changes as the Professor considers 
have been produced by change of environment. 

The word “modification,” or even “mutation,” although the 
latter has acquired another and distinctive meaning, would be 
more suitable and more correct. 

Page 248, paragraph 1. I question whether the accumulation of 
coincidences is sufficient to establish any probability as a fact, 
because further “inferences, deductions, and hypotheses” may 
entirely alter our attitude towards these coincidences. 

Page 248, paragraph 2. Professor Henslow says that “the 
ultimate origin or Final Cause of both Matter and Physical Force are 
unknowable to Science.” I much prefer to take the view of 
A. Russel Wallace, the earlier but joint author of Darwin’s theory 
of ‘“ Natural Selection,” who most definitely asserts that Science 
demands the recognition, and therefore the knowledge, of an 
Intelligent Being as the Final—or rather the First—Cause of the 
phenomena of Physical Force. Without an initial act of creation 
followed also by subsequent creative acts, Wallace is unable to see 

S 


258 REV. PROF. G. HENSLOW, M.A., F.L.S., 


how any process of Evolution could overcome the otherwise 
insuperable barriers which would oppose themselves to the upward 
course of Evolution. 

Page 248, line 18. No experiments exist which in the slightest 
degree prove the “ Evolution” of Man or other living beings, and 
the “coincidences ” upon which the induction rests relating to such 
“ Evolution ” of Human Beings or animals, or even of plants, give 
no warrant for assuming that such evolution is established “asa 
fact.” Consequently, I do not admit that either have been 
‘“incontestably and permanently established”; and ‘ Evolution” 
remains, as it has always been, an hypothesis and nothing more. 

Page 248, paragraph 4. To start with the assumption that Life has 
been endowed with the capacity of directing the physical forces of 
nature is unsatisfying to our intelligence; this involves the further 
assumption that as there are infinite varieties of life, each one has 
been endowed with the capacity of directing the lifeless forces of 
nature so as to build up the structures of that infinite variety of 
plant and animal life which we observe around us. It is manifest 
that Life, unless itself directed, could never, through the ages which 
have passed, succeed in forming the varied structures of the 
countless forms of plant life, tree life, bird life, animal life, or 
marine life. 

Page 249, paragraph 3. Professor Henslow says that “the 
inference of a very wide deduction is that the Cause lies in the direct 
action of the external conditions of life to which the plant responds.” 
I would submit that if the Cause of Adaptation or Modification lies 
in the external conditions of life, 2.¢., Environment, it does not lie 
or consist in life itself; and if this is so, this paragraph entirely 
contradicts the second paragraph on this page, where we are told 
‘“we must look to Life alone as being endowed with the capacity of 
directing the lifeless forces of nature.” 

Page 249, line 15. I maintain that for the word “Evolution” 
should be substituted “* Variation or Modification of Form.” 

Page 249, line 17. I must deny that Seli-adaptation is the “ Origin 
of Species,” for there is no evidence that any one of the many instances 
mentioned or of the specimens submitted, where specific difference 
is apparent, is the result of changed environment ; for though it is 
so evident that plants, im some or many respects similar, have 
different characteristics when found growing under different con- 


ON THE DIRECTIVITY OF LIFE. 259 


ditions and environments, there is no evidence whatever that they 
had a common origin, or that one form proceeded from the other, 
nor do we know which of the two may have been the earlier form. 
Consequently, to state that Self-adaptation is the “Origin of Species ” 
is not founded upon any sufficient evidence, even though Self- 
adaptation may produce some more or less apparent modification. 

Page 249, paragraph 7. The term “ Directivity ” is in every way 
a valuable one if we attribute the Directivity, not to some inherent 
quality of Life, but to the First Supreme Cause and Author— 
namely, God Himself. 

Page 249, paragraph 8. Professor Henslow, after claiming Direc- 
tivity as an attribute of Life, states that “no force can direct itself 
or act upon matter in a determined purposeful manner,” and as 
Life endowed with Directivity would be a “ Force,” the Professor 
hereby denies to Life the very attribute which he claims for it, 
namely, “ Directivity.” 

Page 250, first paragraph. I know of no evidence to prove that 
“in some quadrupeds paws become paddles, as in whales, seals, and 
other marine mammalia,” and certainly no experiments have proved 
this. It is purely a hypothesis and nothing more. 

Page 251, paragraph 4. After the observations already made I 
would only say that the life in the protoplasm is not the possessor 
of Directivity, but the subject of Directivity by God Himself, just in 
the same way as chemical forces are directed by the chemist in his 
laboratory. 

Page 251, line 17. Is the Professor correct in saying that the cell 
wall is not living? Has it not as much life as the protoplasm 
within the cell when it is enabled to secrete cellulose ? 

Page 252, paragraph 5. The professor says that “when seeds get 
dispersed and find themselves in some different kind of surroundings 
the plantlets at once begin to assume new features.” Anyone 
present would conclude from these words that it is the invariable 
result when seeds are dispersed and sown under varying conditions 
that the plantlets begin to assume new features. With all respect 
to Professor Henslow, I would absolutely deny that this is so. 
Although some slight modifications may occasionally be seen under 
changed environments, yet these acquired characteristics cannot by 
experiment be proved to be “permanent,” 7.¢., capable of being 
transmitted, or if so, then only in such a very limited degree as 

s 2 


260 REV. PROF. G. HENSLOW, M.A., F.L.S., 


entirely to disprove the statement that ‘“‘ Response to the conditions 
of Life” is, or ever has been, a sufficient cause for the origin of the 
innumerable species in Nature. 

Page 253, paragraph 4. Professor Henslow says that “it is on 
such induction as this” (that the ninety genera of Asteroidez show 
no well-marked differences) ‘“‘ that Evolution is strongly supported.” 
I would submit that the mere fact that many forms or species 
closely approximate to one another is no evidence whatever of 
Evolution, unless we can, by experiment, observe these forms or 
species passing one into the other and always with an advance from a 
lower to a higher organism. 

Page 254, paragraph 5. Professor Henslow is here arguing that 
Adaptation to environment, or Modification resulting therefrom—in 
other words, Self-adaptation—is “true Darwinism,” and sufficiently 
accounts for the origin of species. As I have already indicated, I 
believe there is no evidence of any existing species or sufficiently 
well-defined and “ permanent” variation being thus produced. Even 
if “ Self-adaptation” could be proved in some isolated instances to 
have caused the appearance of new forms or distinct species, it 
could not possibly account for the origin of such diverse forms as 
the oak tree, the beech tree, the apple or pear tree, the palm tree, 
or the tamarisk. For what evidence, or even reasonable inference 
or deduction, is there to indicate that any amount of changed 
environment, or ‘‘finding themselves in some different kind of 
surroundings,” could have produced any one of these from the 
other? If the Professor wishes us to believe that it is the power 
of Directivity, which he assumes that the life in the protoplasm 
possesses (see p. 251, line 25), which has, without any outside 
direction, produced such extremely diverse forms of tree life, and in 
an equal manner innumerable forms of plant, animal and marine 
life, I can only say that to my mind this is pure assumption based 
on totally insufficient ‘“ coincidences,” and unsupported by any 
possible experiments. 

Page 255, conclusion 4. Science does not admit that the 
characters acquired in response to changed environment “are mostly 
permanent.” This can only be maintained by the assumption that 
plants now found growing under widely different conditions in 
various parts of the world, and which are distinct, though in some 
respects resembling each other, had a common origin, and that their 


ON THE DIRECTIVITY OF LIFE. 261 


differences are due to having been “dispersed, and having found 
themselves in some different kind of surroundings” (p. 252, para- 
graph 5). Even when the points in which they differ are greater 
than those in which they resemble each other, we are asked to believe 
these are due to the “response to the conditions of life,” which is 
really begging the question, for there is no evidence in the vast 
majority of cases of any common origin, or that they had ever been 
“dispersed ” to different surroundings. 
- In 1909 the Cambridge Philosophical Society published a series 
of essays in commemoration of the centenary of Charles Darwin’s 
birth, and of the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of The 
Origin of Species. One of these essays is by Georg Klebs, Ph.D., 
Professor of Botany in the University of Heidelberg, and is entitled 
“Influence of Environment on Plants.” Speaking of modifications 
induced’ by experiments under changes of environment he says :— 
‘“‘So far as the experiments justify a conclusion, it would appear 
that such alterations are not inherited by the offspring. Like all 
other variations, they appear only so long as special conditions 
prevail in the surroundings.” 
Again :— 
“Two methods of experimental research may be adopted, the 
effect of crossing distinct species, and secondly the effect of definite 


factors of the environments. . . . The” (second) ‘‘ method of 
producing constant races by the influence of special external con- 
ditions has often been employed. . . . But as regards the main 


question, whether constant races may be obtained by this means, the 
experiments cannot yet supply a definite answer.” 


And again :— 
“During long cultivation, under conditions which vary in very 
different degrees . . . it is possible that sudden and special 


disturbance in the relations of the cell substances have a directive 
influence on the inner organizations of the sexual cells, so that not 
only inconstant, but also constant, varieties will be formed. Definite 
proof in support of this view has not yet been furnished, and we must 
admit that the question as to the cause of heredity ” (7.¢., heredity 
which results in variation) “‘remains fundamentally as far from solution 
as it was in Darwin’s time.” Professor W. Bateson, F.R.S., also in the 
same volume deals with “ Heredity and Variation in Modern Lights,” 
and says as follows :—‘“ As Samuel Butler so truly said, ‘To me it 


° 


262 REV. PROF. G. HENSLOW, M.A., F.L.S., 


seems that the “ Origin of Variations,” whatever itis, is the only true 
“Origin of Species” and of that not one of us knows anything.’” 
“We must, as de Vries has shown, distinguish real, genetic varia- 
tion from fluctuational variations, due to environmental and other 
accidents, which cannot be transmitted.” 

The only conclusion we can come to, after the most liberal 
allowance has been made for such slight modifications as may be 
traced to change of environment, is that “‘Science ” cannot offer us 
any satisfying explanation as to the manner in which, or the means 
by which, the innumerable types of animal and plant life came into 
existence or attained their present forms. On the other hand, the 
more we study these forms of life, the more satisfying we shall find 
—if only we are willing—those incomparable and infinitely com- 
prehensive words in Genesis :— 

““ [et the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed after his 
kind and the fruit tree yielding fruit after hiskind . . . .” “Let 
the waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life ‘ En 
“ Let the earth bring forth the living creature after hiskind . . . .” 
“ Let us make man in our image, ajiar our likeness. “ 

Mr, Martin L. Rouse, M.R.A.S., said: Proidies Henalow’s 
lecture recalls the pleasant days in which Mr. Arthur Sutton and I 
were his students at Cirencester. His lectures then always exceeded 
anticipation by their fascinating interest; and to-day, after forty 
years, listening again to his discourse, I see the interest of its printed 
form more than doubled by his admirable illustrations. All the more 
do I regret that I cannot fall in with his final conclusions. Adapta- 
tions due to environment he has proved, and the breaking down of 
partitions between what were supposed to be different species in a 
few cases, but nothing approaching to the doctrine of evolution. 
That Ranunculus aquaticus, when he sowed it in dry earth, had all its 
leaves alike is a very remarkable fact, and more striking still is it 
that when it still grew in water another scientist was able to turn 
its lower brush-like leaves into well-bladed ones by chemical feeding, 
which overcame the dilution of the protoplasm by water. But no 
one ever saw the petals of this species change from white to yellow, 
like those of our land ranunculi or buttercups [though we have seen 
many a pond dry up with water ranunculi in its bed, and the 
seeds self sown near the edge must often remain without a water- 
covering, when the winter’s rainfall is below the average]. Again I 


ON THE DIRECTIVITY OF LIFE. 263 


was taught at Cirencester that, although common land buttercups 
love wet meadows, you may get rid of them completely by laying a 
whole meadow under water for a month or so—the time for which 
water meadows are flooded twice a year—yet in all our floodings, 
artificial and natural, no one ever knew a land buttercup turn into a 
water one. 

That the splitting up of a leaf through peculiar environment does 
not readily tend to become a permanent character is evidenced by 
the case of the horse radish, for in the centre of a clump of horse- 
radishes you will sometimes find a good number of leaves resembling 
the frond of a simple fern with a separate segment to each principal 
vein. Yet, whoever saw a species of horse radish that had such 
leaves instead of the usual entire leaves ? 

But, inany case, nothing in this paper proves that the essential organs 
of a plant, left to natural influences alone, ever materially change. 

Certain species of heath in South Africa and of epacris in 
Australia greatly resemble each other in foliages, as the Professor 
has shown us, and because, as he maintains, of the similar dry 
climate; but still the Australian plants all keep the five petals of 
their order, and the African ones their four. 

An article written by Mr. Sutton for the Gardeners’ Chronicle, after 
a recent tour in Palestine, upon the behaviour of the two well- 
known plants, Anemone coronaria and Ranunculus asiaticus, is strong 
evidence against evolution. They have flowers alike in shape and 
size, and often in colour also. But the anemone has, of course, only 
one floral envelope—no outer cup like the ranunculus, its leaves 
are much more finely cut than its rival’s, and it begins to bloom 
three weeks earlier. They grow together at all altitudes, from the 
shore of the lake of Galilee to the top of Carmel, over a range of 
five thousand feet or more, yet they never interchange or lose one of 
their three distinctions: the earlier blooming plant is always the 
one with the single row of bright flower leaves and with the finely 
divided stem leaves, the later blooming plant has always both 
calyx and corolla and stem-leaves simply three-parted. 

It was at Cirencester that I first learnt the peculiarity of the 
primrose in having its stamens in one flower all reaching higher than 
its style, and in another its style reaching higher than its stamens, 
and that Darwin, had discovered that the stigmas of short styles 
fertilized from high stamens, and of high styles fertilized from short 


264 REV. PROF. G. HENSLOW, M.A., F.L.S., 


stamens, yielded larger, stronger flowers than the stigmas of high 
styles fertilized from high stamens, and of course than short forms 
interbred. 

This fact shows that the tendency of a species is to maintain an 
average type, and not to branch off into permanent exaggerated or 
stunted varieties. 

Mr. Davip Howarp said: When we use the word evolution it 
is most important to be sure what we mean, Darwin was 
understood—rightly or wrongly—to teach that evolution was the 
result of accident ; but if evolution is the result of law, or, as this 
most interesting paper suggests, of an adaptive power inherent in 
life, we may well argue that a law involves a lawgiver and that 
the power of adaptation in living tissue is a form of creative energy 
that requires a Creator to explain it. 

The illustrations of this adaptive power are most interesting, and 
throw great light on many points in a most complex question. I am 
not a botanist, but I have had to study the formation of medicinal 
substances in plants. A very difficult problem—why do only a 
few species of cinchone contain quinine? What benefit does it 
serve in the life of the tree? Seeds grown in England in hothouses 
grow into healthy plants, the bark of which contains but little 
‘quinine, cuttings from these taken to the Nilghiris give trees 
with a rich yield. By careful selection and suitable environment 
bark is obtained giving over ten per cent. of the dry weight, but 
the quinine, much or little, does not seem to affect the health of 
the tree. 

Mr. 8. Cotierr said: Mr. Chairman, before making a brief 
comment upon Professor Henslow’s paper, I should like, if it is not 
out of order, to propose that a message of sympathy be sent from 
this Meeting to our friend Lieut.-Col. Mackinlay, who, since his 
lecture before this Institute only a month ago, has undergone a very 
serious operation, from which, for some time, his life was almost 
despaired of. He is now, it is hoped, slowly recovering. And, 
although the Committee have doubtless sent a communication to 
him from themselves, I think it would be nice if a message of loving 
sympathy were sent him from this Meeting. 

As to the paper before us, I am sure we must all feel that from 
many points of view it is a most masterly and interesting lecture. 
The only point, however, to which I wish to call brief attention is 


8S eee es 


ON THE DIRECTIVITY OF LIFE. 265 


the statement in para. 3, p. 248, that “the conviction of the truth of 
the doctrine of evolution of all living beings, includimg man 
has been incontestably and permanently established.” 

Now, sir, I confess my surprise that the Professor should have 
made such a statement as that. I should have thought that what- 
ever his personal views might be he would have known that the 
doctrine of the evolution of man is one of the most wncertain and 
unproved of theories ever propounded ! 

What is evolution? Here is what Sir Oliver Lodge says, and I 
suppose he is one of the greatest authorities of the day :— 

‘Taught by science, we learn that there has been no fall of man ; 
there has been arise. Through an ape-like ancestry, back through 
a tadpole and fish-like ancestry, away to the early beginnings of life, 
the origin of man is being traced.” 

Or, to use the words of two other modern professors, “ It must 
be granted a primeval germ, originating it does not know how 
some primitive protoplasts gliding in a quiet pool 
proceeding through unthinkable millions of years . . . emerging 

as man, at a moderate estimate, half-a-million years ago!” 

That is the doctrine of the evolution of man as taught by its 
_ greatest exponents ! 

Now the question is: Is this theory “incontestably and _ per- 
manently established,” as the Professor declares it to be? Let us see. 

No less an authority than Professor Tyndall said: ‘Those who 
hold the doctrine of evolution are by no means ignorant of the 
uncertainty of their data!” While Professor J. A. Thomson, of 
Aberdeen University, and Professor Patrick Geddes, of Edinburgh 
University (to whom I have already referred)—both of them 
strong evolutionists—when writing an article in defence of 
evolution in a book recently published, entitled [deals of Science and 
Faith, actually make this pitiable confession in answer to the 
question, ‘‘How man came”:—“ We do not know whence he 
emerged . . . nor do we know how man arose . . . for 
it must be admitted that the factors of the evolution of man partake 
largely of the nature of may-be’s, which have no permanent position in 
science.” And an article in the Times Literary Supplement of June 
9th, 1905, referring to a number of professors who have written on 
the subject of evolution said, ‘Never was seen such a mélée. The 
humour of it is that they all claim to represent ‘science.’ . . . Yet 


266 REV. PROF. G. HENSLOW, M.A., F.L.S., 


it would puzzle them to point to a theological battlefield exhibit- 
ing more uncertainty, obscurity, dissension, assumption, and fallacy 
than their own. For the plain truth is that, though some agree in 
this and that, there is not a single point in which all agree. 
Battling for evolution they have torn it to pieces; nothing is left 
—nothing at all, on their showing, save a few fragments strewn 
about the arena.” 

Therefore, sir, I, for one, hope I may be allowed to say emphatically 
that I do not believe in the theory of the evolution of man—partly 
on account of what I have already said, but also because (although 
I am aware that our evolutionist friends deny it) it is in my 
judgment so entirely opposed to the inspired record given to us in 
the Word of God as to the origin of man, viz., that ‘“ God created 
man in His Own Image, in the Image of God created He him ; male and 
female created He them,” Genesis i, 27. 

Professor LANGHORNE ORCHARD wrote: 

The chief merits of the paper are (in my judgment) its successful 
exposure of the fallacy of Darwinism and its insistence upon the 
directive character of ‘that mysterious something ” called “ Life.” 
Life itself, and, therefore, also its directivity, are doubtless attri- 
butable to spiritual action. As we are reminded (on p. 249), our 
gratitude is due to the inventor of this useful word ‘“ Directivity ”— 
a word which has come to stay, and is likely to soon take its place in 
dictionaries, a word which is welcomed by many scientists besides 
Bergson as standing for the true explanation of natural facts. 

The author, like evolutionists generally, occasionally permits 
himself to make assumptions more bold than accurate. On p. 248 
he says, “I assume that everyone here present is a believer in 
evolution.” A reference to our Transactions may show him that he 
has made a mistake. 

The arguments brought forward in support of evolution seem 
very feeble. On p. 249 occurs the startling announcement that 
‘spontaneous adaptability to changed conditions of life” is the 
origin of species. If we look for some proof of this, we read (p. 252) 
that an inland plant grown near the sea may become fleshy, and a 
seaside plant grown inland may become thin-leaved; and it is 
seriously said that the changes may be sufficient to warrant the 
plant being called a new species. But if, with Buffon, we define a 
species as “a constant succession of individuals similar to, and 


ON THE DIRECTIVITY OF LIFE. 267 


capable of reproducing, each other,” the change of environment 
produces not a new species but a new variety only. Some years 
ago, at University College, I was listening to the author as he 
pointed out that a change of environment may modify size and 
form, but does not affect specific differences; and he gave as an 
instance the American cacti, which, when grown in Africa, remain 
of the same species, although modified in size and appearance. On 
p- 253 we learn that Mr. G. Bentham finds “no well-marked 
differences between any of the ninety genera of asteroidex.” It 
would be interesting to know on what system of classification that 
gentleman proceeds in calling such groups “genera,” when they are 
obviously not so. The author quotes Darwin’s opinion (p. 253) 
that changed conditions of life may produce a “ new sub-variety.” 
A “new sub-variety,” however, is a different thing from a new species ; 
and the cause of true science would not be advanced by calling it 
by the same name. 

On p. 249 (paragraphs 1 and 2) we read that “plants of no 
relationship whatever,” living in the same or similar environment 
tend, through the influence of the environment, to become alike. 
Is not this inconsistent with the statement that the environment 
has caused those great and striking differences which mark off species 
from one another? The several geological strata which, in 
Sedgwick’s time (p. 253), revealed distinct series of fossils and 
distinct species which had lived side by side, makes the same 
revelation to-day, and tells us that Sedgwick was right in believing 
in a succession of separate creative acts. 

We shall all, i am sure, join in thanking the able author for a 
most interesting paper. 

Mr. W. Woops SmytH: While congratulating the Victoria 
Institute upon receiving a paper accepting evolution in any form, 
I beg to offer the following criticisms :— 

(1) Professor Henslow appears to have changed his position. 
He used to make much of “ Divine Directivity,” now it is 
the ‘‘ Directivity of Life.” Any theory of directivity 
which goes beyond the dowry of attributes bestowed 
upon lite at the beginning is entirely unscientific. 

(2) The idea that species have originated through one or 
two factors alone is opposed to all the evidence we 
possess. 


268 REV. PROF. G. HENSLOW, M.A., F.L.S., 


(3) When we consider the influence of artificial selection, 
exercised by man, in producing varieties so diverse as to 
resemble even different genera; and when we remember 
that organisms in a transition state, before they reached 
finished forms, were in a much more plastic state ;, and we 
then take into account that natural selection is much more 
potent than artificial selection; to say that natural 
selection exercised no influence in the production of 
species is absolutely untenable. 

It is quite true that natural selection alone cannot produce 
species of organisms, but it is an important factor in their produc- 
tion. No more can its antitype in the spiritual realm, namely, 
election, of itself produce a Christian, but it is an important factor 
in his production. 

The LECTURER, in reply to the more extended remarks set forth 
above, now writes: 

I thank Dr. Irving especially for so cordially accepting my 
position. The only point he questions is my meaning of “man.” 
As he rightly says, I intentionally confined myself to the scientific 
side of the problem of evolution. This asserts that man (Homo 
sapiens) rose from some line of the mammalia; such a belief is 
based on purely scientific inductions. But how he acquired his 
vastly superior mental, moral and spiritual attributes is a question 
which would have carried me far beyond the limits of my paper. 
I purposely avoided it, as it transcends the sphere of natural science. 

Mr. Sutton has supplied me with a great number of questions, 
to which I will reply as briefly as possible. Evolution, perhaps, 
cannot be better defined than by the old expression of the sixties— 
“Descent with modification.” To which may now be added, in 
Darwin’s words, its meaning of definite results or variations, by 
means of a response in the organism to changed conditions of life. 
These may be relatively permanent or not at all. 

It seems to be assumed by some persons that evolution neces- 
sarily implies progress or development from lower to higher forms 
or structures. This is not quite correct. Paleontology proves 
that, what were adult forms in earlier days are often now repre- 
sented by the embryonic stages of modern beings, ¢.g., amphibia 
were the “highest” vertebrates in the Coal period represented now 
by our newt and others. There were no frogs and toads, but the 


ON THE DIRECTIVITY OF LIFE. 269 


tadpole of to-day is of a fish type, and passes into an amphibian 
and then a true air-breathing frog. 

But what some appear not to have observed is that you cannot 

have “advance” without some retrogression ; because every change 
implies new adaptations to the new conditions of life; but with 
these is correlated the disuse of certain organs no longer required ; 
which consequently degenerate by atrophy, often remaining rudi- 
mentary, or they may vanish altogether. In all cases the resulting 
creature becomes perfectly adapted to its requirements. 
_ Thus, parasites show a great amount of degradation, just as does 
an oyster. The whole of the class Monocotyledons has been 
evolved from aquatic Dicotyledons, and though many are now 
terrestrial plants, they all have retained the “ degraded ” characters 
due to an aquatic environment. 

Mr. Sutton questions the value of “induction” (7.¢., numerous 
coincidences, all being independent of one another, yet equally 
supporting the same probability) as “ proving ” a statement. 

But to do so in one science and not accept it in another is 
scarcely justifiable. Every “belief” in the revelations of geology 
in based on induction; as we cannot make Nature retrace her 
steps and prove by experiment how coal was made, how animals 
- came successively into existence, etc., etc., yet it was partly the 
fossils of Patagonia which suggested evolution to Darwin. 

In astronomy, no intelligent person believes that the sun rises 
and sets or that the earth is flat; but our ‘‘ convictions” are based 
solely on “ probabilities,” but of so high an order that any alterna- 
tive is now unthinkable.* 

Mr. Sutton, however, accepts induction himself when he quotes 
Wallace’s statement—‘“Science demands the recognition of an 
intelligent Creator.” No one denies this. But it is impossible to 
prove (i.e., by any experiment) that there is a God. The knowledge, 
or conviction in His existence, is based solely on induction ; of 
course, apart from all revelation. 

I am surprised that Mr. Sutton, one of our greatest cultivators, 
should say, “No experiments exist which in the slightest degree 
prove the evolution of man or other living beings.” 


* A murderer is pronounced guilty almost always on circumstantial 
evidence, z.e., induction. 


270 REV. PROF. G. HENSLOW, M.A., F.L.S., 


Darwin based his theory of evolution almost entirely on 
Variations in Animals and Plants under Domestication—the title of his 
two volumes of Data. Surely we have but to think of the 
innumerable cultivated plants and domesticated animals which have 
been evolved from wild ones, and are now so totally different, that 
in many cases the original wild organism is unknown. The whole 
history is one long era of evolution by experiment! ‘Take as an 
example, all the pigeons which have evolved from Columba liwda. 
All the cabbage tribe from Srassica oleracea, all the wheats, maize, 
barley, etc., from unknown ancestors. Induction is not even 
required where the whole ancestry is known. Thus, too, 
Mr. Sutton’s admirable forms of Primula sinensis and of cinerarias 
are now widely different from the original wild forms of China and 
the Canary Islands, while the latest addition called the “ Lady,” or 
by other names, is an approximate reversion to the wild form of the 
cineraria. 

As to evolution of man; Nature has made many experiments since 
his first appearance ; and has evolved many very distinct varieties 
all over the world. Lach is well adapted to its sphere of life, as the 
Esquimaux to arctic conditions, and the Negro to tropical countries. 
Surely no one will maintain that each race has been specially created. 

I cannot help thinking that Mr. Sutton has entertained some 
mistaken idea of what evolution really is. I repeat, it is nothing 
more than “descent with modification,” sometimes ‘ advancing,” 
as often “degenerating,” in various directions. 

Whether the changes be called a variety, species, or genus, 
is just as the systematist chooses to call them. Thus Babington 
recognized thirty-two British species of willows. Bentham groups 
them under fifteen. Mr. Sutton says there are infinite varieties of 
“life,” using this term to mean “living beings.” But I use the 
word in its abstract sense; that is to say, as that which, by its 
phenomena, indicates a ‘living being.” In this sense there is only 
one kind of life common to all. He says, ‘‘ Life itself must be 
directed,” but why may not the life of a plant be endowed with 
directivity by the Creator? A man constructs a watch and 
“empowers” it with directivity to tell you the time of itself, 
without the presence of the watchmaker ; while in all manufactories 
the machinery turns out the completed article “designed” by the 
artificer without his immediate aid. 


ON THE DIRECTIVITY OF LIFE. Ztk 


Similarly in giving rise to new beings in adaptation to new 
requirements, the life in the organism directs the forces within it to 
so arrange matter to build up new structures as they are wanted. 
The directivity of life is, therefore, seen in the very existence of 
new purposeful structures. 

I chose as a simple illustration Ranunculus aquatilis and proved 
(1) that the dissected type of submerged leaves was due to water as 
the direct cause ; (2) that when the seeds are sown on land that specific 
_ character is retained by heredity. 

That this species was descended from a terrestrial form, and not 
vice vers, 1 showed (1) by induction; as many other cases are 
known where the great majority of the allied plants are terrestrial, 
the aquatic one being the exception ; (2) that the aquatic character 
is retained on land: a feature which none of the land plants show. 
Mr. Sutton questions the statement that if the cause of change 
lies in the direct action of the external conditions of life to which 
the organism responds, “it does not lie or consist in life itself.” 
Certainly it does not, what lies in life is the ‘“‘ power to respond” 
to external stimuli. Life does not initiate a change, until such is 
wanted in consequence of a change in the external conditions of the 
being, to which it must adapt itself or it will perish. 

He adds: I maintain that for the word “evolution” should be 
substituted ‘‘ variation or modification of force.” I have already 
observed that variation or descent with modification is exactly how 
evolution was often described in the sixties; but ‘‘evolution” was 
adopted instead. It only means “a rolling over.” If “self 
adaptation” is not the “origin of species,” how did any variation 
arise at all? It is only a question of degree from the “more or 
less apparent modification ” to the most distinct species or genus. 

Scientifically distinguished, directivity is a quality of life; as 
philosophically described, it is an attribute of God ; just as in olden 
days, as man designs and makes a watch, so God was supposed to 
have designed ‘and made a man. 

Evolution only places God’s power within the secondary agent 
life, instead of somewhere outside. life must be carefully 
distinguished from force. No known force is alive; just as no 
matter composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, etc., is 
alive. Protoplasm is the only exceptional “matter” with its all- 
important “nucleus,” which is endowed with life, but its material 


212 REV. PROF. G. HENSLOW, M.A., F.L.S., 


elements are not alive. The cell-wall is certainly not alive, it is a 
carbonaceous excretion produced by, and on the surface of, the living 
protoplasm within the cell. It is allied to starch and sugar, ete. 

If Mr. Sutton will do me the honour of reading my Heredity of 
acquired Characters in Plants (1908, Murray), he will find most of his 
queries answered. If not there they will be found in my two 
volumes in the Jnternational Scientific Series, Origin of Floral Structures 
(1888) and Origin of Plant Structures (1895, Kegan Paul and Co.). 
Space will not let me add more, but I would observe that neither 
Klebs nor Bateson mentions any experiments to substantiate his 
statements ; many will be found in my books. Mr. Rouse alludes 
to the fact that while land plants can change their foliage in water, 
the flowers, as a rule, do not change proportionally or at all. This 
is true, for the external conditions of life do not so affect the flowers 
as they do the soma. Nevertheless, great degenerations are to be 
seen in many, ¢.g., the loss of the yellow in the corollas of the water 
crowfoot. Much degeneration is seen in the flowers of all the 
Haloragee, ete. 

Flooding a field is not Nature’s method of encouraging 
adaptations. It is, as far as we can see, done by degrees. It must 
begin with the seeds in moisture ; not by such a destructive method 
as he describes. 

Mr. D. Howard observes that law requires a law-giver; so as 
directivity expresses the fact that new structures imply purpose, 
purpose implies mind, and mind means God. 

That various species of the same kind, cinchona, etc., as well as 
other plants, yield different amounts of the same product is of 
frequent occurrence. Thus strong scents, alkaloids, etc., vary in 
quality according to the environment. It is well known that dry 
places especially favour these productions rather than the reverse ; 
tea has more tannin on the hills, etc. Itis all the same thing, viz., 
the results of response to the conditions of life. 

As to Mr. Collett’s question: who doubts my correctness 
in saying evolution is a “proved” doctrine. He refers to Sir Oliver 
Lodge and Tyndall, neither of whom is a biologist! The writer 
says he does not believe in the evolution of man, and, like 
Mr. Sutton, would refer to Gen. i, 27, as refuting it. 

I will, therefore, in my turn, go to our greatest Assyrian and 
Hebrew scholar, Rev. Dr. Sayce, Professor of Assyriology. He tells 


ON THE DIRECTIVITY OF LIFE. 273 


us in his analysis of every verse in Gen. i, ff., that, in the first place, 
the first chapter is an adaptation from an Assyrian cosmogony, 
but, “while the latter is grossly polytheistic, the former is 
uncompromisingly monotheistic.” The one begins with frank 
materialism, in the other all is referred to the One omnipotent 
and all-good God.* 

In 1884 I published a work entitled Christian Beliefs Reconsidered 
in the Light of Modern Thought, in which I gave the Babylonish 
Cosmogony discovered by the late Mr. G. Smith, and compared the 
tablets with Gen. i, showing the agreements and points of difference. 
Sayce says the former was a comparatively late production of the 
materialistic Philosophic age.t The second account, in Gen. ii, is 
an earlier one. The two, therefore, in Genesis are monotheistic 
compilations or adaptations from the far more ancient Babylonian 
cosmogonies. 

With regard to the creation of man, Professor Sayce writes: “ It 
was in Semitic Babylonia that the gods were first conceived in 
human form. From the outset, the deities of the Babylonian 
Semites were human. They were represented as men and women, 
being under a supreme lord, Bel or Baal, whose court resembled that 
of his vicegerent, the human king, on earth. . . . This concep- 
- tion of the gods in human form involved the converse belief that 
men were divine ; they were, accordingly, held to have been made 
in the likeness of the gods—with the same physical features, and 
the same mental and moral attributes—and the king himself was 
deified,” t just as, I may add, is the Emperor of Japan to-day. 

Professor Orchard makes much the same criticisms as the 
preceding writers, to which I have already replied. As to varieties 
and species, I repeat there is no absolute distinction between them. 
Darwin called the former “incipient species” ; they really signify 
the fact that less alteration was required to adapt them to changed 
conditions. 

I unwisely, it appears, assumed that after more than forty years all 
members of the Victoria Institute would have come to accept 
evolution; but my critics reproduce, almost verbatim, what I 


* Expository Times, vol. xix, p. 137. 
+ The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, p. 387. 
{ Expository Times, vol. xix, p. 262. 


274 ON THE DIRECTIVITY OF LIFE. 


received, as the only evolutionist present in 1868, when on the 
Council of the Institute. Mr. Orchard gives a hint why evolution 
has failed in the Institute, if one may judge from the following 
sentence :—‘‘The several geological strata which, in Sedgwick’s 
time, revealed distinct series of fossils, . . . makes the same 
revelation to-day, and tells us that Sedgwick was right in believing 
in a succession of separate creative acts.” This clearly shows that 
Mr. Orchard is not aware of the many gaps in paleontology and in 
living organisms being filled up, as in the mammalia, shells, and 
early plants, etc., all strongly corroborating evolution. 

Mr. Woods Smyth says, I “used to make much of ‘Divine 
Directivity.’” I have no recollection of ever having referred 
directivity to any other source than /zfe, for I have always treated 
it from a scientific, not philosophic or theological standpoint. 

I am not aware ‘that species have originated through one or 
two factors alone.” The external conditions include all the factors, 
such as light, heat, moisture, drought, soils, etc. These act on the 
entirety of the plant—the total result is adaptation to these. 

‘‘Selection” produces ‘‘ Nothing”; neither artificial nor natural. 
Man only isolates a variety which Nature has produced. In Nature, 
a variety A lives, and B dies, because it dies a natural death or is 
killed. Natural selection did not produce A. My opinion is that 
Isolation not Selection is the important factor, because it saves the 
variety from the struggle for existence, which is detrimental to 
health and development, and leaves it to grow to maturity in peace, 
just as man endeavours to raise new varieties under cultivation. 

I may be wrong, but it gives me the impression that my critics 
generally have not acquired their knowledge first hand from Nature 
herself. Unless this is done, and the student does so on ecological 
lines, little progress can be expected. As Galileo said that the earth 
moved for all his “‘ questioning,”* so I venture to add evolution is a 
long since proven fact, notwithstanding my opponents. 


* “Tortures.” 


, Pie 


—_—o > «a. 


532NnD ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 
MONDAY, MAY 6rx, 1912, 4.30 p.w. 


T. G. Pincuss, Esq., LL.D., IN THE CHAIR, 


The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and signed. 


The CHAIRMAN introduced Mr. Marcus N. Top, M.A., Lecturer in 
Greek Epigraphy in Oxford University, and invited him to read his 
paper. 


INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN THE GREEK 
WORLD. By Marcus N. Top, Esq., M.A., Fellow of 
Oriel College, Oxford, and University Lecturer in Greek 


Epigraphy. 


HEN I was honoured with an invitation to address a 
meeting of the Victoria Institute, I felt that, not being 
qualified to speak upon any question of philosophy or natural 
science, I could not do better than ask your consideration of a 
subject which for some little time has claimed my special 
interest and attention, namely, the part played by arbitration 
in the settlement of disputes between state and state in the 
ancient Greek world. In spite of the ditference, of which we ° 
are constantly reminded, between the Greek city-state and the 
nation-state of the modern world, I shall retain the phrase 
“international arbitration,’ as more familiar than “ interstatal 
arbitration,” and as unlikely to lead to any misapprehension. 
I am emboldened to bring this subject before your notice, not 
only by the ever-increasing interest taken at the present day 
in the question of the settlement of national differences by 
peaceful and equitable means, not only by the growing 
conviction amongst thoughtful men that war, where it is not a 
necessity, is a crime, not only by the burden of huge armaments 
which presses more and more heavily each year upon many 
nations and by the greater destructiveness of modern weapons 
and appliances of war, but also by the fear that the facts of 
T 2 


276 MARCUS N. TOD, M.A., ON INTERNATIONAL 


ancient experience, the records of ancient experiments, are in 
danger of being forgotten. Only five years ago, in the Romanes 
Lecture delivered before the University of Oxford, the 
Chancellor of the University, himself a great scholar and an 
administrator of wide experience, said :— 


“The earliest instance of a frontier commission that I have come 
across is that of the Commission of six English and Scotch 
representatives, who were appointed in 1222 to mark the limits of 
the two kingdoms, and it is symptomatic of the contemporary 
attitude about frontiers that it broke down directly it set to work, 
leaving behind it what became a Debatable Land and a battle- 
ground of deadly strife for centuries.” 


and again, referring to the settlement of boundary disputes by 
arbitration, he said :— } 


“This method is the exclusive creation of the last half-century 
or less, and its scope and potentialities are as yet in embryo.’* 


How mistaken such conceptions are I hope to make clear to 
you in this paper. 

I shall not overstep the bounds of history and trespass on the 
sphere of philosophy by any discussion of the fundamental 
questions of the ethical significance or the moral justification 
of war. Whatever be our answers to those questions, we shall 
agree that war, one of the most striking facts of human history, 
deserves the most careful attention ot the philosopher and 
the economist, it demands the thought of all who are interested 
in the moral and material well-being of the race—a class which 
includes, or at least should include, every Christian. But a 
purely philosophical and abstract presentation of a case is apt 
to leave the ordinary man unconvinced, not to say suspicious. 
Ideals are, no doubt, excellent things in their way, but he prides 
himself upon being a practical man; his appeal is not to logic, 
but to experience. For him, as for all of us, war is a thing 
inconceivable in the ideal world; to him, and indeed to every 
Christian, the full realization of the Kingdom of God involves 
not only righteousness but peace—peace in the individual, 
peace between man and man, peace in the relations of nation 
to nation. But how is this ideal to be made real? what does 
the history of the past tell us of efforts made with that end 
more or less consciously in view ? how far have they succeeded, 
and where have they failed ? 


* Lord Curzon of Kedleston, /rontiers, pp. 50, 52. 


ARBITRATION IN THE GREEK WORLD. PET 


International arbitration was not, as is sometimes asserted, a 
creation of the Greeks. The extensive discoveries, made within 
recent years, of documents relating to the domestic and foreign 
history of Egypt, the Hittite empire and the states of the 
Euphrates and Tigris valleys, reveal to us remarkably advanced 
civilizations, with developed laws and a strikingly active 
system of diplomatic negotiation, existing before the beginnings 
of heroic, we might almost say of legendary Greece. Amongst 
these documents, incised upon stone or imprinted upon clay, 
I would call your attention to one, which relates the story of a 
feud between the two Sumerian cities of Shirpurla and Gishkhu 
about 4,000 years before Christ*: it tells how, when war had 
failed to bring about any settlement of the frontier dispute, 
arbitration was tried, and Mesilim, King of Kish, was appointed 
to determine the frontier-line and set up a pillar between the 
two states to commemorate the fact. It 1s worth noting how 
prominent a part is played by religion in this early case of the 
arbitral settlement of a disputed boundary: the chief god of 
Shirpurla and the god of Gishkhu are spoken of as deciding 
upon this method, they do so at the command of Enlil, “ the 
king of the countries,’ and the arbitrator acts under the 
direction of his own god Kadi. That this was an isolated 
instance of appeal to arbitration we cannot believe, but probably 
such appeals grew rarer with the rise of great empires such as 
those of Assyria, Media, and Persia, which swallowed up the 
smaller states of western Asia and based their claims upon 
force rather than upon equity. Yet we hear in Herodotust 
how, in the early years of the sixth century B.c., a long and 
indecisive struggle between Alyattes of Lydia and Cyaxares of 
Media was concluded by the intervention of Syennesis of Cilicia 
and Labynetus of Babylon, who “reconciled” the two warring 
monarchs. 

Whether the Greeks consciously adopted the expedient from 
their eastern neighbours or discovered independently of them this 
mode of settling quarrels, we cannot determine. The importance 
of what they did in this field hes in their recognition of the 
possibilities involved in arbitration, their frequent application 
of it to heal the differences existing between individuals or 
states, and their introduction of it into the political life of the 
western world. From primitive times we can trace in the 
Greek world attempts to settle disputes by means of negotiation, 


* L. W. King and H. R. Hall, Hgypt and Western Asia, p. 171. 
ti, 44: 


278 MARCUS N. TOD, M.A., ON INTERNATIONAL 


and it must be remembered that throughout the course of its 
history this was the normal and natural mode of settling 
differences between state and state. If diplomacy failed, 
recourse was had to force, either in the form of armed 
reprisals, usually of the nature of border raids, or in that of 
open war. But at an early period the Greeks saw that the 
appeal from negotiation directly to force was not inevitable, 
that if each state based its claim upon justice and equity they 
might agree to accept the decision of some neutral tribunal, 
whether composed of an individual or of a body of men. 
If the disputants in this way bound themselves beforehand to 
abide by the verdict of the arbitrator, we have an instance of 
arbitration in the proper sense of the term; if, however, there 
was no such agreement, but the intervention of the neutral 
person or power took the form of a suggestion, which the two 
states engaged in the dispute were free to accept or reject as 
they thought fit, we have an instance ot mediation, which 
lacks the judicial character and the binding force of arbi- 
tration. 

We are told that, as early as the eighth century before our era, 
the Messenians sought to avoid an impending war with Sparta 
by offering to abide by the award of an unprejudiced court, such 
as the Argive Amphictiony or the Athenian Areopagus. We 
have grave reasons for questioning the historical truth of this 
statement, but there are two well-authenticated examples of 
international arbitration in the seventh century, and another 
probably falls very early in the sixth. From these early days 
down to the time when the Greeks lost their independence and 
were swallowed up in the irresistible advance of the Roman 
power, we have an ever-increasing volume of evidence, culmin- 
ating in the second century before Christ, in which we know 
from inscriptions alone of some forty-four cases; if we add to 
these the numerous instances referred to by Polybius and other 
historians, and remember that in all probability not one-half of 
the arbitrations which actually took place have left any trace 
in our extant sources, we shall be in a better position to realize 
how important was the part played, in later Greek history at 
least, by this method of settling international disputes. Again, 
not only is the appeal to arbitration common throughout Greek 
history, but it is found in all parts of the Hellenic world, from 
Sicily to Western Asia Minor, from Crete to the shores of the 
Black Sea. Where it first found a home on Greek soil we 
cannot say: we should have expected to find it practised 
amongst the Ionians earlier than elsewhere, for not only were 


ARBITRATION IN THE GREEK WORLD. 279 


they in the closest touch with the Oriental Empires, but they 
proved themselves the pioneers in many branches of Greek 
thought and activity. But the historical records of early Ionia 
are very scanty, and we cannot test this conjecture. One piece 
of evidence does, indeed, seem to tell against it: Herodotus 
(vi, 42) tells us how, about 493 B.c., at the close of the L[onian 
Revolt, the Persian governor, Artaphernes, summoned envoys 
from all the Ionian cities, newly reduced to their allegiance to 
Persia, and compelled them to conclude treaties with each 
- other, agreeing to submit to arbitration disputes which should in 
future arise between them, instead of seeking reparation by 
reprisals or war. The [onians, it is said, at the beginning of 
the fifth century, require a Persian to teach them the lesson of 
arbitration. But this is not a necessary inference : it may well 
be the case that Artaphernes was merely taking steps to secure 
the peace and tranquillity of this portion of the Persian 
Empire by making it obligatory upon the Ionians in all 
disputes to adopt a procedure which they had themselves 
previously employed, though only in isolated instances. We 
may notice, however, that this action of Artaphernes marks a 
decided advance on previous Greek usage, so far as we know it. 
Hitherto, they had waited for the dispute to rise, and then, if 
negotiation failed to discover a solution of the difficulty, they 
had turned their thoughts to arbitration, and had employed 
that means of averting war provided that both the states 
concerned agreed to submit the case to such and such an 
arbitrator. Now, however, the states enter into a compact, 
each with each, binding themselves to settle in this way the 
differences which might arise between them in future. The 
second half of the fifth century witnessed the extension of this 
principle to the free states of Hellas itself, and we have several 
examples of the insertion of such a compromise-clause in Greek 
treaties recorded by Thucydides, notably in the Thirty Years’ 
Peace, concluded between Athens and Sparta early in 445 B.c. 
It may be that some of the more sanguine members of the 
peace-party in either state thought that a new era of peace had 
been ushered in: if so, they were cruelly undeceived. The 
treaty had not been in existence for half its stipulated term of 
years when difficulties and recriminations arose between the 
contracting parties. Repeatedly Athens appealed to the Peace 
~ and demanded arbitration; Sparta as repeatedly refused. 
What her excuse was—if, indeed, she had any—we do not 
know; perhaps it was that the questions at issue were too 
important to be left to the settlement of an arbitral court, or 


280 MARCUS N. TOD, M.A., ON INTERNATIONAL 


that no arbiter could be found capable of undertaking so serious 
a task and at the same time wholly unbiased, or that the 
Assembly had no proper opportunity of expressing its view 
clearly upon the question. All we know is that the long and 
disastrous Peloponnesian War ensued, that the Spartans felt 
many a twinge of conscience as they reflected on their refusal to 
accept arbitration,* and that the Greek world received a clear 
proof that arbitration is no infallible and automatic cure for 
war, but that its efficacy is wholly conditioned by the sincerity 
and the good faith of both the states which are involved in the 
dispute. 

The rise of the Macedonian power, the conquests of Philip 
and Alexander, and the partition among the Diadochi of the 
vast empire they had acquired, brought the Greek world under 
the sway of a small number of powerful rulers, who, while 
careful to maintain their supremacy, did not attempt to control 
all the relations between city and city. There was thus a 
continuance of the old feuds between the Greek states and an 
opportunity, of which advantage was frequently taken, of 
employing arbitration as a means of settlement. Again and 
again, before the fateful battle of Chaeronea, Philip had urged 
Athens to decide its differences with him by reference to an 
arbitrator, and although its citizens, swayed by the eloquence 
of Demosthenes and those who shared his political views, sus- 
pected his bona fides and rejected his reiterated appeals, he and 
his successors were constantly invoked during more than a 
century and a half to settle the differences which arose, or 
those which had previously existed, between various Greek 
states. That this was due solely to the might of the conquering 
kings, on the one hand, and to the servility of a degenerate 
Greek race, on the other, as is sometimes asserted, I cannot 
believe. We must bear in mind that though the potentate, 
whoever he might be, may well have been pleased to have such 
cases referred to him for decision, yet his award could not 
satisfy both the states concerned save in very rare cases; if it 
was in favour of the one, it disappointed the other. Surely the 
truth is rather this (and the appointment of the Czar of Russia, 
the Emperor of Germany, and our own King Edward VII. as 
arbitrators 1n recent international disputes will confirm our 
view), that in the Macedonian and Seleucid monarchs the Greek 
cities found rulers, most of whom possessed considerable gifts of 


* Thucydides, vii, 18. 


ARBITRATION IN THE GREEK WORLD. 281 


statesmanship, willing to take pains in the investigation of the 
facts, anxious for the success of their efforts to heal the feuds 
and discords which were weakening the forces and destroying 
the cohesion of their Empires, possessing sufficient power and. 
prestige to secure obedience and effectiveness for their awards, 
and at the same time likely to act fairly and impartially. For 
the disputes of which we hear centered very largely round 
contested frontier-lines, and the adjustment of these would 
increase neither the power nor the revenue of the monarch who 
- was suzerain lord of both communities alike. The utility of 
arbitration became more and more widely recognized during 
these years, and the principle was adopted by the Greek Leagues, 
which figure so largely in the later days of Hellenic history, 
and was enforced by them on their component states. 

During the early years of the second century B.c. Rome 
became the dominant political factor in the eastern, as she had 
already made herself in the western Mediterranean. The close 
of the second Punic War was followed immediately by the 
Roman attack on Philip V. of Macedon, who was conquered at 
Cynoscephale in 197, and on Antiochus III. of Syria, who was 
defeated at Magnesia in 190, and was compelled to evacuate a 
great part of Asia Minor, which was assigned to Roman allies, 
Pergamum and Rhodes. <A further Macedonian rising under 
Perseus was crushed in 168, at the battle of Pydna, and gradu- 
ally the whole of the Greek werld passed under Roman rule. 
Rome had at this time no monarch; the government was 
practically in the hands of the Senate, which, amongst its various 
functions, exercised an almost unquestioned control over foreign 
policy. It is no wonder, then, that the Greek states frequently 
submitted their disputes to the arbitration of that august body 
which had superseded the Kings of Macedon and Syria and had 
made a deep impress upon the minds and imaginations of Rome’s 
oriental subjects. In such cases the Senate might adopt any 
one of three courses, for its political interests would hardly allow 
it to refuse outright the position of arbitrator. Occasionally it 
played the part of an arbitral court, listened to the advocates 
of the two contending states, and passed a senatus consultwm 
embodying its award. But more frequently it delegated its 
powers to an envoy or body of envoys, whom it despatched to 
the scene of the dispute to enquire into the circumstances on 
the spot and to arrive at a decision which was practically binding, 
although in theory it required senatorial ratification to make 
it valid. Sometimes, as we learn from several interesting 
inscriptions, a third course was followed. The Senate, realizing 


282 MARCUS N. TOD, M.A., ON INTERNATIONAL 


that it was too far off to be able properly to examine the facts 
of the situation, and that it was too heavily burdened with 
business to be able adequately to investigate the case, contented 
itself with laying down the rule which was to govern the 
decision and then deputing to some Hellenic state the task of 
discovering the facts and applying the rule. In one well-known 
instance, for example, Sparta and Messene both laid claim to a 
piece of border-land, the ager Dentheliates, which lay between 
their territories on the western slope of Mount Taygetus. After 
several decisions the question was referred to the Senate for 
settlement: that body decided that the land in dispute was 
to belong to that state which had been in de facto possession of 
it when L. Mummius, the Roman general who had destroyed 
Corinth and had made Greece a province of the Roman Empire, 
was in Greece as consul or pro-consul. The matter was then 
referred to the Milesians, whose sole duty was to find out which 
state had been master of the ager Dentheliates in the year 
referred to and to enter judgment accordingly. 

I have tried to set before you in barest outline an historical 
sketch of the development or arbitration in the Greek world, 
based upon a large number of extant records dealing with 
individual cases. These records are of two kinds. On the one 
hand we have the references to arbitration which occur in the 
pages of Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, Plutarch, and other 
authors, both Greek and Latin, consisting for the most part of 
brief statements of the cause of the dispute, the two states 
engaged in it, the arbitrator to whom the matter was referred 
and the result of the appeal. The cases thus mentioned are 
usually of some historical importance, they are placed in their 
true setting, and the record, brief as it is, is generally complete 
and easily intelligible. On the other hand we have the inscrip- 
tions, contrasting in many ways with these literary records. In 
the first place, their survival is wholly independent of the 
historical value of the events they narrate; thousands of 
inscriptions are extant to-day, thousands more have perished, 
but there has been no selection at work determining which 
should be preserved. In this sphere at least there is no 
survival of the fittest. The historian selects his materials, 
chooses out some facts for permanent record and deliberately 
allows others, so far as he is concerned, to fall into oblivion ; 
but the chance which has partially preserved, partially destroyed 
the epigraphical records of ancient Greece is blind, and has 
followed mere caprice and not intelligent principle. Again, the 
surviving inscriptions are not placed in their proper historical 


« “ae ae 


eae as PE so een Ee 


ARBITRATION IN THE GREEK WORLD. 283 


setting and perspective. Each stone has a story of its own to 
tell, or maybe but a mutilated fragment of such story; they are 
isolated pages torn at random from the tale of national and 
civic and private life. Once more, they are often fragmentary 
and sometimes almost or quite unintelligible. A stone may be 
broken and part of it may have been irrevocably lost, it may 
have been exposed to the weather for generations or even 
centuries and its contents may be impossible to decipher : 
frequently the date can only be determined within a century 
by the character of the writing or the general features of the 
historical situation indicated by its content, while in other 
cases such essential points as the name of one, or even of both, 
of the contending states cannot be discovered. 

Yet, in spite of these disadvantages, it is not too much to say 
that but for the inscriptions we should hardly have any idea of 
the method and procedure of arbitral enquiries in ancient Greece. 
For the literary sources very rarely tell us anything but the 
particulars which are essential from the historian’s point of 
view,—the names of the states involved in the dispute, the 
nature of their difference, the individual or state invoked to 
arbitrate between them, and the effect of the award. The 
inscriptions, on the contrary, are precise and detailed to a 
degree which is never equalled, very rarely even approached, by 
the literary histories, and from them we learn not merely the 
cause, the fact and the result of arbitration, but also its method 
and its spirit. Let me illustrate this statement by a single 
example. In one instance, and in one alone, so far as I know, 
the same arbitral case is recorded both by an historian and also 
by an inscription. Tacitus (Annals, iv, 43) tells us that the 
dispute between Sparta and Messene, to which I have already 
alluded, was referred to the Milesian state, which decided in 
favour of the Messenians. This is all he tells us. Turn now to 
the Milesian record of this same occurrence, inscribed upon 
stone at Olympia: it tells us of the meeting of the assembly, 
convened in the theatre, the exact date on which this took 
place, the sortition from the whole body of citizens of a court 
of 600, “the largest permitted by law.” The task before this 
tribunal was to consider the dispute between the Lacedzemonians 
and the Messenians, to discover which state was in possession 
of the territory in question when L. Mummius was in the 
province and to assign it to that state, as directed by a letter 
from the Roman praetor @. Calpurnius Piso and a senatorial 
resolution. The names of the advocates are next recorded and 
the maximum time allowed for the first and second speeches on 


284 MARCUS N. TOD, M.A., ON INTERNATIONAL 


each side: finally, the verdict pronounced by the court is stated 
in fuil, together with the number of votes given, 584 for the 
Messenians and 16 for the Spartans. I have entered somewhat 
fully into this example because it gives what I cannot but 
regard as a typical illustration of the characteristic differences 
between the literary and the epigraphical evidence. | 

Let us turn for a few minutes, then, especially to this latter 
class, and try to gain a clearer view of the methods of Greek 
international arbitration. 

In its field it differed but little from that of modern times. 
A recent writer has attempted to classify the questions 
susceptible of arbitral settlement on a review of the cases so 
decided in the last century, and divides them into five groups: 
boundary disputes, pecuniary claims arising from the unlawful 
seizure of property, claims for damage by destruction of life and 
property, disputed possession of territory, including disputed 
water-rights, such as fishing, and, lastly, the interpretation of 
treaties. All these classes are represented in the ancient 
Greek records, though frontier and territorial disputes are by 
far the commonest, and seem to have been regarded in ancient 
times as the normal differences between states. Again and 
again the arbitrators are asked to assign some piece of land to 
one or other of two contiguous states which claimed it, or to 
determine the precise boundary-line between the territories of 
two neighbouring cities. Greece is a narrow land, where states 
are closely crowded together, and the cultivable soil is so 
limited in area that even a comparatively few acres might 
make a considerable difference to the welfare of a community: 
sometimes, moreover, the land in dispute was of great 
importance owing to the fact that it contained some temple or 
harbour, some perennial spring or some position of strategic 
value. Monetary disputes play a secondary, but by no means 
negligible, part in the records before us. In such cases the 
arbitrators might have to determine the lability of a state, as 
when the Spartans refused to pay a fine to which the Achean 
League had sentenced them, or the Lepreates discontinued the 
payment of an annual rent due to Elis, or the state of Cos 
claimed from Calymna the repayment of a loan made to it by 
two Coan citizens; or the task of the court might be to assess 
damages and to award due and proper compensation to some 
state which had suffered at the hands of a neighbour. Some- 
times, again, the dispute is not so definite as this, and the 
arbitrators are authorized to settle a number of outstanding 
differences between the two states whose mutual relations have 


ARBITRATION IN THE GREEK WORLD. 285 


become strained ; this might be done before the occurrence of 
hostilities between them, or else arbitration might be resorted to 
as a means of bringing to a conclusion a war which had already 
broken out. Finally, as I have already said, the Greeks might, 
and frequently did, make a compact to refer to arbitration 
disputes which might arise in the future, thus pledging 
themselves beforehand to the employment of a peaceful and 
equitable means of settling their differences. 

Let us suppose that a “feud has arisen between two states 
which cannot be settled by the ordinary means of diplomatic 
~ negotiation : how is arbitration called into play ? The preliminary 
step is an agreement concluded between the two contending 
parties, by which they bind themselves to ask for the decision 
of some neutral person or body, and to abide loyally by the 
award when given. Such an agreement may, of course, be 
reached, without the intervention of any third party, on the 
initiative of the states themselves ; frequently, however, it was 
made at the suggestion of some friendly power, which stepped 
in to counsel the adoption of this means to avoid, or to cut short, 
war; or, again, the states might be members of a League which, 
in its very constitution, provided for the arbitral settlement of 
all disputes between its members, or some superior power might 
use compulsion or the threat of force to make the states settle 
their disputes in this way. in any case, the necessary 
preliminary of a valid arbitration is the consent of the two 
states Involved, embodied in a formal agreement. A number of 
these have come down to us and show us that they always 
dealt with three questions: the matter to be submitted to 
arbitration, the choice of the arbitrator, and the validity of the 
award : in some cases they went on to determine the date of the 
trial, the nature of the tribunal, the way in which the award 
was to be reached and published, and the penalties attending 
any contravention of it. When these points were not settled 
in the preliminary agreement, they were left, we may conclude, 
to the discretion of the arbitrator. 

The next step was to approach the proposed arbitrator and 
ask his acceptance of the task, which, being at the same time a 
high honour, was seldom, if ever, refused. What determined 
the choice of arbitrator we are often unable to discover, as on 
this question the records are usually silent, or speak in quite 
general terms. Neutrality was, of course, a sine gua non: 
friendliness and “kinship” to the two disputing states are 
frequently referred to, and in some cases the state which 
intervened to bring about the agreement to refer the question 


286 MARCUS N. TOD, M.A., ON INTERNATIONAL 


to arbitration was itself chosen to give the award. Trust- 
worthiness, prestige, and power were also required; it is only 
very seldom, if ever, that the arbitrator, whether state or 
individual, is insignificant. Emperors, kings, despots or high 
officials were often appealed to: two famous athletes and the 
poet Simonides are credited with undertaking the office at 
different times, but these may be cases of mediation rather than 
of arbitration proper. Of two arbitrators—Stratonax of 
Apollonia and Lanthes of Assus—we know only the names, and 
cannot say what was their civic or social position, and of one— 
Maco of Larisa—we learn that he was a private citizen, though 
an eminent one, of his state, who was chosen, no doubt, because 
of his skill and the confidence inspired by his high character. 
But the appeal to a council or a state is even more common 
than that to an individual. The Amphictiony of Delphi plays 
a disappointingly small part, and even more surprising is the 
almost entire absence of the Delphian oracle from the arbitral 
records. Ordinarily a state is chosen, a Hellenic state down to 
the time when the Romans become regarded as possible, or 
perhaps as the natural, arbitrators in Hellenic quarrels; it 
must be a state enjoying prestige and a certain position in the 
Greek world, far enough away to be wholly unprejudiced and 
yet near enough, in the majority of cases, to be able to send a 
body of arbitrators, if necessary, without too great trouble and 
expense. For in all such cases the state appealed to had to 
delegate its functions to a tribunal of its citizens. In the 
majority of instances known to us, this tribunal consisted of 
three or of five members—I know of seven examples of the 
former and six of the latter number—an odd number being 
chosen to obviate the danger of an equality of votes in a court 
where no unanimity was requisite but the verdict of the 
majority: was regarded as that of the whole body. The 
members who composed these courts were elected obviously for 
some special qualifications they possessed. But the arbitral. 
tribunal does not always take the form of a small body of 
experts: the whole democratic constitution of the majority of 
the Greek states was based upon the assumption that, although 
for executive purposes a small committee is best and perhaps 
necessary, deliberative and judicial functions are best undertaken 
by the whole, or by large sections, of the citizen body, and this 
doctrine results in the appointment, by the thoroughly 
democratic method of the lot, of large arbitral courts, intended 
to represent the “common sense” of the state which appoints 
them. We have seen that 600 Milesians decided the dispute 


ARBITRATION IN THE GREEK WORLD. 287 


between Sparta and Messene, and other examples are known to 
us in which the court consisted of 334, 301, 204, and 151 
members, all of whom had equal voting powers. 

Thus constituted, the court set about the fulfilment of its 
task with all reasonable speed; a limit of time within which 
the award must be published was sometimes fixed, either by the 
agreement of the two disputants or by the state which 
appointed the court. The enquiry was held in the arbitrating 
state or on other neutral ground or else in the territory which 
was the subject of the dispute: occasionally it was thought 
-advisable to combine several of these plans, as when a 
Pergamene court enquired into the difference between Pitane 
and Mytilene, first hearing the statements of the respective 

advocates in one or other of the two cities, then paying a visit 
to the territory in question and finally adjourning to the temple 
of the Dioscuri at Pergamum for the concluding stage of the 
trial, or a Rhodian tribunal, after hearing the preliminary 
speeches in the temple of Dionysus at Rhodes, went to the 
territory under discussion and ended by giving its verdict in 
the Artemis temple at Ephesus. The mention of these 
sanctuaries in which the courts sat reminds us of the religious 
character and sanction attaching to the whole proceedings, an 
aspect which was also emphasized by the oath which the 
arbitrators took. Let me give you the formula of one which 
has been preserved :— 


‘*By Zeus and Lycian Apollo and Earth, I will judge the case, 
to which the contending parties have sworn, in accordance with the 
justest judgment, and I will not judge according to a witness if he 
does not seem to be bearing true witness, nor have I received gifts 
from anyone on account of this trial, neither I myself nor anyone 
else on my behalf, in any way or under any pretext whatsoever. 
If I swear truly, may it be well with me, if falsely, the reverse.” 


At the trial each of the contending states was represented 
by one or more elected delegates, to whom it entrusted the 
task of watching its interests, bringing before the court all the 
available evidence in its favour and pleading its case as 
effectively as possible: they were usually citizens of the state 
which appointed them, sometimes its most prominent men, 
though occasionally a talented and eloquent pleader was secured 
from some other city. We possess in full the regulations laid 
down for the production of the evidence and the conduct of the 
trial in one well-known dispute, in which Cnidus acted as 
arbitrating city, and we see that every precaution is taken to 


288 MARCUS N. TOD, M.A., ON INTERNATIONAL 


secure that all the, relevant evidence, duly attested and con- 
firmed, shall be laid before the court. The actual trial begins 
with the speeches, limited in duration, of the two advocates, 
into the course of which are introduced the pieces of evidence, 
oral or documentary, adduced to confirm the statements made: 
only the actual speech is timed, the water-clock being stopped 
so long as a witness is heard or a document read aloud by the 
secretary. Then follows an interval for the cross-examination 
of such witnesses as are able to be present, and at its conclusion 
the advocates are allowed to sum up, within a reduced time- 
limit. There is no further speaking: the court at once finds its 
verdict, each member voting as he feels inclined, without any 
“retirement of the jury” or opportunity for combined 
discussion and consideration. Sometimes we learn exactly how ~ 
many votes were given on each side. In the case between 
Sparta and Messene the numbers were 16 and 584 for the two 
states respectively, in another they were 126 and 78, while in 
a third, between Cierlum and Metropolis in Thessaly, 298 
judges voted for the former and 31 for the latter, while five 
votes were invalid, for some reason which is not stated. 
Usually, however, the numbers are not given, the majority 
deciding the award of the court. 

There is one characteristic feature of the records of Greek 
arbitration as contained in inscriptions which deserves at least 
a passing mention. The arbitrators recognized that they had 
an even higher task to fulfil than the mere settlement of a 
quarrel between two states; if possible, those states must be 
reconciled to each other, and the friendship, which had been 
interrupted, must be restored. And with this end in view they 
constantly attempted (the same holds true also of arbitration in 
private disputes) to induce the states to agree to an equitable 
settlement. In other words, they tried to decide the difference 
by mediation before they exercised their arbitral powers and 
delivered a binding verdict. For they realized that mediation 
is the function of a friend, arbitration that of a judicial tribunal. 
I give you a single illustration, the clearest, perhaps, known to 
us, yet assuredly typical rather than exceptional. In the report 
on the case between two towns of eastern Crete, Itanus and 
Hierapytna, the court, composed of eighteen Magnesians, records 
that, at the conclusion of the speeches made by the advocates 
of each side, the judges put down their verdicts in writing, that 
is, they definitely decided what verdict they would give it such 
were rendered necessary, but were anxious, if possible, to avoid 
the hard and fast decision of the judicial sentence and therefore, 


ARBITRATION IN THE GREEK WORLD. 289 


in their anxiety to restore the friendship which had once 
existed between the two states, used every effort to bring about 
reconciliation and amity between them. In this instance the 
effort was frustrated,—“our purpose,” the report continues, 
“was hindered of its fulfilment by the exceeding bitterness of 
their enmity, and the award was consequently decided by vote,” 
—but there were many occasions, as the inscriptions testify, on 
which this aim of the arbitrators was realized and the settlement 
took the form of an agreement or reconciliation and not of an 
arbitral award. This is no mere question of words and names ; 
‘it is indicative of the healthy spirit which inspired these 
arbitral boards. 

Of the: evidence brought forward in such trials we are well 
informed, especially by a series of long inscriptions which con- 
tain not only the official account of the enquiry and of the 
award, but also a summary of the evidence used by each side in 
support of its claims. This depended upon the nature of the 
dispute, and was of the most varied character. The appeal to 
mythology and the early epic poems carried considerable weight 
with a Greek court in determining the original ownership of 
' territory, and we find archeological evidence also employed in 
the early dispute between Athens and Megara for the possession 
of Salamis. On that occasion Solon, the Athenian spokesman, 
cited two verses from the Iliad in confirmation of his case, the 
crucial one of which he is said to have himself foisted upon the 
poem, and backed up his contention by an appeal to the manner 
in which the Athenians buried their dead and a demand for the 
excavation of Salaminian tombs. The works of historians were 
also brought forward. We hear, for instance, of a dispute 
between the Prienians and the Samians, in which the latter 
rested their cause mainly upon the evidence of four historical 
writings, which they cited as supporting their claim; but a 
more careful examination showed the arbitrators that only one 
work—that which bore the name of Meeandrius of Miletus, but 
was widely regarded as a forgery—really favoured the Samian 
contention, while all the other historians—Creophylus and 
Kualces of Ephesus, Theopompus of Chios, and, most important 
of all, the four native Samians, Uliades, Euagon, Olympichus, 
and Duris—ran directly counter to it. Treaties and other 
public documents, receipts and decrees, deeds of sale and letters 
were also quoted as evidence, whether written upon paper and 
produced from state archives or engraved upon stone and set up 
in temples or other public places. Frequently the report of the 


U 


290 MARCUS N. TOD, M.A., ON INTERNATIONAL 


arbitrators quotes verbatim the decisive passages from such docu- 
ments, in order to show how strong was the evidence upon 
which they based their verdict. <A fragment has also survived 
recording the depositions made in a territorial dispute between 
two states of northern Thessaly: there we can read the 
testimony of an elderly shepherd, who had long pastured his 
flocks on the land in dispute and can tell, moreover, what the 
elders of the village used to say about the ownership of the 
territory, together with that of some fishermen, who add their 
witness in favour of the same side. The evidence was often 
complex and conflicting; much of it was indirect in its 
character, and the truth of oral statements and the authenticity 
of written works had to be carefully weighed. Yet the impres- 
sion we receive upon a review of the extant records is that the 
courts were genuinely anxious to sift the evidence thoroughly 
and to arrive at an equitable verdict, and that if they sometimes 
made mistakes, as no doubt they did, it was not from any lack 
of conscientiousness or sincerity. 

The award was written out by the court and copies of it were 
handed to the two states interested, to be lodged in their public 
archives. Sometimes this award was quite brief and contained 
nothing superfluous, as we see, for example, in the Argive 
award, declaring that three islets belonged to Cimolus and not 
to its rival Melos: in this case the whole record contains only 
forty-three words. Later, the desire not merely to declare but 
to justify their sentence led the arbitrators frequently to write 
lengthy reports, such as that of the Magnesians, the extant 
portion of which contains 141 long lines, or that of the 
Rhodians appointed to arbitrate between Samos and Priene, 
which is even longer. In order to secure public and permanent 
records ef the verdicts, these were frequently engraved upon 
stone, both in the arbitrating state and in that which was 
successful in the trial, as well as in some neutral sanctuary, 
which was a common meeting-place of the Greeks of that 
region in which the contending states lay—for example, that of 
Apollo at Delphi or at Delos, that of Zeus at Olympia, or that 
of Asclepius at Epidaurus. Again and again our records speak 
of a quadruple or even quintuple publication of this kind, 
securing for all who were interested the oppurtunity of learning 
the exact terms of the award. 

I am only too conscious that in my desire for, or rather, let 
me say, under the necessity of, compression I have run a 
serious risk of robbing what I have said of its human interest. 


ARBITRATION IN THE GREEK WORLD. 291 


My hope was to bring before you part of the life and thought of 
the Greeks—I fear I have only presented you with a skeleton of 
dead, dry facts. For history, to be appreciated aright, demands 
an effort not only of the intellect, but also of the imagination : 
those whose lives and actions we study were not automata, but 
livmg men and women with hopes and fears, passions and 
aspirations like our own, and it is possible to possess a full and 
accurate knowledge of the ascertained facts about them and yet 
fail to come into contact with that living, pulsating humanity 
which made them what they were. This effort of sympathetic 
‘imagination I ask from you to endow with life the facts I have 
set before you. I can only ask one question in conclusion, and 
indicate rather than formulate the answer I would give. Was 
arbitration ainongst the Greek states a success? Bérard, in 
his treatise on this subject, replies with an emphatic negative, 
basing his verdict upon the continued existence, for centuries, 
of disputes which were repeatedly made the subjects of arbitral 
awards, such as those between Samos and Priene, or Sparta and 
Messene. Yet these form a very small proportion indeed of the 
cases known to us, and must be treated not as normal, but as 
exceptional, and even they will, I think, if carefully examined, 
lead us to a different conclusion. We shall admit that it was 
“unsportsmanlike ” of the worsted city to refuse to accept its 
defeat as final, and to reopen the question again and again, but 
we shall also insist upon two facts, that the renewed appeal was 
always to a fresh arbitration, never to war,and that for a time, at 
least, often for half a century or even more, the award is accepted 
and acted upon. For, in spite of the oft-repeated yet one-sided 
truth, that an arbitral sentence cannot be enforced, that there 
is no international police to compel acquiescence, one lesson 
clearly taught by the experience both of ancient and of modern 
times is this, that it is only in very rare cases that the 
arbitrator’s award is repudiated by either of the parties 
concerned. And thus, although remembering the existence of 
those age-long disputes, those chronic maladies of the Greek 
body politic, and of those other cases in which arbitral settle- 
ment was refused even by those who had bound themselves by 
solemn compact to employ it, I would emphatically record my 
own conviction that among the Greeks arbitration proved 
a striking success in averting war, in bringing national 
quarrels and misunderstandings to an equitable conclusion, 
and in promoting friendship and goodwill between state and 
state. 
u 2 


292 MARCUS N. TOD, M.A., ON INTERNATIONAL 


We, in this twentieth century, boast a higher civilization, a 
more enlightened public opinion, a stronger and more developed 
moral sense: in our midst is the Christian Church, and the 
person and teaching of its Founder exercise an influence far 
beyond its visible borders. May we not take the example of 
the Greeks in this matter as a stimulus, and accept their 
experience as of happy augury for our own future ? 


DISCUSSION. 


Mr. DAavip Howarp said: This valuable paper is one much 
easier to appreciate than to criticize. There is nothing new under 
the sun, and those who think that all noble and valuable ideas date 
from the beginning of this century, or very little earlier, would do 
well to learn the value of minute and laborious studies of past 
history, which seem to them of little value, but throw invaluable 
light upon the possibilities of applying to modern conditions the 
admirable, if not new, idea of substituting the civilization of 
arbitration for the barbarism of war. 


The Rev. H. J. R. MARsTON congratulated the lecturer upon his 
great knowledge, his lucid exposition, and the general excellence of 
his paper. The reflection which arose to his mind was the greatness 
of the Greek endowment, not only in art, in which they were facile 
principes, but also in judgment and philosophy, and now from this 
paper he learnt they were equally great in some moral achievements 
of which arbitration was a most interesting case. He felt personally 
indebted to Mr. Tod for this instruction. The Greeks tried it very 
widely and very successfully. Their moral sense was so strong that, 
despite repeated failure, yet they stugk to the practice rather than 
come to blows. 

Possibly the conditions between the small states made arbitration 
easier. Modern conditions as, for example, between England and 
America were very different, and made the principle far more 
difficult in practice. Again, the central authority, the Senate, could 
bind the small powers to carry out the results, and they would 
therefore be less likely to dispute the awards. The long existence of 
the spirit of arbitration, proved by this paper, encourages its 
continuance. He cordially agreed with the opening sentences. No 


’ 
a ae ee ee 


ARBITRATION IN THE GREEK WORLD. 293 


doubt war had done good, but certainly not such wars as those 
of Louis XIV. The Dutch wars did good, and there is undoubtedly 
a sense in which war may become a Christian act. But, unless 
necessary, it was a crime. He trusted the policy of the Greek 
world would be more and more adopted among Christian states. 

Dr. THIRTLE said: One cannot but recognize that the subject 
before us is one of peculiar interest, and that it has been opened up 
in a singularly lucid manner. I am tempted, nevertheless, to raise 
-a side issue, and inquire whether there is in the Old Testament any 
reference to arbitration as a means of settling disputes. Assuredly 
the term is not there, but is the thought equally absent? Pursuing 
our inquiry, we suggest that, in its elementary meaning, arbitration 
is an appeal to reason (as distinguished from an appeal to force), 
with the object of settling differences between parties that are 
estranged from one another, or are likely to become so. Though 
not prepared to indicate a concrete instance of such a proceeding 
in Old Testament history, I think we have the thing itself 
expressed in a well-known appeal found in the prophecies of Isaiah. 

It is a celebrated passage to which I refer. By sin and evil 
courses the people of Judah had become alienated from Jehovah, 
and though judgment was due, if not imminent, words of mercy 
were spoken from heaven—all the while with the object of averting 
the terrible consequences of sin. Then it was that the appeal was 
made : “ Come, now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord.” (Isaiah i, 
18.) It is, of course, admitted that the machinery of arbitration is 
not brought before us in the passage; but the language implies a 
tenderness and consideration for the side that is in the wrong, such 
as lies at the base of arbitration. The words may be paraphrased: 
“Come, now, let us face the issue; and may the difference be 
decided in a manner that shall result in your finding acceptance in 
my sight, and the doom of sin be averted.” In following verses 
(19, 20) the consequences of acquiescence or refusal are indicated. 
I suggest that the appeal of Jehovah by the prophet is in the spirit 
of arbitration in the interest of the wayward nation ; and if the 
language admits of such interpretation, it is reasonable to conclude 
that the idea of arbitration cannot have been altogether foreign to 
the Hebrew mind. 

The CHAIRMAN said: Though our lecturer does not treat of 
world-arbitration, but only of that of the ancient Greek states, his 


294 MARCUS N. TOD, M.A.; ON INTERNATIONAL 


researches have been not only interesting, but also important. It is 
a paper which breaks new ground, and throws a flood of light in a 
quarter, and upon a subject, little suspected by the majority ot 
antiquarians who are not Greek specialists. 

When thinking over the paper we have just heard, one realizes 
how advanced the Greeks really were. It is true that there is some 
doubt whether they brought all the good-will, and all the deter- 
mination to give and take, which it is hoped that present-day 
arbitration would exhibit; but one may say that their efforts in — 
that direction had in many—perhaps in most—cases all the 
elements needful for success. Then, as would also be the case now, 
one side or the other may have had the determination to yield in 
nothing, and to take from the other side all that it could possibly get. 

We shall never know how early men first thought of submitting 
their disputes to arbitration. From our knowledge of savage tribes 
it may be assumed that primitive men were always fighters. 
Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that the most uncultured, the 
rudest, the savagest, always loved strife for strife’s sake. Under- 
lying all their disputes and conflicts (when not due to the mere 
desire for revenge) was the yearning, common to all our race, to get 
more than their rightful share of this world’s goods and advantages. 
and also to prove that they were the better men physically, and 
the most determined morally. From time to time they must have 
realized, however, that they had met their match, and arbitration 
was the result. 

Mr. Marcus Tod has added to the interest of this interesting 
paper by calling attention to what is apparently a very early 
instance of arbitration in the ancient world, the states between 
which it took place being those of Lagas and Umma* in Babylonia, 
and the date 3500 years before Christ, or earlier. One would like 
to be just a little more certain of the meaning of one or two of the 
words before accepting this as a real instance of arbitration, but it may 
be admitted that, if not altogether the real thing, it was at least 
something very much like it. The text does not state that Me-silim, 
king of Kis (the predecessor of Babylon in importance), was the 
arbitrator, but, apparently enlightened by his goddess Gu-silim,t he 


* Thus, according to the published explanatory lists, instead of 
Sirpurla and Gisuh. 
t+ So I read instead of Aad. 


ARBITRATION IN THE GREEK WORLD. 295 


set up a monument to commemorate the boundary between the two 
states. To all appearance it was Enlil, “king of the lands, father 
of the gods,” who expressed his divine will, and Me-silim (his name 
means “the voice of peace,” or the like) communicated it to the 
contending states. 

The lesson for us would seem to be, that the code of honour in 
heathen Greece in such matters was higher than in Christian 
Europe at the present time—and this not only in arbitration, but 
also in the declaration of war, when that unfortunate necessity 
arose ; they regarded invasions without notice rather as robberies 
than as lawful wars. We have sadly fallen off from that high 
ideal. 

I will ask you to return a most hearty vote of thanks to our 
lecturer for his engrossing paper, which I am sure we have all 
listened to with great interest, and greatly appreciate for its 
learning and originality. There is one remark which I should like 
to make concerning it, and that is, that certain of the details which 
he has given treat of the subject at first hand, thus placing their 
accuracy beyond the shadow of a doubt. 

The AuTHoR: I should like to offer to the Council and members 
of the Victoria Institute my sincerest thanks for their kindness in 
giving me this opportunity of submitting to their judgment and 
criticism this paper, which embodies in a short form some of the 
conclusions reached in a branch of study which has been of great 
interest to myself, and also for the cordial reception which has been 
given to what I have said. In especial let me thank you, Mr. Chair- 
man, for the fresh light you have thrown upon the early document 
to which I referred. I can claim no knowledge either of the monu 
ment itself or of the language in which it is inscribed, and am greatly 
indebted to you for your remarks about it and for the corrections 
you have made in that account of the text to which I had recourse. 
To answer in detail the various questions raised in the discussion 
would take me too long, and would carry me far beyond the limits 
of the subject to which I have confined myself in my paper. One 
point only I should like to emphasize afresh, that the recrudescence of 
feuds which have been previously settled, once or several times, by 
arbitration is no proof of the failure of the experiment. Arbitration 
may be regarded as a medicine employed to heal a disease of the 
body politic. In most cases of which we have record the cure was 


296 INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN THE GREEK WORLD. 


immediate and complete: in a small minority the disease was 
alleviated but not eradicated, but the fact upon which we must insist 
is this, that the fresh outbreak of the disease could always be met 
and relieved, at least temporarily, by a fresh application of the 
remedy. The ill was incurable by any means known to the political 
science of the day, and it is fairer to recognize the service which was 
rendered to Greek public life by arbitration than to criticise it 
because the cure effected was not always instantaneous and final. 


TEXT REFERRING TO THE STELE OF ME-SILIM.* 
By T. G. PINCHEs. 


Enlil, king of the lands, father of the gods, by his faithful (ever- 
lasting) word, divided the territory for Nin-Girsu and the god 
of Umma. Me-silim, king of Kis, by the word of his goddess 
Gu-silim, in her enlightenment (?)T, set up a stone on the spot. 
Us, ruler of Umma, acted according to a design too ambitious—he 
shattered the wrought stone, he entered the plain of Lagas. 

Nin-Girsu, warrior of Enlil, by his righteous word opposed Umma. 
By the word of Enlil, the great nett overthrew, (and) an earth- 
mound on the plain, in their territory, was founded (z.e¢., for the 
burial of the fallen). H-anna-tum, chief of Lagas, ancestor (in reality 
he was the uncle, as Thureau-Dangm says) of En-temenna, chief of 
Lagas, decided the boundary with En-a-kalli, chief of Umma. He 
made a watercourse to come forth from the river to the edge of the 
plain; by that watercourse he inscribed a stele. He restored 
the stele of Me-silim to its place. He did not occupy the plain of 
Umma. Upon the platform of Nin-Girsu he built, with massiveness, 
the shrine of Enlil, the shrine of Nin-hursag, the shrine of Nin- 
Girsu, (and) the shrine of Babbar (the sun-god). 

(At this point the offerings to the shrines are enumerated.) 


* Based upon the translation of M. Thureau-Dangin. 
+ In the enlightenment due to her, or the like. 
{ The destruction from on high. 


THE 533rp ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 


~HELD IN THE ROOMS OF THE INSTITUTE ON MONDAY 
MAY 20rn, 1912, AT 4.30 p.m. 


E. WatTER Maunper, Esq., F.R.A.S., PRESIDED. 


The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed. 


The SECRETARY announced the Annual Address to be delivered 
by Sir ANDREW WINGATE, K.C.I.E., who would take for his 
subject “The Bible and Modern Unrest,” and that the following 
presentations to the Library had been received by the Council: Two 
volumes from Dr. Thirtle entitled Old Testament Problems and 
The Titles of the Psalms, and one volume from Mr. H. B. Guppy on 
Seeds and Fruits, 


The CHAIRMAN introduced the lecturer, the Rev. EK. A. EDGHILL, 
M.A., B.D., who read a paper on “ Miraculous Christianity and the 
Supernatural Christ.” 


A discussion followed in which Mr. Rouss, Professor ORCHARD, 
Archdeacon PoTTER and Dr. Irvine took part. The CHAIRMAN 
closed the discussion with a few remarks and moved a cordial vote 
of thanks to the Lecturer, which was carried unanimously. 


This paper, owing to its author’s ill-health, had not been 
submitted in time to get it in print before the Meeting. After the 
Meeting he took it away to abbreviate, and the MS. of the 
discussion was sent to him to revise his reply. It is with most 
sincere regret that the Council learned that he subsequently injured 
his foot, when blood-poisoning set in and he died in two or three 
days. Mr. Edghill had a brilliant University career, and had held 


298 


many important offices during his short life. He was Hulsean 
Lecturer in 1911. The following is an extract from The Times 
obituary :— 

“Mr. Edghill was a man of great energy and enthusiasm, and 
devoted much time and thought to the Children’s Guild, Poor Law 
Schools, and Annual Boys’ Camp and Boy Scout movements, 
combining such activities with more definitely intellectual pursuits, 
he lived a strenuous life, with little regard for the limitations of 
health and strength.” 


re ee ee ae 


534TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 


HELD IN THE ROOMS OF THE INSTITUTE ON MONDAY, 
JUNE 3rp, 1912, AT 4.30 p.m. 


Lt.-GENERAL Sir Henry L. Geary, K.C.B., PRESIDED. 
The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed. 
The Secrerary announced the following elections :— 


Mempers: The Rev. J. Iverach Munro, M.A.; Charles Stewart 
Campbell, Esq., B.A., I.C.S. 


AssociATE: Major H. J. H. de Vismes. 


The CHartrmMan then called upon ARrcHDEACON PoTreEr to read his 
paper. 


THE INFLUENCE OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS 
ON JEWISH THOUGHT.* By THE VENERABLE ARCH- 
DEACON PoTTER, M.A. 


N introducing this question my first duty is to apologize for 
venturing to undertake to write on it, because the subject 

is one which needs a master-hand to render it full justice. My 
excuses must be (1) that I endeavoured to get one who is much 
better qualified than I to undertake it, but he apparently was 
unable to find the time; (2) that I think it possible that a 
person like myself, not an original worker in archeological 
fields, but only one who studies work accomplished by distin- 
guished men, has some advantage in co-ordinating these results 
with those attained in other sciences, because his mind being 
less devoted to one particular study may be more pliable in 
reconciling the results of several; (3) I have always had an 
intense conviction, which has grown with years, reading, and 
thought, that every science is a revealer of God; and that 
religion gains enormously, and loses nothing in the application 


* N.B.—The letters, P., J.E., E., in this paper, refer to the different 
sections in the Old Testament, as distinguished by the Higher Critics, 
P. being the latest, supposed not to have been completed till the period 
of the exile ; the others being earlier, their completion dating certainly 
before 750 B.c. 


500 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


of scientific results to what we call revelation. No doubt all 
things are shaken in the process ; but the result is the making it 
quite clear what are those permanent Divine and important 
things which cannot be shaken, and remain. 

There can be no more fascinating study than that of the 
influences which preceded and surrounded the beginning and 
development of the Jewish religion. This religion is the 
foundation on which Christianity is built. So that if we desire 
to understand the real meaning of the latter, we must understand 
the former. 

To gain a true conception of a religion, it is desirable to 
ascertain the conditions under which it took its rise. Unless 
we were to assume that. the historical and scientific setting in 
which religious conceptions are enshrined was directly and 
infallibly revealed to men by God, we may suppose that the- 
conditions under which religious thinkers and prophets were 
born, and the ideas current, at their time and before, in their 
country and surrounding countries, would influence their 
thoughts and writings. And as we find out the amount of 
that influence, we learn to distinguish between the Divinely 
revealed and the historically developed elements. 

With regard to Old Testament teachings, everyone now 
knows that they correspond in a very marked way with 
Babylonian conceptions, ever since Mr. George Smith (following 
Layard and Rawlinson) unveiled the library of Asur-banipal in 
1874. This learned Assyrian king compiled his library in 
about 670 B.c. But in one of the tablets found at Nineveh 
occur these words: “according to the copies of the tablets of 
Assyria and Accad I have written on tablets.” The Assyrian 
tablets were therefore copies of older Assyrian and Babylonian 
ones; and Babylonian duplicates have since been found at 
Borsippa and Sippara. “These Babylonian copies are of great 
importance, as they cannot have been taken from the Assyrian 
tablets, which were probably buried at the fall of Nineveh, but 
are from older copies in their own libraries.”* Moreover, the 
creation tablets found at Nineveh give honour to Merodach, 
not to Asshur, and consequently are Babylonian, not Assyrian 
in origin. Also a story of the flood has recently been found, 
which experts date at before 2000 B.c. And the fight between 
Merodach and Tiamat was found sculptured upon two limestone 
slabs in the temple of Ninib at Nimrud. This temple was 
built between 884 B.c. and 860 B.c., and across the sculpture 


* Vide Boscawen. 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 301 


was inscribed a dedication to Ninib by this king. This dates 
back the creation legend to at any rate 200 years before the 
formation of the library.* It seems, therefore, clear that the 
tablets from Nineveh are of much greater antiquity than 
670 B.C. 

In them the beginning of things is thus described: “ At 
that time the Heavens were unnamed. The chaotic Sea was 
the mother of all.” 

In Genesis the deep is called “Tehom.” In Babylon, 

“ Tiamat,” the dragon conquered by Merodach, was the personi- 
- fication of chaos and darkness. From her body were made the 
sky and heavenly bodies, like the firmament in Genesis and the 
lights init. Consequently, the tablets and Genesis (P.) agree 
in putting the deep as the first existence. In one tablet 
Merodach says, “ Bone will I fashion.” Issamtu is the word 
used for bone. It corresponds to esem bone in Genesis u, 23 
(J.), where Adam calls Eve “ bone of my bones.” 

This tablet also says that Merodach opened his mouth and 
spake to Ea, telling him what he had conceived in his heart. 
This corresponds to Genesis i, 26 (P.), “ Let us make man.” 

As Merodach was originally a solar deity, his conquering the 
dragon may be looked on as parallel with the Hebrew narrative 
(P.) of the existence of light before the creation of the heavenly 
bodies. And the dividing of the primeval waters by a 
firmament before the creation of the heavenly bodies agrees 
with Genesis ; and also the culminating act of creation being 
that of man (as in Genesis (P.) ).* 

In the Assyrian tablets, the stars and night came first in the 
order of creation, then the sun and the day, the reverse being 
the case in the Hebrew record (P.); this has been attributed to 
the nomad life of the earlier people ; and would point to an early 
date (viz., during the nomad period) for the Babylonian legends— 
the sun, being associated with agriculture, would come first with 
agriculturists—the moon would come first with persons leading 
a nomad life. 

Another tablet describes the gods calling forth mighty 
monsters, the cattle and wild beasts by Ea. The lower part 
of this tablet is mutilated, and it has been supposed might have 
contained a description of the creation of the human race. And 
in a hymn to Ea occur these words, “for their redemption did 
he create mankind, even he with whom is life,” and in another 
tablet occur the words, “may his word be established and not 


* Vide King. 


302 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


forgotten in the mouth of mankind whom his hands have 
created.” 

Further in the sixth tablet, which was published, I think, for 
the first time by Mr. King, the creation of man is narrated 
(and it agrees largely with the long-known account given by 
Berosus,* who says that Bel formed mankind from his own 
blood mixed with earth). The sixth tablet says, “when 
Merodach heard the words of the gods, he spake unto Ea—my 
blood will I take, and bone will I fashion. I will create man 
to inhabit the earth, that the service of the gods may be 
established, and their shrines built,’ reminding us of an old 
Christian conception that man is the priest of nature, made for 
the purpose of understanding God’s works, and praising him 
for them. 

In the mythological tablet, the third of the creation series, 
occur the words, “the great Gods entered; in sin they jom in 
compact, the fruit they broke, they broke in two. Merodach, 
their redeemer, he appointed their fate.” This reminds us of 
Adam and Eve tempted by the serpent to eat the fruit in 
Eden (J.). 

The story of Sargon’s birth bears an interesting resemblance 
to that of the birth of Moses (E.). Sargon was the first Semitic 
king of Babylonia at a date which Nabonidus, a later learned 
and accurate king of Babylon, places at a period which would 
be about 3800 B.c. (King, I find in his Sumer and Accad, puts 
this at nearly 1,000 years later, and others quote both dates 
as possiblet However, the latest date given is nearly 
1,000 years before Moses.) A tablet preserved in the British 
Museum gives the story thus, “My little mother in the city 
of Atsu Pirani, on the banks of the Euphrates, brought me 
forth in a secret place. She placed me im a basket of reeds, 
and closed its mouth with bitumen. She gave me to the river, 
which did not cover me over, but carried me to Akki the iri- 
gator.” By the latter he was brought tp as a gardener; the 
goddess Istar prospered him, and he eventually became king of 
the land. 

The great difference between the Babylonian story of creation 
and that in Genesis is that the former was mainly polytheistic 
and the latter monotheistic. 


* A Babylonian priest, 330-260 B.c. 

+ Lehmann considers that a scribe employed to copy the original 
statement of Nabonidus must have misread one stroke too many in the 
numerals, and thus made an excess of 1,000 years. Others believe that 
Nabonidus had no means of judging the date of Sargon. 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 3803 


But as modifying this undoubted distinction, Eerdmannsthinks 
that polytheism dominated originally all the narratives of 
which Genesis is composed. He refers to the passages in 
chapters 1, 26, and xx, 13, as ones in which the original poly- 
theism is still apparent: and others, as eg., “blessed be the 
Lord God of Shem,” or “I am the God of Abraham thy father, 
and the God of Isaac,” as recognizing Yahweh as one among 
many Gods.* Moreover, many Babylonian expressions have 
a decidedly monotheistic tendency, as ¢.g., the following: a hymn 
to the Moon God of Ur and Harran, from which Abraham and 
‘his father came, says, “ Father long suffering and forgiving, who 
upholds all living things by his hand; begetter of gods and 
men, firstborn ; omnipotent, whose unfathomable heart none 
can know ; in Heaven and on earth thou alone art supreme. 
Among the Gods thou hast no rival.” This hymn Boscawen 
considers older than the time of Abraham. 

Sinai was called after Sin the Moon God, and it was a sacred 
place long before Moses communed there with God. Sargon 
and Naram-Sin conquered Sinai in very early times; in Exodus 
i, 1, we read that “ Moses was keeping the flock of his father- 
in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian; and he came to the mount 
of Yahweh, even to Horeb.” This seems to infer that the 
mountain was so called “the mount of God” before Moses 
visited it. Driver thinks that possibly Israelites had worshipped 
Yahweh at Sinai before Moses went there. In 1896, at 
Kurnah, in the funeral temple of Manephthah, were found the 
words, “ Ysiraal is desolated, its seed is not”; this is in a 
description of this king’s victory over enemies in Canaan, and 
as these words were written before the Exodus, probably there 
were Israelites in Canaan before the Exodus (possibly left 
behind after the famine of Joseph).t 

If this were so, we can understand Yahweh and Sin having 
some attributes in common. Sin had been called “the Lord of 
laws,” “he who created law and justice,” “the ordainer of the 
laws of heaven and earth.” And Sinai was the place where 
Moses received God’s laws. 


* The Rev. H. T. Knight considers that it was not until the time of 
Isaiah that the higher conception was reached, that Yahweh was not 
merely a tribal god, but the god of all the world: and he points out 
that Jephthah regards Chemosh as having a real existence: that Ruth is 
content to follow Naomi, and cleave to her people and her God: and 
that David, when driven into exile, conceived himself as in a land 
belonging to other gods. 

+e, Vide Petrie. 


304 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


Professor Sayce in 1898 discovered in the British Museum 
a tablet of the period of Khammurabi, in which occur the words 
“Yahweh is God”; also in the Kassite period (1500 B.c.) occur 
the words I-au-bani, “ Yahweh is creator,’ and in a letter 
written about 1450 B.c., found at Taanach, occur the words 
Akki-Ja-nu—(like Ahijah)— Jehovah is brother.” 

Rogers mentions this, and adds that there can be no doubt 
that the Divine name Jehovah is not a peculiar possession of 
the Hebrews, but that “coming from outside there poured into 
it such a flood of attributes as no priest had dreamed of in his 
highest moments of spiritual insight.” Driver says, “the 
origin of the name Yahweh is still uncertain.” In Exodus iii, 
13, we read, “thus shall ye say unto the children of Israel, 
‘IT am’ hath sent me unto you.” This is an E. passage. In 
Exodus vi, 3 (a P. passage), we read, “by my name Yahweh was 
I not known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” These two 
_ passages imply that the name originated in the time of Moses. 
But in Genesis ii, 4, 5 (a J. passage), we read, “the Lord God 
(Jehovah, or I am) made the earth and the heavens,” and in 
verses 7 and 8, “the Lord God formed man out of the dust, 
and the Lord planted a garden eastward in Eden,” apparently 
implying that the name Jehovah came from the creation times. 

Nebuchadnezzar’s prayer to Merodach (about 606 B.C.), 
written during the Israelitish captivity, shows striking simi- 
larities to Jewish religious thought, “Oh, Merodach, firstborn 
of the goddess, who didst create me, ‘and hast entrusted to me 
the sovereignty over hosts of men, accept the lifting up of my 
hands,” and in another prayer, found on a clay cylinder, occur 
the words, “Oh, Prince, thou that art from everlasting, Lord 
of all that exists, I the Prince who obey thee, am the work of 
thine hands.” ' 

In the prayer of Assur-nazir-pal I. about 1800 B.c., z2., five 
centuries before Moses, Istar is described as “the merciful 
goddess, who loves justice.” He prays that “through her 
turning towards him his heart may become strong.” “ Thou 
didst preserve for me the sceptre of righteousness; thou hast 
granted unto the faithful salvation and mercy. Look on me 
with compassion ; grant me forgiveness.” 

The prayer of Lugal- Zageisi (about 3500 B.c.*), says, “Oh 
Enlil the king of the lands, may Anu to his beloved father speak 
my prayer, to my life may he add life, and cause the lands to 
dwell in security.” In a hymn to Shamash the Sun God, first 


* Or 2800, according to King. 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 305 


published by Briinnow, occur the words, “the mighty mountains 
are filled with thy glance ; thy holiness fills and overpowers all 
lands; at the uttermost points of earth, in the midst of heaven 
thou dost move; thou dost watch over the inhabitants of the 
whole earth. Among all the gods of the universe there is none 
that exceeds thee; who plans evil, his horn thou dost destroy ; 
the unjust judge thou restrainest with force. Thou art gracious 
to him who does not accept a bribe; who cares for the oppressed, 
his life thou dost prolong.” 

Merodach in a hymn is said to be, “he who giveth life and 
restoreth it; merciful among the gods, who loves to awaken the 
dead.” 

In a prayer to Ishtar occur the words, “the fervent prayer 
of him who has sinned do thou accept, merciful one who accepts 
sighs.” Another prayer addressed to any God against whom 
the worshipper has sinned says, “the God who is angry with 
me be appeased—my transgressions are many, great are my sins. 
My transgressions are seven times seven. Forgive them.” 

The Babylonian story of the flood is exceedingly like ours. 
“Oh man of Shuripak, frame a house, build a ship, abandon thy 
goods, cause thy soul to live, bring into the ship the seed of life 
of every sort.” 

The ship was to be as broad as it was high, 120 cubits (in 
_ Genesis P. it is 300 x 50 x 30). (In Genesis it was an ark.) 
It had six decks with seven stories, and nine compartments— 
bitumen was spread over it for caulking. It was laden with all 
the man’s possessions, silver, gold, the seed of life of every kind, 
his family, his servants, his cattle, beasts, craftsmen ; the ship 
was launched—a storm came and raged for six days and 
nights—the ship grounded on Mount Nizir (east of the Tigris) 
and remained there for six days ; on the seventh day Utna-pistim, 
the Babylonian Noah, let a dove go, and it turned back, there 
being no resting-place ; then he sent out a swallow, and it turned 
back; then a raven, but it turned not back. He then offers 
sacrifice on the summit of the mountain. 

In Genesis (J.) we read, “I will cause it to rain forty days 
and nights,” Genesis vii, 4 (as compared with the storm above 
of six days and nights). In Genesis (P.) we read, “the waters 
prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days (Genesis vii, 
24). In Genesis (J.) viii, 6, etc., a raven and a dove were sent 
forth (not a swallow as above). Professor Driver says that, 
“the substantial identity of the two narratives, the Hebrew and 
Babylonian, is unquestionable.” It was the god Ea who told 
Utna-pistim of the coming flood. Professor Hommel points 

Xx 


306 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


out that the name Ea was in all probability connected with Jah. 
Ninep speaks of Ea as the one who knew every event. Boscawen 
says, “The position occupied by Ea in the classical religious 
texts approaches very near to that of Jehovah in the Biblical 
narrative.” Merodach was his son, “the protector of good 
men.” In certain Chaldean hymns Merodach appears as the 
mediator between God and man. He was Asari the good one, 
and greatly resembles the Egyptian Osiris, the god of the 
resurrection, and of the dead. The similarity of the correspon- 
dence between the relationship between Ea and Merodach, with 
that between Jehovah and our Lord, is very striking. 

Professor Hilprecht recently discovered at Nippur (or 
Niffur)—identified with the Biblical Calneh—another flood 
fragment, which he considers is not Jess old than 2005 Bc. A 
paper was recently read before this Institute by Dr. Pinches 
on this fragmenc. It speaks of building a ship with divisions, 
into which every beast and bird and Noah’s family shall 
enter, and includes the following passages: “I will loosen—it 
shall sweep away all men together. On as many as there are 
I will bring annihilation and destruction—build a great ship— 
it shall be a house-boat carrying what is saved of life, with a 
strong deck over it, etc.”. Canon Driver draws my attention to 
the fact that this text contains no parallels with the P. portion 
of Genesis as distinct from the J. portion, the supposed resem- 
blances being contained only in Hailprecht’s conjectured 
restorations, and depending on a doubtful explanation of a 
word Kumminu. But Genesis vi, 6, 7, and vu, 4, and 
Genesis vi, 13, the former a “J.,” the latter a “ P.,” portion of 
Genesis, are both parallel with this fragment; the former says, 
“it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth”; and 
he said, “I will destroy man whom I have created, both man, 
and the beast and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air— 
every substance that I have made will I destroy off the face of 
the earth; the latter (P.) says, “the end of all flesh is come 
before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold, I 
will destroy them with the earth.” 

The story of Adapa, preserved in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets 
(1400 B.c.), reminds one of the “Tree of Life” in Genesis (a J. 
section). Ka had warned Adapa not to accept meat and drink 
from the gods, because he feared they would slay him : so Adapa 
would not eat or drink. But Anu says to him: “ Why dost thou 
neither eat nor drink, for now thou canst not live?” So Adapa 
missed the immortality which Anu had really intended for him. 

Among similarities between the Hebrew and Assyrian 


a 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT’. 307 


languages, as used on the monuments, are the following: 
“ Bintu,” daughter, resembling the Hebrew “ Banoth,” daughters, 
and the Arabic “Bint.” “Khatanu,” father-in-law, from the 
verb signifying to protect, Hebrew “Khatan.” “Sibu,” grand- 
father, Hebrew “Sabah,” meaning greyhaired. “ Panu,” a face, 
Hebrew “Paneh.” “ Libbu,” the heart, Hebrew “Leb.” “Samu,” 


heaven, “Samain.” “Naru,” a river, “Nahr.” “Samas,” the 
sun, “Semes.” “Udumu,” an ape, Adam the man. “Jibu,”’ a 
wolf, “Zeeb.” “Sarru,” a king, from the verb signifying to be 
bright, “Sar.” “ Melku,” a prince, “ Melek.’ “ Resu,” a head, 
ew ihe a mole, re. . etc. etes. >“ AbIL” “a son 


(Sumerian “ Ibila”), is the Hebrew Abel. 

As regards the code of Khammurabi, this monarch, probably 
the Amraphel of Genesis xiv, reigned, probably, 2130-2088 
B.c.* He was the sixth king of the dynasty reigning at Babylon. 
His code of laws was discovered, December, 1901, by Mr. de 
Morgan at Susa. At the upper end of the front side of the 
diorite stone is a bas-relief representing the king standing in 
front of Shamash the Sun God, and receiving his laws from him 
(reminding us of Moses on Sinai). In the prologue Kham- 
murabi states that Bel and Merodach had called him to cause - 
justice to prevail, to destroy the wicked, and evil, and prevent 
the strong from oppressing the weak. He ends by promising 
_ blessings from Shamash on all future kings who maintain his 
laws: and uttering terrible curses on those who alter them. 
The code contains no ceremonial law, but is confined to civil 
and criminal law. Driver considers that Khammurabi may 
have formulated some provisions, but that on the whole his 
code arranged and sanctioned previously existing laws. King 
reminds us that Urukagina of Lagash, when he modified 
existing laws, was dealing with laws similar to those codified 
by Khammurabi, which shows that Khammurabi’s laws were of 
Sumerian origin. The following parallels between Khammurabi 
and the Pentateuch are interesting. Khammurabi says that 
a false witness is to be punished by the lex talionis. In 
Deuteronomy xix, 19, we read “if the witness be a false 
witness then shall ye do unto him, as he thought to have done 
unto his brother.” Khammurabi says if something lost is 
found in another man’s possession, witnesses are to declare 
before God what they know, and the thief is to be put to death. 
In Exodus xxii, 9, there is the same provision, only that the 
punishment is not death but double payment. Khammurabi 


* King puts him a little later. 
x 2 


308 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


says that “a man stealing the son of a free-man shall be put to 
death.” In Exodus xxi, 16, we read that “anyone stealing a 
man shall be put to death.” Khammurabi says that anyone 
striking a father shall have his hands cut off. In Exodus xxi, 
15, he is to be put to death. In the code of Khammurabi 
when a wife gives her maid as second wife to her husband, 
if this maid makes herself the equal of her mistress, because 
she has borne children, her mistress shall not sell her for 
money; she shall put the slave’s mark upon her, and count 
her among the servants. So in Genesis xvi, 5, Sarai spoke to 
Abraham, “ Yahweh judge between thee and me.” And Abraham 
said, “thy maid is in thy hand, do unto her as pleaseth thee.” 
And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fied from her face. 

Regarding the garden of Eden, Professor Sayce says, “that there 
is a connection between the Biblical story and the Babylonian 
legend is rendered certain by the geography of the Biblical 
Paradise. It was a garden in the land of Eden; and Edin was 
the Sumerian name of the plain of Babylonia, in which Eridu 
stood. Two of the rivers which watered it were the Tigris 
and Euphrates, the two streams which we are specially 
told had been created and named by Ea at the beginning of 
time.” He adds, “years ago I drew attention to a Sumerian 
hymn, in which reference is made to the garden and sacred tree 
ot Emridu, the Babylonian paradise in the plain of Eden.” 
Dr. Pinches has since discovered the last line of the hymn in 
which these words occur, ‘In Eridu a vine or palm; grew 
overshadowing.” 

As regards views of a future life, Professor Sayce reminds us 
that in Babylon there was no mummification as in Egypt, and 
that so the horizon was fixed at this life. There is no concep- 
tion in Babylon like that of the Egyptian fields of Alu—no 
judgment hall where men are to be tried—the Babylonian was 
to be judged in this world, not the next, and by the Sun God of 
day. Professor Sayce adds, “the Hebrew sheol is too exact 
a counterpart of the Babylonian World of the Dead not to have 
been borrowed from it”: and he concludes, “it is to Babylonia 
that we must look for the origin of those views of the future 
world, and of the punishment of sin in this life, which have left 
so deep an impression upon the pages of the Old Testament. 
The old belief that misfortune implied sin, and prosperity 
righteousness, 1s never entirely eradicated, and Sheol long 
continues to be a land of shadow and unsubstantiality, where 
good and bad share the same fate, and the things ue this life are 
forgotten.” 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 309 


Regarding the story of Cain and Abel, Professor Sayce 
(Lup. Times, August, 1910) says that, Yahweh being the 
God of the West Semitic Bedouins, their best offering would 
be Abel’s, the younger brother’s, the firstlings of their flocks. 
The elder brother, resembling the Babylonian master, would 
offer the first fruits of his produce. 

The Sabbath apparently was of Babylonian origin. The 
Semitic word sabbatu (sabbath) was derived from sar, a heart, 
and bat, to cease or rest. In the sacred calendar of the months 
-Nisan, ete., now in the British Museum, we read, “ the seventh 
is a resting-day to Merodach and Zarpenit, a holy day—a 
Shepherd of mighty nations changes not his clothes—must not 
make a washing—must not offer sacrifice—the King must not 
drive in his chariot—must not eat flesh cooked at the fire, 
medicine for sickness one must notapply.” G.Smith (ED. Sayce) 
says, “the antiquity of this text is evident, not only from the 
fact that it has been translated from an Accadian original, but 
also from the word rendered prince, which literally means a 
shepherd, and takes us back to the early times when the 
Accadian monarchs still remembered that their predecessors 
had been only shepherd chieftains.” 

The second part of my subject is an attempt to answer the 
question “ How did these similarities between Babylonian and 
Hebrew writings occur?” It seems clear from what has been 
said already that the Babylonian traditions were the earlier : 
and therefore that they could not have been derived from the 
Hebrew. On the other hand, there are indications that the 
Hebrew were not directly copied from Babylonian writings : 
as is shown by the monotheism of the Hebrew, and polytheism 
of the Babylonian writings: also the difference in the order of 
creation in the two accounts precludes direct copying. But the 
similarities show a common influence: and even in the doctrine 
of monotheism, the Hebrew seems to have laid the coping stone to 
a conception, which the Babylonians had been searching after. 

There seem to have been three ways in which Babylonian 
traditions might have reached the Hebrew people: (1) through 
Abraham. He is said to have come from Ur of the Chaldees, a 
Babylonian city, sacred to the Moon God. From there he went to 
Haran, also sacred to the Moon God, and from Haran he came to 
Canaan. It is quite possible that Babylonian traditions may 
have begun their Jewish development in the time of Abraham, 
and that they may have lingered, and been altered during the 
Egyptian sojourn, and also among the Israelities left in Canaan, 
according to the belief above mentioned. 


310 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


But (2) another way in which a knowledge of Babylonian 
beliefs may have come was through the aboriginal inhabitants 
of Canaan, on the return of the Israelites from Egypt. It seems 
quite clear from the Tel-el-Amarna tablets that a widespread 
knowledge of Babylonian ideas must have been current in 
Palestine at least one hundred and fifty years before the time 
of Moses, because these tablets contain letters written from 
Palestine to the Egyptian king, asking for help against enemies, 
etc., written in the Babylonian cuneiform script. It seems 
strange that among these early nations in Palestine the 
Babylonian language was the vehicle for communicating ideas. 
It reminds one of the time of our Lord, when Greek was the 
polite language in Palestine. But if Palestine before Moses was 
permeated by the Babylonian language, we can understand its 
being the home of Babylonian religious conceptions. In fact, in 
view of the Tel-el-Amarna revelation, it would seem strange if 
there were not a correspondence of ideas between the Mosaic 
code and cosmogony and the Hebrew. The story of Adapa 
being among these letters shows that religious conceptions were 
known in Palestine then. 

Bishop Ryle says, “The probability that the Genesis cosmo- 
gony is ultimately to be traced back to an Assyrian tradition 
may be reasonably admitted.” 

“The ancestors of Abraham were Assyrian. The various 
creation legends current in Mesopotamia would presumably 
have been preserved in the clan of Terah.” 

In a letter which I received from Canon Driver, July 12th, 
1911, he says, “ Babylonian influence certainly ts traceable in 
the Old Testament, though the extent of it seems to me to have 
been in some quarters exaggerated. It was mostly, it seems to 
me, indirect, and it need not, I suppose, have all come in through 
the same channel, or at the same time.” 

(3) Traditions may have come through the exile. 

Further light may be thrown on this subject by a consideration 
of the results at which the higher criticism has arrived. 

Dr. Sanday is a particularly conservative critic; and he uses 
the following words with reference to the composition of the 
Pentateuch. He says, “If we accept, as I at least feel 
constrained to accept, at least in broad outline, the critical 
theory now so widely held as to the composition of the 
Pentateuch, then there is a long interval, an interval of some 
four centuries or more, between the events and the main portions 
of the record as we now have it.” “In such a case,” he adds, 
“ we should expect to happen just what we find has happened. 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. dll 


There is an element of folk lore, of oral tradition, insufficiently 
checked by writing. The imagination has been at work.” 

Canon Driver says that, “Two principles will solve Old 
Testament difficulties: (1) that in many parts of the books we 
have before us traditions in which the original representation 
has been insensibly modified, and sometimes coloured by the 
associations of the age in which the author recording it lhved: 
(2) that often ancient historians merely develop at length in 
the style and manner of the narrator what was handed down 
ouly as a compendious report.” Canon Driver also contradicts 
what apparently Professor Sayce assumed that the belief of the 
Higher Critics that the Mosaic law (or, to be quite correct, the 
legislation of P. as a whole) was posterior to the prophets was 
based on the denial that writing was used for literary purposes in 
the age of Moses. The Tel-el-Amarna tablets, and the code of 
Hammurabi, show that it was so used before this age. And 
Canon Driver adds that critics do not deny that Moses might have 
left materials behind him, but that the existing Pentateuch is 
his work. 

He also tells us that the age and authorship of the books of 
the Old Testament can only be determined—so far as this is 
possible—by the internal evidence supplied by the books them- 
selves, no external evidence worthy of credit existing. As 
regards the date of the P. portion of Genesis, this writer says: 
“Though the elements which it embodies originated themselves 
at a much earlier age, it 1s itself the latest of the sources of 
which the Hexateuch is composed, and belongs approximately 
to the period of the Babylonian captivity.” He adds, “the 
priest’s code embodies some elements with which the earlier 
pre-exilic literature is in harmony, and which it pre-supposes : 
and other elements with which the same literature is in conflict, 
and the existence of which it even seems to preclude,” and he 
concludes that ‘“ the chief ceremonial institutions of Israel are 
of great antiquity: but that the laws respecting them were 
gradually developed and elaborated and in the shape in which 
they are formulated in the Priest’s code belong to the exile or 
post-exilic period—and were not therefore manufactured during 
the exile, but based upon pre-existing Temple usage.” 

An interesting article appeared in the Nineteenth Century 
Magazine of December, 1911, by Rev. E. McClure, in which he 
gives us information regarding a recent find in Elephantine, 
Upper Egypt, of certain Aramaic papyri dating from a period 
between 494 B.c. and 404 Bc. Among them is an epistle 
addressed by the Jewish colony then existing at Elephantine, to 


312 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


the Governor of Judaea, a previous one having been sent to the 
High Priest at Jer usalem, complaining that, their temple having 
been destroyed by the Exyptians, they could not offer the usual 
meal offerings, incense offerings and burnt offerings (the terms 
used for these offerings being “equivalent to those used i in Levi- 
ticus (Mincha, Lebonah, and Olah) ). 

As it appears that this colony was founded in probably the 
reign of Psammeticus I., or Psammeticus II. (594-589 B.c. or 
659-611 B.c.), it would appear that these offerings were cus- 
tomary from a period preceding the return from Babylon. 

Hommel also finds many other apparent evidences in favour 
of the view that much of the P. code came down from the time 
of Moses, among them is the similarity between the description 
given in Exodus xxviii, 17-20, of the dress of the High Priest. 
and Erman’s account of the dress of the Chief Priest of 
Memphis in the X VIIIth and XIXth Dynasties (shortly before 
the time.of Moses). Erman describes the latter thus: “From 
the shoulders or neck two parallel rows of cords descend 
obliquely to the breast; the cords cross one another, and at 
every point of intersection there is a little ball or a small 
ornament (the ankh). There are four rows of these ornaments, 
each of which is composed of precious stones, and there are three 
crosses and three balls. then three more crosses and three more 
balls.” The passage in Exodus compared with this (chapter 
xxv, 17, etc.) says, “Thou shalt make the breastplate with 
cunning work, of gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and 
fine twined linen, foursquare it shall be, being doubled; and 
thou shalt set in it settings of stones, even four rows of stones— 
they shall be set in gold in their inclosings.” Hommel calls the 
similarity an “almost absolute similarity which can searcely be 
explained except by assuming that it was borrowed by the 
Egyptians in the time of Moses.” But the resemblance does 
not seem to me clear enough to justify these words. However, 
the pre-exilic period shows no indications of the legislation 
of P. (as a systematic whole) being in operation. The place of 
sacrifice in P. is strictly limited, and severe penalties are enforced 
when any but priests presume to officiate at the altar, while in 
Judges and Samuel sacrifice is offered in places not consecrated 
by the presence of the ark, and laymen officiate. In 
P. only Aaron’s descendants exercise priestly functions; in 
Deuteronomy, the tribe of Levi (vide Driver). 

With regard to the date of Genesis xiv, which narrates the 
battle of the four kings against five, Hommel argues from the 
form of the name Amraphel that it must have originated from 


————— es ee ee 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 313 


a cuneiform text dating from the time of the Khammurabi 
dynasty, as at that period alone do we find the variants 
Ammurabi and Ammirabi side by side with Khammurabi. 
Also that the confusion into which the whole text has fallen, 
from verse 17 onwards, taken in conjunction with the 
presence of so many obscure and archaic expressions, is the 
best possible proof of the antiquity of the whole chapter. 
“ Probably,” he says, “ the original, which seems to have been 
written in Babylonian, was rescued from the archives of the 
-pre-Israelitish kings of Salem, and preserved in the Temple at 
Jerusalem.” This theory, however, does not conflict with the 
higher criticism, as expounded by Canon Driver, which does not 
deny the antiquity of any of the sources of the Old Testament, 
but asserts that “the Hebrew historiographer is essentially a 
compiler of pre-existing documents, and not an original author.” 
This chapter (Genesis xiv) is put apart by Driver as coming 
from a special source; he also points out that, although the 
four names in verse 1 correspond more or less exactly with 
those of kings discovered in the inscriptions, at present (up to 
June, 1909) there is no monumental corroboration of any part 
of the narrative which follows. Some poetic fragments 
discovered by Dr. Pinches narrate inroads of Kudur-dugmal or 
Kudur-luggamal into North Babylonia, Khammurabi being his 
opponent. (In Genesis they are described as coming together 
against the King of Sodom and his allies.) Also a mention is 
made of a certain Tudkhula identified by Hommel with the 
Tidal of Genesis. Another inscription mentions Iri-Aku, the King 
of Larsa (corresponding to Arioch of Ellasar in Genesis); and also 
Kudur-Mabug his father is called the Prince of Martu (the West). 

Professor Hommel is also of opinion that the dynasty to 
which Khammurabi belonged was South Arabian; and that it 
had introduced into Babylon a doctrine of monotheism which 
was of great antiquity, and superseded the polytheism of 
Babylonia ; and that consequently Abraham carried with him 
to Canaan this higher conception; and he explains the fact that 
Khammurabi’s father bore the Babylonian name of Sinmuballit, 
and his grandfather that of Apil-sin, by the fact that it was 
customary to adopt the personal names of the country ruled 
over. But I am not aware that Hommel is supported in this 
theory by any distinguished archeologist. And to my mind 
his arguments appear forced and unreal. 

As regards Deuteronomy, the completion of this book is put 
by Canon Driver as before 621 B.c., and possibly at about 
630 B.c. But he adds that “the bulk of the laws contained in 


SLL THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


Deuteronomy is far more ancient than the time of the author 
himself.” Critics agree that neither the J. nor E. portions of 
the Hexateuch are later than 750 B.c.; most are of opinion 
that one if not all are decidedly earlier. Driver considers that 
both may be assigned with the greatest probability to the early 
centuries of the monarchy. : 

David reigned about 1000 B.c. Petrie puts the Exodus at 
1230 B.c. 

As an instance of the higher critical method I may mention here 
two passages, which show a somewhat late date for some J.E. 
portions of the Hexateuch. In Genesis xii, 6, Abraham is said 
to have passed through the land when he came out of Haran 
unto the place of Sichem; and it is added, “the Canaanite was 
then in the land.” So this passage must have been written 
after the Canaanite had ceased to be in the land. Genesis xiii, 7, 
speaks of a strife between Abraham’s and Lot’s herdmen, adding, 
“that the Canaanite and Perizzite dwelled then in the land.” 
And in Genesis xl, 15, Joseph in Egypt says to the butler and 
baker of Pharaoh, whose dreams he interpreted, “ For indeed 
I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews.” Shechem 
could hardly have been called by this name in Joseph’s time. 

I have dwelt on this critical question only so that we might 
be able to frame some conception to our minds, taking the theory 
of the Higher Critics as a working hypothesis (and certainly 
the evidence they produce is extraordinarily convincing), of the 
periods and modes by which the Babylonian ideas permeated 
the Hebrew literature. And to make that more clear I now 
propose to examine the question as to which of these sources 
(P., Deuteronomy, J., E., or J.E.) contain the greater resemblances 
to Babylonian writings, so as to guide us in guessing in what 
way they became appropriated. 

In the Priest’s Code we find in Genesis i, 2, the word Tehom, 
the deep, corresponding to the Tiamat of the Babylonian 
account. In chapter ii, 2, ete., we read, “(God rested on the 
seventh day, and God blessed the seventh day because he had 
rested on it.” A great part of the story of the flood is also in 
P.; the story of making the ark, of bringing in every living 
thing, two of every sort—that the rain began in the second month, 
on the seventeenth day of the month; that it continued on the 
earth one hundred and fifty days (the forty days of chapter vu, 
17, not being a part of P.)the going out of the ark—the 
placing of the bow in the cloud. 

The Jehovah portion of Genesis contains the second account 
of the creation, beginning chapter ii, 4, in which man is said to 


_—_—— Se 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 93195 


have been first formed, out of the dust, and placed in Eden, and 
then afterwards out of the ground God is said to have made every 
beast of the field, and fowl of the air, and the woman out of 
man’s rib (instead of as in P. both apparently together). In J. 
(chapter vil, 1-5) clean beasts go into the ark by sevens. 

In this account man was said to have been created before the 
plants or herbs existed. The vegetable and animal world are 
represented as coming into existence to satisfy the needs of man. 
Whereas in the P. account (in chapter 1) the order is the plants 
first, then animals, then man. This is more scientific, and 
doubtless later, if the completion of P. was exilic. Could it have 
been that.during the exile Babylonian and Hebrew traditions 
were compared; and the former inserted by the later compiler 
side by side with the older Hebrew one. Both apparently 
sprang from a common original. But were developed in parallel 
lines, and then apparently were written in, side by side, without 
any attempt to harmonize, which certainly speaks highly for the 
honesty of the compiler. 

In a bilingnal text—one version being Sumerian, the date of 
which Professor Hommel puts back to the fourth millenium B.c. 
—published by Dr. Pinches in 1891, the order of creation agrees 
with the J. account in Genesis 1i—creation of man in it pre- 
ceding that of the plants and animals. It seems possible that 
- the J. account may have been derived from this early Babylonian 
tradition, and that the later tradition current at the time of the 
exile may have originated P. 

As regards the Babylonian stories of the flood preserved in 
Asur-banipal’s library, they seem to agree in some particulars 
with the P. account in Genesis—in others with the J. account. 
With the former as to the building of the vessel in stories, and 
using pitch to make it watertight, as to the resting of it upon a 
mountain, as to a kind of promise that mankind should not so 
again be destroyed. With the latter as regards the seven days’ 
warning before the coming of the deluge, as to sending forth 
birds to find if dry land had appeared, as to the offering of a 
sacrifice with a sweet savour. The story of the garden of Eden 
in Genesis is a J. story. So is the story of the tree of life, with 
its resemblance to the Adapa story. 

But the question arises, do we not lose our faith in revelation 
when we admit the derivation of Scriptural stories from Baby- 
lonian myths, or traditions. Assuredly not, if we realize what 
revelation really means. It means the conveyance to the mind 
and soul of man of spiritual and moral truths, conceived and 
expressed in terms of man’s limited and imperfect knowledge 
of scientific and historical events. 


316 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


If we had reason to believe that real spiritual truth could not 
be conveyed except through the medium of perfect human 
knowledge, then the discovery of derivation from myth or 
imperfect tradition might spoil our faith. But this is a wrong 
conception. Our Lord himself must have been limited in his 
historical and scientific knowledge, for, if not, why did He sit at 
the feet of the doctors, hearing them and asking them questions: 
but if His human knowledge was imperfect, much more that of 
the ancient writers of the Jewish Scriptures. Inspired they 
were, doubtless: and yet not so perfectly as was the Perfect 
Man. But as in His case, so in theirs, their inspiration was of - 
things concerning the soul and spiritual life, not of matters which 
concern the intellect and material things. 

But we may go further, and hold that in Old Testament 
records the writers showed their special and higher inspiration 
by framing their record into a form which taught nobler and 
higher truth.* This was notably so with regard to the 
oneness of God, which comes out clearly in the Hebrew and 
very dimly, and only occasionally, in the Babylonian records. 
If men would only clearly perceive and grasp this fact that 
revelation and inspiration do not convey certain knowledge of 
any kind to man except that which directly acts on human 
will, desires and lie, many misconceptions would be cleared 
away. We should no longer seek for the impossible and 
unrealizable attainment of infallible truth of a non-spiritual 
kind, the search for which has led into divisions and strife and 
false pretensions all through the history of the Christian church 
and now divides the Christian world. But we should attain 
that real unity which our Lord prayed for, based upon a 
common acceptance of common truths, which, however, contain 
no element at all in them, but that which acts directly on 
spiritual life. . 

A clear grasp of this principle would also aid in solving a 
question now exercising the minds of those in authority in the 
Church, viz., when and how far is it their duty to inhibit 


* In saying this, however, I do not mean to imply that the Babylonian 
myths and legends were not also a form in which revelation was 
conveyed. I do not think we have any right to assume that revelation 
or inspiration are limited to Jewish and Christian writers. Through 
history, myth, and legend, all nations have expressed truths revealed by 
God’s Spirit to man’s spirit. But Judaism and Christianity were higher 
forms in which these truths were conveyed, as men had been prepared 
by other teachers to receive these higher truths. 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 317 


clergymen from teaching and ministrations whose views of 
Christian dogma, differ from those usually accepted as correct. 
The answer is perfectly simple to those who realize the above 
principle. Men’s reason must be left free to act, reason being 
a divine gift to man. But if they are led or mis-led by it to 
believe and teach things which degrade or spoil spiritual and 
moral life in man, then it is the duty of authority to safeguard 
the deposit of spiritual truth, revealed through Judaism and 
Christianity. Where authority has so often blundered, and 
that it has done so was admitted by Bishop Talbot in his 
article in the MWineteenth Century of November, 1911, was in 
coercing men to accept beliefs which have no direct relation to 
spiritual life. A man may be quite as good a man if he holds 
with Galileo that the earth goes round the sun, as he would if 
he believed, as the Ptolemaic system taught, that the reverse 
was the case. The modern Roman doctrine of infallibility 
admits this, because its distinction between fallible and ex 
cathedra pronouncements is simply the same as that between 
scientific or historical and spiritual truth. 

No right-minded churchman will complain of the exercise of 
authority in matters of dogma, if it is manifestly and clearly 
guided by this principle. 

Another enormous gain following the admission of this 
distinction would be the confining of men’s religious energies 
to questions of real importance. 

It seems to me one of the saddest phases of our modern and 
medieval Christianity that we magnify out of all due pro- 
portion questions which are comparatively unimportant, and, 
spending our energies on these, have too little time or strength 
left to do the real work of our Master, like the Pharisee of old. 
f.g., the differences between different sections of Christians in 
dogma and in ceremonial drive out the thought of the duties 
in which all should join—the spreading of spiritual truth, so 
as to influence daily life. But the former is the human, the 
imperfect, the doubtful; the latter the certain, the divine, the 
important. 

All these advantages may come as the direct result of the 
work done by archeology, science, and the higher criticism. 
Instead of injuring divine truth, they clear it from the mists 
of ignorance, superstition, and unreality. Christianity (seen 
as these sciences show it) is an infinitely nobler thing than it 
was before, viz., what it was in the time of its Founder, before 
later accretions destroyed its beauty, reality, and purity. 

Another point worthy of consideration is the question how 


318 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


far the unsettling of old beliefs tends to destroy religion: It 
is true, no doubt, that much real piety has been built up on 
doctrines which are scientifically indefensible. But the destruc- 
tion of these doctrines will not injure religion so far as it is 
real, ¢.g., a man brought up to believe in eternal punishment 
for the individual who has not lived well on earth may be con- 
strained to an unreal kind of religion through fear of conse- 
quences; and when he understands that eternal punishment 
for the individual is not believed by later teachers, he may 
relapse into worldliness. But if he does he only proves that 
his religion was not religion, but only an outward semblance of 
it, and is of no value to man’s higher nature. True religion 
does not live on fear. Or again, if you tell men that God did 
not write with his own finger on tables of stone, but that Moses 
taught legal and moral truths which were known in less noble 
forms long before his time, it will not make the really religious 
man less religious nor the law of moral obligation less binding, 
but rather more so. 

But one great boon comes from the investigation of these 
questions—it prepares the world for views which must come 
home before long, by which men may be led away from true 
religion. 

Is it not better that those who are firmly convinced of the 
truth of religion should examine into scientific questions, and 
show how, though these alter the shell, they do not touch the 
kernel of vital truth, than that the investigators should be men 
of no belief, who use their science to destroy faith ? 


DISCUSSION. 


Mrs. WALTER MAUNDER said: I have asked permission to speak 
because the private scientific work on which I have been engaged 
for the last eight or ten years has led me into the same field of 
enquiry as that covered by Archdeacon Potter’s paper. My work 
of course had no theological purpose but the purely scientific one of 
comparing and so dating the astronomical conceptions of various 
ancient peoples. But in the course of this work, I could not fail to 
take account of how strong an influence Babylonia had on the 
surrounding nations ; on the Jews among others. 

What is the true scientific method of conducting an inquiry into 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 319 


the influence exerted by one body upon another? Surely it is to 
take as many instances as we can find wherein that influence is 
known, and well established, and from them to argue to more difficult 
and doubtful cases. Now we have the material for making a 
definite determination of the character and amount of the Babylonian 
influence ; and,as it happens, it is with that material that my work 
has been concerned. First of all, with the cuneiform references to 
the heavenly bodies, early or late. Next with the works in Greek, 
written by a contemporary of our Lord, the Great Mage, Teuchros 
the Babylonian, who exerted a profound influence both on his own 
countrymen andion the surrounding nations, and through them on 
the Middle Ages, and so on even down to our own time. Then— 
in the order of my study—the astronomical references in the 
Talmud ; then similar references in the Apocrypha, and lastly in the 
Bundahis, that is to say, the Zoroastrian work on the creation. Now 
these last are of the‘same epoch as the New Testament writings— 
and the Apostolic writers were Jews, born, brought up like other 
Jews, subjected, like them, to the Zeitgeist, or Spirit of their Age. 
Now the spirit of Babylon is the same from the earliest time that 
has given us any cuneiform inscriptions, right down to Berossos and 
Teuchros. And also the Spirit of the Old Testament is the Spirit of 
the New Testament. If then the spirit of Babylonian conceptions 
inspired the Old Testament, the same spirit should be apparent 
in the New Testament. But now we can determine what the 
Babylonian influence should be, for it is not only clear, but paramount 
in the Jewish and Persian writings contemporary with the Apostolic 
writings. The Talmud, 1 Esdras, and the Bundahis, all bear the 
hall-mark: of Babylon, and this hall-mark is incantation and the » 
magic power of number. In cuneiform literature, if we put on one 
side the business contracts and political annals, then the rest mainly 
pertains to magic ; the very, Epic of Creation itself is but the preamble 
to an incantation. Nineveh is called by the prophet “the mistress 
of witcherafts,” and the same is even more true of Babylon in all 
ages. And this magical element is not incidental to Babylonian 
conceptions, it is fundamental. In the Creation epic, Marduk 
himself got his power over Tiamat by the magic spells with which 
he was equipped by the other gods. And just in the same way, in 
Zoroastrianism, Ahriman, the evil spirit, is thrown into confusion for 
3,000 years when Auharmazsd, the supreme deity, recites the 


X Keo - XVI] 2001 (| 


eT 


320 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


Ahunavar, that is the twenty-one sacred Avesta words, which begin 
‘When a heavenly lord is to be chosen.” This is neither a prayer 
nor a creed, but a formula, or incantation ; so that in the purest 
religion outside Judaism, an incantation is nevertheless counted as 
having greater power even than God Himself. The Talmud simply 
reeks with incantations. 

In the Apocryphal book of Tobit, perhaps from a literary view 
one of the best books in the Apocrypha, we are introduced to both 
demons and spells. The author of 11 Esdras, being more intellectual, 
is great on mystical numbers. But from the first chapter of Genesis 
to the last chapter of the Revelation there is not an incantation 
nor a reference to the power of a magic number. The whole of the 
Bible is clean as driven snow, clean from the Babylonian imprint, 
To speak of these writings as being influenced by Babylonian 
conceptions, when there is no trace of Babylonian sorcery in them, is 
to speak in ignorance of what Babylonian conceptions really were. 

The Rev. W. H. GrirFirH THomas, D.D., said: I am afraid 
the differences between the writer of the paper and myself are too 
fundamental to allow of any proper detailed criticisms of his paper, 
but the following points seem to call for special notice :— 

1. His view of revelation is seriously open to question and does not 
seem consistently expressed. On p. 300 he speaks of the conditions 
under which religion “ took its rise,” and he distinguishes between 
the historical setting and the religious conception. This, at once, 


_ raises the question as to the origin of religion. Did it “takes its 
jrise” from above or below? Is there such a thing as primitive 


revelation, or are we to assume that religion emanated from man ? 
When all the possibilities have been exhausted it seems essential to 
contend that Genesis 1 is either_a divine revelation or a human 
composition. The precise form or channel of the information is 
unimportant ; the real question is as to its source. So also on p. 315, 
revelation is said to mean ‘‘ the conveyance to the mind and soul of 
man of spiritual and moral truths .” Does not this confuse 
between substance and form, between source and channel, between 
revelation and inspiration? We are not really concerned with the 
precise conveyance or method ; what we need to know is_the reality 
of = spiritual and moral truths conveyed. as catiae” 

. On p. 300 f. we are rightly told of the remarkable correspondences 
So Babylonian and Old Testament records. But the differences 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 321 


have also to be accounted for, and we must endeavour to discover 
the most likely theory to explain the correspondences. It is 
impossible that Babylon copied from Genesis, and equally impossible 
that Genesis copied from Babylon, in view of the purity of the 
former, _and the impurity of the latter. It is hardly likely, or even 
credible that the Jews copied from their captors, and so late as the 
exile, especially when other nations had their records of creation 
centuries before. Why may not both records have come from the 
same primeval source, with Genesis preserved in its purity by means 
of the divine superintendence associated with Abraham and his 
descendants ? There is no insuperable difficulty against Abraham 
having brought the story from his Babylonian home. As to the 
fundamental differences, how is it that the Babylon story starts with 
the chaos of Genesis i, 2, and has nothing corresponding to the 
sublime statement of Genesis i, 1? How is it, too, that there are no 
ethnic traditions after Babel ? 

3. On p. 302 it is said that the great difference between the 
Babylonian and Genesis story is that the former was mainly poly- 
theistic and the latter monotheistic. True, but the cause of this 
great difference needs to be emphasized. How are we to account 
for a man in Palestine writing as a monotheist amidst the polytheism 
‘of all the surrounding nations? Is not divine inspiration required 
rage pipes ta goal “foie so Daa | 

4. While it is not fair to attribute to Archdeacon Potter an 
endorsement of Kerdmanns’ view that polytheism originally dominated 
all the narratives of Genesis, and that this is still apparent in some 
passages, it would have been well if some definite criticism of the 
view had been concluded, because we know how tenaciously the 
Jews clung to their monotheism and how they scorned every form 
of polytheism. It is difficult to understand how any trace of 
polytheism could have been allowed to remain in the Genesis 
narrative in view of the Jewish belief in that book as part of their 
sacred scriptures. 

5. The note on p. 303 quoting the Rev. H. T. Knight is a familiar 
illustration of the misconception of the Critical School as to David’s 
exile and its consequences. A reference to Robertson’s Larly 
Religion of Israel, written twenty-five years ago, ought to have been 
sufficient to show that David did not conceive himself when outside 
Palestine as in a land belonging to other gods. 

bg 


322 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


6. From time to time Archdeacon Potter seems to endorse the 
documentary theory of Genesis, and in particular he discusses the 
Flood story in this connection. Professor Sayce has long ago shown 
that the Babylonian Flood story, written ages before the times of J. 
and P., exhibits marks of both, and hence that the documentary theory 
aly breaks down when tested in this way. Dr. Sayce rightly 
alleges this as a crucial test of the theory. There are other points 
connected with the Archdeacon’s discussion of the Flood which are 
equally open to question. 

7. On the subject of Deuteronomy, the Archdeacon seems to 
favour the critical view which places the completion of this book as 
dating from the time of Josiah. This is frankly admitted by both 
conservative and critical schools to be a crucial and vital issue in 
the controversy, and the conservative school gladly accepts the 

challenge, believing that on grounds of pure scholarship alone, apart 

from all else, the essentially Mosaic date and character of 
| Deuteronomy is beyond all question and the Josianic date is. 

| absolutely impossible. This has been recently proved by the 
Rev. J. S. Griffiths in his Problem of Deuteronomy. 

8. On p. 314 Archdeacon Potter speaks of the evidence eh hee 
by the Higher Critics as “‘extraordinarily convincing.” I can only 
speak for myself when I say that asa result of reading of critical 
books of importance I find their position extraordinarily unconvine- 
ing, and I have been confirmed in the position of conservative 
scholarship very largely through the reading of critical works. 

9. On p. 315 the Archdeacon regards the so-called creation stories 
of Genesis, placed side by side without any attempt at harmonization, 
as speaking highly “for the honesty of the compiler.” He does not, 
however, say anything about the capacity of the editor, still less of 
the capacity of the readers, to have left these two (alleged) discord- 
ant passages side by side. It surely reflects very seriously upon the 
capability of the editor, who is admitted by all to have brought our 
present Genesis into unity. Either this, or else the editor must 
have thought that his readers in all ages would never be able to 
discover what had been done. 

10. The reference on p. 316 to the limitations of our Lord’s know- 
ledge is another instance of what seems to me to be the writer’s lack 
of thinking out a subject to its conclusion. Surely limitation or 

mperfection of knowledge does not imply error. What our Lord 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 323 


not only His own power, but the authority of the Father behind 
Him, Who gave Him every word to speak (John xii, 49). 

11. On p. 316 the Archdeacon says that ‘ Revelation and inspira- 
tion do not convey certain knowledge of any kind to man except 
that which directly acts on human will, desires, and life.” But he 
does not tell us how we are to distinguish knowledge of this kind 
from the other elements of knowledge contained in Holy Scripture. 
If a Biblical writer is proved to be inaccurate on points where [ can ,, 
verify him, how can I trust him on points where I am unable to verify |. 
him? There is much more in the same paragraphs on pp. 316 and | 
317 on this point which seems to me seriously open to question. | 

12. Some few years ago Dr. Burney of Oxford argued very 
forcibly, and, as many thought, conclusively, in the Journal of 
Theological Studies, for the Mosaic authorship and date of the 
Decalogue. Whereupon Dr. Hastings of the LHzpository Times 
admitted that if Dr. Burney’s contentions were right the critical 
view of Israel’s religion would necessarily fall to the ground. 

13. Dr. Sellin of Vienna in one of his recent works said that it is 
time for the masters of the Wellhausen school to write at the top of 
their copy-books that there is no valid argument against the Mosaic 
date of the Decalogue and its religion. 

14. Archdeacon Potter refers to Canon Driver’s words to the 
effect that the age and authorship of the books of the Old Testament 
can only be determined by internal evidence since there is no 
external evidence worthy of credit in existence (p. 311). I venture 
to think, that. this, to put it mildly, minimises, if it does not over- 
look, the external evidence of archzology, as well as quite a number 
of internal features which are not explicable on the critical theory. 
Does it not count for something that in view of the mass of 
archeological discoveries during the last sixty years not a single 
“find” has gone to support any of the fundamental theories of the 
critical position, while discovery after discovery has gone to support 
the conservative view? And is it not at least noteworthy that 
many leading archeologists, like Sayce, Hommel, Halevy, and others 
have become convinced of the untenableness of the documentary 
theory, some of them after having endorsed and advocated it ? 
In Genesis x, 22, Elam is associated with Shem, and this is used 
by Dr. Driver as an instance of the inaccuracy, or at least the 

1 ay 


knew He knew, and His testimony to the Old Testament involves | 


024 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


imperfection of the information of the writer. Dr. Driver admits that 
there is monumental evidence that Elam was associated very early 
with the descendants of Shem, but considers that this is a point 
which the writer of Genesis was not likely to know! But as the 
text clearly implies, this is exactly what the writer really did know, 
and when Genesis and the monuments agree it seems impossible to 
maintain the critical position simply for the purpose of justifying 
the general documentary theory. Again, in Genesis x, 19, we have 
a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah used to describe a geographical 
location, and the prima facie view of the verse is that it dates from a 
time when Sodom and Gomorrah were in existence. Now it is well 
known that these cities were blotted out beyond all knowledge in the 
time of Abraham, and yet on the critical theory, this verse, which 
is attributed to J., dates from at least a thousand years after the 
time when the location of Sodom and Gomorrah was lost beyond 
recall. Is such a position credible ? Does not this, and much more, 
as adduced by Rawlinson, imply that in Genesis x, we possess 
materials far earlier than the time of Moses ? 

15. The fundamental question at issue between the two schools is 
the historical accuracy and trustworthiness of the Old Testament as 
it stands. Can we rely upon its presentation of the history of 
Israel and of Israel’s religion? If it is not trustworthy from the 
standpoint of history it seems unnecessary and futile to discuss its 
divine authority and inspiration. But if we may assume that in 
some way or other the Old Testament is divinely authoritative, it is 
difficult to understand how we can accept this if we maintain that 
its historical pictures are untrustworthy on matters of fact. Herein 
lies the fundamental difference between Archdeacon Potter’s view 
and my own. MHe appears to favour the well-known theory of 
Wellhausen, but he seems to me to be unconscious of the fact that 
the world of scholarship has been moving very far and very fast 
since that theory was propounded. This is abundantly evident from 
such works as Wiener’s Studies in biblical Law; The Origin of the 
Pentateuch ; and Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism ; Griffiths’ Problem 
of Deuteronomy ; Beecher’s Reasonable Biblical Criticism ; to say nothing 
of other works issued in Germany and Holland. Until these and 

j Similar conservative works are carefully met and answered we have 
| ample warrant for rejecting the Wellhausen position. 

(The Editor has kindly given me the opportunity of carefully 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 325 


considering, revising and amplifying the remarks I| actually made.— 
oearate Gr. TL.) 

Rev. J. J. B. Conzs, M.A., said: From what sources were the 
Babylonian myths and traditions derived ? 

In the comparative study of ancient religions an all-important 
point is the question of origins. | 

The origin of the religious faith of Abraham and the Patriarch 
was the revelation of God which he communicated to them person- 
ally and by the Mouth of His prophets since the world began. 

Genesis contains the written record of these earlier revelations, 
and the oldest signs and symbols of the human race corroborate 
these direct revelations and the subsequent written records of 
them. 

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Hebrew believers after them, had 

no need to accept Babylonian traditions, and there is no evidence 
whatever to show that they were indebted to them for their religious 
conceptions, but on the contrary they knew that they were 
surrounded by peoples who had corrupted_primitive revelation and 
who had debased and perverted “the true meaning of the earliest 
religious signs and symbols through their false system of astro- 
theology. 
- The similarities between Babylonian and Hebrew writings are to 
be accounted for by the perversions and corruptions of an earlier 
faith —on the part of those from whom Abraham and Isaac and his 
descendants were instructed by God to separate themselves. 

The promised “ Seed of the Woman” would eventually spring from 
that Olive Tree of Promise, and to the descendants of Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob were committed “the living oracles of God.” 

Abraham doubtless saw through the astrotheology of the 
Babylonians and Accadians, as Moses later on saw through the 
Egyptian Osirian myths—for he was “learned in all the wisdom of 
the Egyptians.” 

The most fruitful source of Babylonian mythology was the early 
perversion of the symbols of the cherubim and the constellation 
figures which the patriarchs had mapped out in the heavens before 
Babylon became a nation. 

These early symbols embodied the prophecies of the Coming), 
Redeemer and to the perversion of these signs may be attributed|| 
most of the myths and legends of antiquity. E 


326 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


There is not, therefore, the slightest necessity to “admit the 
derivation of scriptural stories ” from Babylonian myths or traditions. 
It is an anachronism. 

The comparative study of religious origins, both from the exoteric 
and esoteric standpoint, can never be complete unless it includes a 
knowledge of the origin and migration of the religious symbols of 
antiquity. 

Dr. THIRTLE took the chair on Sir Henry Geary’s having to leave 
and said: It has been suggested that the Hebrew scriptures embody 
Babylonian traditions, and this has been declared to be possible 
(1) Through Abraham, who came from Ur of the Chaldees ; (2) 
Through the contact of the Israelites with the aboriginal inhabitants 
of Canaan, who had previously come under Babylonian influence ; 
and (3) As aconsequence of the Jewish exile in Babylon in the sixth 
century before Christ. 

Against this suggestion I raise a bar, at once historical and 
psychological. Knowledge and reason conspire to render such 
theorising out of the question. (1) True, Abraham was from the 
Chaldees’ country, but he was not only an emigrant in a physical 
sense, but one who came out morally and spiritually. This fact is on 
the surface of the story ; at the call of God he became “a stranger in 
a strange land,” in order that he might be the progenitor of a special 
and peculiar people. 

(2) As to the aboriginal inhabitants of Canaan, it is quite clear 
from the history that those of them who were allowed to live were 
not permitted, as heathen, to share the social and religious privileges 
of the people of Israel. They were not accorded the rights of 
citizenship, and intermarriage with them was accounted a sin (I Kings 
ix, 20 5) Banas, | 1-2). 

(3) As to the exile, though it was a time of national bondage and 
sorrow, yet it was an experience which did not subdue the spiritual 
consciousness of the nation. With eyes stretching toward their own 
land, the Jews were in Babylon, but not of Babylon. We have 
every reason to conclude that, at that time, even as since then,’ 
though receiving all and sundry ideas from the Gentiles, the Jews 
resolutely set themselves against absorbing the religious ideas of 
other nations; that then, as since, they exhibited a spirit of 
conservative exclusiveness such as no other people has been known 
to exemplify. It is a trite remark that, while in Babylon, the Jews 


rs 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 327 


were effectually cured of all tendencies to idolatry. True: but what 
follows? Assuredly this—that at such a time they could not be 
docile learners in the school of heathen mythology, and so digest 
such things as, at length, to give them a place in their sacred ! 
literature—the most precious possession of the monotheistic nation. 

I am constrained to add that both Old and New Testaments make 
it clear that the Jewish nation stands alone. ‘The Jews are the © 
people of the Book; and it is difficult to believe that they could 
have played their divinely-ordained part if Babylonian influences 
had mingled with the springs of their national life. As pointing to|) 
Christ, the Old Testament in the providence of God has been 
invested with a dignity suited to its high purpose and vocation ; 
great honour has been put upon it. In such circumstances we ask, 
‘‘ What can the mind of the flesh in Babylon yield for the service of 
the Spirit of God?” Having regard to the relation of the Old 
Testament to Christ, we answer, “It can yield nothing—nothing 
Prophetic, nothing Priestly, nothing Messianic, as these functions 
were consummated in Him whom we call Master and Lord.” 

The CHAIRMAN then put the resolution of thanks to Archdeacon 
Potter for his interesting paper, and it was carried unanimously. 
The Lecturer replied and the meeting closed. 

(Archdeacon Potter has, on receipt of the following written 
communications, kindly revised his reply so as to cover the additional 
points raised.—EpITorR). 


WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED. 


The Rev. CHANCELLOR LIAS writes :— 

The Institute is indebted to Archdeacon Potter for giving it an 
opportunity of discussing a most interesting and important 
question. 

After claiming the right to criticize the critics, Chancellor Lias 
complained of their disregard of replies and proceeded :—I once 
read a critical treatise on the Old Testament by a distinguished 
critic, which proceeded on the following lines: This, we were told, 
‘““may be,” that “must be,” something else was “ probable ” and 
from these uncertain data a conclusion was triumphantly deduced. 
So largely is this extraordinary mode of demonstration practised 
that a man of scientific training once said to me that the stages of 
critical argument appeared to him to be these: ‘‘ may be, probably, 


328 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


must be, was.” I have studied modern methods of Biblical criticism 
from Wellhausen downwards for nearly thirty years, and I have 


found this description, as a rule, to be perfectly true. The utmost 


theoretical ingenuity, the utmost industry, is displayed. But 
seldom have I found anything approaching to a demonstration. 
And the fact, to which [ have already referred, that criticism of 
results, which is the very breath of the life of scientific research, 
is regarded rather as an insult to the intelligence than as what 
it really is, the most necessary road to the establishment of 
truth. 

The present paper is no exception to the rule. In the time 
allotted to me I can give but a few instances. In p. 301 we are told 
that ‘“‘from” the “ body of Tiamat were made the sky and 
heavenly bodies, like the firmament in Genesis and the lights in it.” 
But the firmament and the lights in it are never said to have been 
made ‘‘from the body” of Tehom. Then we repeatedly have such 
remarks as “this has been attributed” to something or somebody, 
somebody “thinks” this or that. But with respect, I would point 
out that we don’t want to know what this or that authority 
“thinks,” but how he can prove what he ‘ thinks” to be true.* 
We are told what “ Kerdmanns thinks” in p. 303. But we are not 
told that Eerdmanns (a more “ advanced ” critic than Wellhausen) 
also thinks that the J., E.D. and P. theory of Wellhausen must 
be given up. Then (p. 306) we are told, im dalics, that Professor 
Hilprecht’s flood fragment ‘‘ contains ” no parallels with the P. portion 
of Genesis as distinct from the J. portion. But if we are told this, we 
ought to be told, also in «alics, that the “ Babylonian story of the 
flood as contained in Mr. George Smith’s version of i described in pp. 300, 
301, shows us portions of ‘‘P.,” supposed to be indisputably a post- 
exilic version of that story, embedded in the J.E. version at a period 


* Thus we are told that the Rev. H. T. Knight “ considers that it 
was not until the time of Isaiah that the higher conception (of God) was 
reached.” Jephthah never says that he thinks Chemosh “bad a real 
existence.” He only argues with the Moabites on that assumption. 
Ruth, the Moabitess, at that stage of her existence, was hardly an 
authority on Israelite beliefs. And it isnever said that David “conceived 
himself” when in exile, ‘asin a land belonging to other gods.” What is 
stated (1 Sam. xxvi, 19) is that “the children of men” allowed him no 
share in the inheritance of Israel, but practically bade him go and serve 


other gods, since he could never worship his own as he was commanded 
to do. 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 329 


declared by some competent archeologists to have been before the 
time of Abraham.* For ‘may be” or “ might be” see pp. 309, 310. 

Into the question of the priority of one or other of the documents 
I cannot enter at length. But competent authorities on Theism 
have lately assured us that the general trend of opinion on that 
question at present leads to the conclusion that Monotheism 
preceded Polytheism. And there is also the unquestioned fact that 
religions, as a rule, tend rather to decay than to develop. It is not, 
therefore, open to Biblical critics to take any theory for granted on 
such a subject. Their contention must be proved by the most 
rigorous methods of logic. 

Canon 8. R. DRIvER writes :— 

I read your paper with interest. I hope it was well received. 
Your concluding remarks on the general subject seem to me 
particularly just, and I hope that their force was generally 
recognized. 

The Rev. R. M. CuRWEN writes :— 

As regards inspiration, I gather you preclude from its sphere 
historical truth, facts of science, etc. But this seems limiting the 
field of inspiration. Is there not an artistic inspiration? Is not 
the inventor inspired in the application of physical laws? Was not 
the discovery of evolution an inspiration ? | 

I am quite in agreement with and full of appreciation of your 
paper. 

The Rev. A. IRvineG, D.Sc., B.A., writes :— 

On p. 300 the author says :—‘“ The Old Testament teachings 
correspond with Babylonian conceptions.” They do nothing of the 
kind. The Old Testament is monotheistic in its teaching from first to 
last, as the author recognizes in the second half of the Paper. Here, 
surely, he confounds the “ teachings” of the Old Testament with the 
literary materials, which have served as the medium for conveying 
those teachings ; quite a different thing. 

In contrasting the monotheism of the Genesis Story with the 
grotesque polytheism of the Babylonian myths, the author might 


* Sayce, The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, p. 33. In pp. 107- 
113 he shows how P., as separated by the critics, is as distinctly em- 
bedded in the Babylonian Epic as J.E. For the date see also p. 301 of 
the present paper. 


330 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


have given fuller weight to the purging process, in adapting what we 
may call the ‘“‘ human” materials found ready to hand. It is here 
that some of us see the “ Inspiration of Selection” at work. On this 
point the writer might do well to make the acquaintance of what 
Dr. Wace, the Dean of Canterbury, has said in his lecture at 
University College in 1903 ; and it is no straining of language, 
surely, to see this in that pouring into the name of Jehovah that 
“flood of attributes” referred to on p. 304. 

On p. 311 Professor Driver is made to contradict Professor Sayce’s 
assumption ‘‘ that the belief of the Higher Critics that the Mosaic 
law was posterior to the prophets was based on the denial that writing 
was used for literary purposes in the age of Moses.” Dr. Wace has 
dealt incisively with this point in the lecture already referred to. 
We scarcely need Dr. Driver’s assurance that critics have not the 
hardihood (after the discovery of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets and the 
Hammurabi code) to “deny that Moses might have left materials 
behind him.” So that it comes to this—that Moses may after all 
have been substantially the author of the Pentateuch, although the 
literary form, in which it has come to us, may bear the “ cast” of a 
later age. This is all, I think, that serious research needs to 
demand. Sut this reminds one of the stern strictures of Professor 
Sir William Ramsay, of Aberdeen, on the methods of the Higher 
Criticism, in his most able paper in Vol. xxxix of the Transactions of 
the Victoria Institute. 

As regards the general question we may do well to refer to what 
the Rev. J. Urquhart says in the concluding paragraph of his very 
able essay, for which the “ Gunning Prize” was awarded (17ans- 
actions of the Victoria Institute, Vol. xxxviil) :— 

“Tt is not too much to say that within the sphere of genuine science 
which has concerned itself with scripture statements there is to-day 
a higher appreciation of the antiquity, veracity, and historic value 
of the Bible than was to be found in any previous period since the 
march of modern science began.” 

The weakness of the author’s position seems to display itself in 
the two concluding paragraphs of the paper, where he (1) falls back 
upon the unscientific process of prophesying what we shall know 
before we know it, apparently forgetting that ‘“‘ views” are only 
working hypotheses liable to be corrected by fuller knowledge ; and 
(2) shifts the ground of debate as to the validity of revealed religion 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. dol 


(as contained in the Bible) to the question of ‘“ religion” in 
general. 


No one, however, can fairly find fault with the Victoria Institute | 


for allowing this matter to come up for discussion, even though the 


present rather laboured effort may he felt by some of us to be but a! 


very lame apology for the “ Higher Critics.” 

Mr. JOHN SCHWARTZ, Jun., writes :— 

Our able lecturer has clearly enunciated the main point at issue 
(on p. 300) ‘*Unless we were to assume that the historical and 
- scientific setting in which religious conceptions are enshrined was 
directly and infallibly revealed to men by God ;” and this assump- 
tion it is increasingly difficult to hold with an ampler knowledge 
and broader point of view. 

He deals on p. 303 with that difficult problem that in Manephthah’s 
reign (the reputed Pharaoh of the Exodus) Israelites were conquered 
in Canaan ; and again on p. 310 to the Tel-el-Amarna tablets which 
record Amenhetep III.’s conquest of the Abiri or Hebrews in 
Palestine 150 years earlier. This king married a Semitic princess 
Thi, and his son introduced a pure monotheistic worship, probably 
inherited from his mother. Lieut.-Colonel Conder, in his interesting 
book The Hittites, argues very forcibly that the Exodus took place at 
this earlier date, about 1480 B.c., which agrees with the Babylonian, 
Assyrian and Hebrew chronology, I Kings vi, 1, and asserts that the 
Sosthic year Egyptian calculations are inconclusive. 

Canon GIRDLESTONE writes :— 

I have read Archdeacon Potter’s paper with surprise. Whatever 
its object, its effect would be to reduce the historical character of the 
bible, which it is the desire of the Victoria Institute to uphold. Its 
sting is in its tail, for we are told (p. 316) that Christ must have been 
limited in his historical and scientific knowlege because HE questioned 
the doctors ! 

Going back to the beginning, the narrative concerning Kden 
is dismissed as a J. story (p. 315), and the text of Genesis 2 is 
read in such a way as to produce the impression that man was made 
before the animals, the words “first” and “afterwards” being 
calmly inserted to prove it. Petrie’s date for the Exodus is appa- 
rently accepted (p. 314), although it is, in the judgment of Canon 
Cook, Colonel Conder, and others, quite inconsistent with the 
scripture, and then a reference to Israel lately found, and inconsistent 


332 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE: 


with Petrie’s date, is made to prove that “ there were Israelites in 
Canaan before the Exodus” (p. 303). 

The numerous passages about the Flood ignore Mr. Maunder’s 
important view in his Astronomy of the Bible. A futile attempt to 
make Deuteronomy inconsistent with Leviticus is fortified by the words 
‘“‘yide Driver.” Dr. Driver must be thankful that this formula was 
not used to support the Archdeacon’s astounding derivation of Sabbath 
(p. 309, as ‘‘ Sar, a heart, and bat, to cease.”) Personally, I decline 
to be driven from the view (which 50 years’ study has deepened) 
that Bible history is composed by prophetic men from autobiograph- 
ical and official documents. May I add (i) that we must always 
allow for transliteration and annotation, (ii) that the later writers 
used the earlier all the way through, (iii) that there is stratification 
in the use of Hebrew words and names which will repay examination, 
(iv) that the books contain a record of what God has said and done, 
and that they were intended to prepare the way for the manifesta- 
tion of the Son of God. 

Mr. M. L. Rouse writes :— 

The favourite theory of Higher Critics that a monotheistic school 
was first developed in Babylon and then passed on its tenets to the 
Hebrews is contrary to the fact that the further back we go in the 
history of pagan nations before they submitted to Christianity 
the fewer are their gods, while in some cases it can be proved 
that they had a belief in one supreme God before they became 
polytheistic. 

The Romans added to their few gods, among others, the Grecian 
Apollo and Hercules, the Sabine Hercules (Semo Sancus, 2¢., 
Samson) also, and the Lydian Cybele. The Egyptians multiplied 
their gods until they were as numerous as the beasts, birds, and 
reptiles of the country whose figures they took; and the Indians 
from simple impersonations of sunshine and storm have now swollen 
the number to untold thousands. 

But further, the earliest large edifice of the Egyptians—the Great 
Pyramid—contains no idolatrous symbols whatever; yet strange 
to say the name of one god who was afterwards worshipped has been 
found combined with that of the builder written upon a stone in one 
of the relieving garrets as Khnumkhufu; and the blending of 
Khnum with other words to form proper names has been found in the 
Fourth and Sixth dynasties : and ages later, Plutarch tells us that 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 333 


the Thebans honoured Khnum as the being “ without beginning or 
end,” and on that ground refused to pay a tax for the festival of 
Osiris, while in the inscriptions at Phile, he appears as the potter- 
god who had made mankind (Plut. De Is. et Osiris a. 21; Budge, 
The Mummy, p. 182). 

Again, whereas from the Fifth dynasty downwards the Egyptian 
kings all called themselves sons of Ra (the sun-god), and besides, 
often bore a name compounded with Ra’s, before that dynasty, none 
bear a title in which Ra occurs ; while Ra appears in only four out 
of nineteen names of the Fourth, Third, and Second dynasties, and 
occurs in no royal name before (cp. Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., 1908 ; 
F. Legge’s Titles of Thinite Kings, and Petrie, Hist. Kgypt). 

And, lastly, as regards Hommel’s argument from the many names 
ending in ii in Arabia, and ilu in Babylonia in the time of 
Khammurabi’s dynasty, it was not that Arabia produced monotheism 
but that the Shemites preserved longer than the Cushites or 
Accadians the belief in one supreme almighty God. The recent 
discovery by Delitseh of the name of Ya’ Wa coupled with Ilu, God,* 
upon Babylonian tablets of the same date leads to the same 
conclusion. 


LECTURER’S REPLY. 


Most of my critics seem strongly opposed to liberal lines of 
thought ; but Mr. G. P. Gooch writing to me says: “ Your address 
is a cautious and moderate statement of undeniable facts. There is 
some loose thinking in Delitzsch, Jeremias, and Winckler, but you 
keep on terra firma.” Mr. J. Schwartz, junr., says: “You have 
clearly enunciated the main point at issue on page 300. It is indeed 
inspiring to hear one proclaiming the truth rather than the 
prejudices of a caste.” Mr. Curwen, I think I may also look on as 
in the main on my side. 

The object of my paper was (1) to point out certain agreements 
between Babylonian and Jewish conceptions, and (2) to suggest 
modes in which these may have occurred. No one has denied the 
coincidences, but the second point is the one at issue. Dr. Thomas 
suggests that “both records may have come from the same primeval 
source,” that is a fair alternative, but it hardly accounts for the fact 


* See Pinches, Old Testament in the Light, etc., p. 535, 2nd edition. 


304 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


that these Babylonian conceptions must have been known to 
Abraham and the inhabitants of Palestine before the Exodus. I 
suppose they might have come to the Hebrews independently of 
Babylon, but it is difficult to see how. Others of my critics seem to 
rely on the belief in a “primitive revelation.” I suppose that means 
that God chose out certain persons on the earth to convey to them 
certain truths regarding the matters I referred to: viz., the creation 
of the world, the flood, the eating of the apple, and so forth. I 
confess I cannot picture the process; nor can I conceive when it 
occurred. Are we to take Adam’s date as 6,000 years ago, or to 
accept some million years for man’s existence on the earth? And if 
God infallibly revealed these matters in olden time does he infallibly 
reveal scientific facts now? Butler’s argument from the known to 
the unknown suggests that we may judge the past from the present. . 
Does the eternal God change his ways so vastly at different periods 
of human life? Thenif Gen. iis the record of an infallible revelation 
why does it state that the stars and sun were created after the 
earth ? 

One critic says I shake faith in the historical truth of the Old 
Testament. Nothing can be further from my purpose. I believe 
entirely in the historical veracity of our sacred books, but not in 
their infallibility ; inspiration is one thing, infallibility another. 

Mrs. Maunder rightly contrasts the nobler beliefs of Judaism 
with the inferior Babylonian ones: yet she somewhat mars her point 
by omitting reference to the nobler Babylonian expressions which I 
quoted, and also to such Old Testament passages as “blessed shall 
he be that taketh thy children and throweth them against the 
stones.” 

I agree that it is difficult to understand the Jews adopting the 
traditions of their captors. But I rather fancy cosmological concep- 
tions may not have appeared to them so important from a religious 
point of view as to some of us. 

I also agree that retrogression is a tendency in religion—an instance 
of this seems to me to be the burning of witches and of heretics, 
which really came from the worship of the letter of scripture and 
tradition. If science leads us back from the letter to the spirit, 
from barren dogma to living faith, it is doing a great work. Faith 
surely is not knowledge, but believing in the good, where we do not 


know. 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 335 


Mr. Curwen rightly asks for a distinction between the inspiration, 
e.g., of Tennyson or Darwin, and that of St. Paul and Isaiah. It is 
difficult to define. Yet I fancy both are real, but one being moral 
and spiritual stands on a higher platform. 

As regards the higher criticism, I gave a few instances of its 
arguments on pp. 312 and 314, beginning “the pre-exilic period,” and 
‘¢ as an instance ”——no one has attempted to refute these, so I must still 
consider them and others “extraordinarily convincing.” 

Dr. Thomas accuses me of attributing error to our Lord, while he 
admits “limitations or imperfections of knowledge” ; the words I 
used were: “Our Lord himself must have been limited in his 
historical and scientific knowledge, etc., if his human knowledge 
was imperfect,” etc. These are Dr. Thomas’s own words, which 
apparently he accepts. How then does he make good his charge 
of “lack of thinking out a subject to its conclusion.” 

I entirely agree with Chancellor Lias’s claim to a right “ to criticize 
the critics,” and fully appreciate his desire to find the truth. May 
I again remind him that his belief “ that religions tend to decay 
rather than develop” is an argument for investigation into twentieth- 
century beliefs. 

The following communication from the Rev. JoHN TUCKWELL, 
M.R.A.S., was received after the foregoing was in print, but at 
the request of the Council and with the consent of Archdeacon 
Potter is now inserted :— 

Were I to reply fully to this paper I should require not five 
but fifty minutes; I must therefore put what little I am permitted 
to say in as few words as possible. Manifestly, if the author is to 
present to us correct views of “The Influence of Babylonian 
Conceptions on Jewish Thought,” he must have correct views of 
Babylonian conceptions. As I happen to have read through the 
whole of the Creation Tablets, the Bilingual Story of the Creation, 
the Deluge Tablets and many others in the original cuneiform, let 
me point out a few of the mistakes which the author has made by 
quoting trom prejudiced or untrustworthy sources :— 

i. It is not correct to say (p. 301) that Tiamat is “‘ the personifica- 
tion of ehaos and darkness.” In Tablet I, 4, she is called Muwmmu 
Fiamtu mu-wnma-allida-at, “ the Raging Ocean, the female-producer.” 
The idea of “ chaos” is neither in the Hebrew nor the Babylonian. 
It is a Greek word and conception. In the Hebrew, especially, 


336 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON POTTER, M.A., ON THE INFLUENCE 


there is no chaos, but an orderly evolution from a primitive 
condition of matter. 

il. It is incorrect to say that “from her body were made the sky 
and heavenly bodies.” Her body was said to be cut in two “ like 
a flat fish,” one part being used to keep up the waters above, and of 
the other part no account is given. Merodach is not even said to 
have “created” any of the heavenly bodies. He is only said to have 
“fixed the constellations,” “established the year,” “caused the 
Moon-god to shine forth,” ete. (Tablet V, 1-18). 

i. It is not correct to say that “the Tablets and Genesis agree 
in putting the deep as the first existence.” Genesis says that “In the 
beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The tablets 
contain no such conception as this, and in recording the develop- 
ment of our globe Genesis begins it by saying “ The earth was without 
form and void ”—a statement which applies to its nebulous or 
gaseous condition. The statement that “darkness was upon the 
face of the deep” applies to an entirely different condition. The 
Babylonian Tablets speak of Tiamtu, but say nothing about darkness. 

iv. It is incorrect to say that ‘ Merodach was originally a solar 
deity.” Merodach was more probably the deified Nimrod and with 
the imperial ascendancy of Babylon became the chief of the 
Babylonian pantheon. He had some of the attributes assigned to 
him of Enlil, who is sometimes called “the older Bel.” The fact 
that he armed himself with the net, the hunter’s weapon, to catch 
the old goddess, Tiamat, confirms this identification with Nimrod, 
“the mighty hunter before the Lord.” There is not a single 
sentence in the whole of the tablets which justifies his identification — 
with the Sun-god. He asserts his authority over the heavenly 
bodies which already exist. If he is the personification of anything 
at all it is of the “ firmament,” dividing the waters above from the 
water beneath as in Gen. i. But the attempt to explain Babylonian 
religious conceptions by astronomical myths has by M. Jastrow and 
others been carried to an excess not warranted by the records. 

v. I do not know where our friend got the idea (p. 301) that 
‘Another tablet describes the gods calling forth mighty monsters, 
the cattle and wild beasts by Ea.” In Tablet Il, 26-30, Tiamat is 
described as creating monstrosities such as “ the monster serpent,” 
“the raging dog,” ‘“ the scorpion-man,” ‘the fish-man,” etc. In the 
bilingual tablet Marduk is said to have created domestic cattle such 


OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 337 


as ‘the cow and her young, the steer, the ewe and her lamb, the 
sheep of the fold,” ete. 

vi. It is at least misleading to say, ‘In the sixth tablet, which 
was published, I think, for the first time by Mr. King, the creation 
of man is narrated,” etc. A portion of the contents of the tablet, 
as the author admits, has been long known from the writings 
of Berosus. But what we owe to Mr. King is the publication of a 
fragment which does not even contain half-a-dozen complete lines, 
but with fractions of about twenty more lines—a very different 
thing from saying, ‘“ the tablet has been published.” Fortunately 
this fragment confirms the statement of Berosus that it referred to 
the creation of man, but it adds nothing to our knowledge. 

vii. There is no foundation whatever for connecting anything in 
these tablets with the Fall of Man (p. 302). The author has followed 
an old mistranslation of a fragment which was at first thought to 
refer to the Fall, but was afterwards identified by Dr. Pinches as 
constituting lines 130-138 of Tablet III, and describes a feast of 
the gods which seems to have ended in their intoxication. The 
lines are imperfect, but this is certain, ‘“ Bread they ate, they 
produced wine . . . greatly did they linger (%), their spirits 
rose.” 

vil. In quoting the inscription of Meren-ptah, “ Yisrael is 
desolate, its seed (which may be read ‘crop’) is not,” he adds, 
“this is a description of this king’s victory over enemies in Canaan,” 
and concludes that ‘“ probably there were Israelites in Canaan 
before the Exodus.” But the allusion to “ Yisrael” is preceded by 
the expression ‘‘ Devastated is Trhenu,” or Libya, which was not in 
Canaan but Africa. Moreover, the inscription was not dated until 
the fifth year of the king’s reign, and the name “ Israel” might well 
have been used for other Hebrew-speaking people. The Canaanites 
and Moabites spoke Hebrew, and Joseph speaks of himself as 
“stolen out of the land of the Hebrews.” 

ix. May I point out another mistake ? On p. 309 the author says, 
“the Sabbath apparently was of Babylonian origin,” and proceeds 
to quote a translation from tablets published in W.A./., Vol. IV, 
pp. 32 and 33, though he does not tell us this. By these tablets we 
learn that the division of days into seasons is of very ancient origin. 
But the quotation he gives us has nothing to do with the Babylonian 
shabatiu, which was the name of the fifteenth day of the month 

Z 


398 BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 


only. His quotation refers to the seventh day of the month. By 
the Semitic Babylonians the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty- 
first and twenty-eighth days of the month were named wmu limnu, 
“an evil day.” But there is no evidence that business was sus- 
pended. We have contract tablets dated on all these days. The 
fifteenth day of the month was sacred, but the restrictions the 
author quotes appear to have been imposed on the king only by the 
priests. The name sha-bat, meaning “ middle rest” or “ heart rest,” 
appears to indicate that the word was originally astronomical and 
was applied to the day when the moon was at the middle of her 
course through the heavens, and after waxing was supposed to rest 
before waning. 

These are by no means all the mistakes the author has made. 
On p. 314 he does not appear to perceive that “the Canaanite was 
then in the land,” Gen. xii, 16, means that the Canaanite had then 
settled in the land, and therefore is no proof that it was written 
after the Canaanites had been expelled. His statement, also, that 
the latter part of Gen. xiv is in confusion “from v. 17 onwards ” 
he makes no attempt to prove. The supposed confusion I have 
never been able to discover. 

The author confesses that he has no expert knowledge of the 
subjects with which he deals—subjects which needed very exact 
expert knowledge. It is unfortunate also that whilst abounding 
—indeed, consisting almost entirely of quotations, excepting when 
he quotes some fifteen or twenty times from Professor Driver, who 
is not an archeologist, and cannot read a line of cuneiform inscrip- 
tions, he so seldom tells us whence his quotations are taken. Some 
of them I happen to know come from sources of very little value in 
the light of more recent discoveries. 

Time and space will not permit me to add more. I can only say 
how greatly I regret, with all my respect for the author, to be able 
to say little or nothing in favour of his paper. 


d30TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 


HELD (BY KIND PERMISSION) IN THE ROOMS OF THE 
ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS, ON MONDAY, 
JUNE 171s, 1912, AT 4.30 p.m. 


IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PRESIDENT, WHO WAS UNAVOIDABLY 
DETAINED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, COLONEL MACKINLAY 
PRESIDED. 


The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and signed, and the 
following elections were announced :— 

Associates: The Hon. Granville G. Waldegrave, B.A., Charles 
Edward Cesar, Esq., F.S.I., Rev. J. A. Douglas, B.A., B.D., Miss 
Marian Barker, Frederick R. S. Balfour, Esq., M.A., William Henry 
Plaister, Esq., M.R.C.S. 


The SrcreTary announced that the Gunning Prize for 1912 had been 
awarded by the Council to the Rev. Parke Poindexter Flournoy, D.D., 
Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A. 


ANNUAL ADDRESS. 
“MODERN UNREST AND THE BIBLE.” 
By Sm ANDREW WINGATE, K.C.LE. 


TYWNHE windows of a church in Brittany show the writers of the 

four Gospels being borne on the shoulders of the four 
great Prophets. The fact thus quaintly exhibited is that the 
New Testament rests upon the Old Testament. 

The mosaics of St. Mark’s teach the same lesson from a 
different standpoint. The catechumen is not expected to lift up 
his eyes to the interiors of the domes, whence pour down upon 
him the Gospel narrative, until he has mastered the history of 
the Old Testament depicted on the outer vestibules and 
colonnades. 

Those old artists sought to impress on the imagination of 
successive generations of worshippers that faith does not rest 
only upon the New Testament, and that no one can fully 
appreciate the crucifixion until he has confessed that Jesus 1s 
“the Christ.” Peter, for all men, Martha, for all women, 
confessed: “Thou art the Christ.” This confession is the Rock 
on which the Church is built. The Rock, Jehovah, of the Song 
of Moses; the Rock, the God of Israel, of the last words of 
David. To enable this confession to be made the Old Testament 
was written. All the teaching of Jesus led up to this confession. 

Z 2 


340 SIR ANDREW WINGATE, K.C.L.E., 


Peter and Paul preached nothing else. And because of this 
public confession, which impressed both believers and heathen, 
the disciples in Antioch were called “ Christians ”—not Jesus- 
ites, as one would have anticipated, and as is actually the case in 
Korea to-day. Those races to whom only the New Testament 
has been given are not rooted in any depth of soil. Questions 
must soon be asked: why was Jesus born a Jew? why did He 
not come sooner? While those nations from whom the Old 
Testament is being taken away are like a tree drying up from 
the roots. 

As we cross the threshold of the New Testament we find 
ourselves standing in the gateway of the Old Testament. 
St. John writes: “In the beginning was the Word.” The first 
chapter of Genesis is open before him. He sees the light 
shining in darkness and creation taking form and bringing forth 
life. And, as he recognizes the Christ—transforming chaos 
into order—he beholds Jesus, born into the spiritual ruin of 
mankind, to be the true Light; the Christ made flesh and 
dwelling among us, bringing eternal life to a corrupt and dying 
world. 

So St. Matthew, also going back to Genesis, commences with 
the words: “The book of the generation of Jesus,” because he is 
about to add the finishing chapter to the Old Testament record 
of the generations of the first man, culminating in the second 
man, the Son of God. To the western, who but slightly 
remembers his grandfather, St. Matthew’s introduction to his 
Gospel conveys nothing. But a Chinaman, as he passes through 
the long ancestry—as the commanding figures and great events 
of the past rise into view—is conscious that a highway, cast up 
with such care through all the preceding centuries, must lead to 
a Teacher of supreme importance. 

No genealogy compares with that of the King of the Jews. 
Like the star, it guides the wise from the dim east of Eden and 
halts for ever over the cradle of Bethlehem. Because here was 
fulfilled the promise made to Eve—to the woman, not to the 
man, for Jesus was born of a Virgin. Nor could the genealogy 
continue, because this Sovereign carried with Him, through 
death, the Crown of David. Above the Cross was placed His 
title, the King of the Jews, and there it remains till He come. 

In the East, people are familiar with the construction of a 
highway before a great man when he travels. The advents of 
lesser dignities act like flashes of unusual light to startle the 
stagnant multitude to expectancy. Thus, the visit of the 
Prince of Wales, nearly four decades ago, followed by the tours 


ON MODERN UNREST AND THE BIBLE. 341 


of other Royal Princes, the succession of Imperial Durbars and 
Proclamations at Delhi, the magnificence of the scale on which 
the Royal Camp was being got ready, the centripetal motion of 
all authority and rank from all parts of the Empire, prepared 
the millions of India to respect the Majesty of their Emperor. 
Potentate and peasant bowed in homage, not to a devastating 
conqueror, but to a Sovereign, whose love was felt, because it 
had brought him from far, and was returned, because it was 
real. It is not the least tribute to the sympathy, which 
underlies British administration, that the Emperor’s path to this 
throne in the hearts of his Eastern peoples was smoothed by 
the unselfish devotion to duty of many an unknown officer. 

So the preparation for the birth of Jesus was long and 
elaborate. Lights from the old Testament illuminate every 
part of the road from Bethlehem to Calvary. The words and 
acts of Jesus were first thrown upon the screen of Old 
Testament character, whence has come whatever light there is 
in the heathen teaching of antiquity. How constantly it is 
repeated that every detail of His life was the fulfilment of 
Scripture. Jesus is the Good Shepherd because, as Christ, He 
led Israel like a flock; He is the Living Water because, as the 
Rock, He sustained Israel in the Desert; He is the Living 
Bread, because, as Christ, He fed Israel with food from above ; 
He is the True Vine, because, as Christ, He planted Israel in a 
- very fruitful hill. We only understand the words of Jesus by 
reference to the dealings of Christ with Israel. 

Thus John the Baptist, the last of the prophets of the Old 
Testament and the herald of the New, in one brief cry to the 
multitude epitomised the Old and foreshadowed the New 
Testainent: “ Behold the Lamb of God.” A lamb had but one 
destiny, to be slain for the sins of the people. But who is the 
Lamb of God? There could be but one answer: “the Lamb, 
whom God will provide.” Abraham prophesied when he replied 
to Isaac, “ God will provide Himself a Lamb.” John the Baptist, 
as he looked on Jesus, saw the Lamb whom God had provided 
to take away the sin of the whole world, and he proclaimed that 
Jesus would take the place of Isaac—a brief journey and then 
a sacrificial death. 

From the time when Abel confessed his belief in the 
substitute God would provide, and so received the righteousness 
of a life laid down, sacrifice never ceased. It passed through 
the Flood with Noah and reminded God, as the Rainbow 
assured man, that Love would overcome in Judgment. It has 
been remarked that the eight-fold lightning of the “ Woes” in 


342 SIR ANDREW WINGATE, K.C.I.E., 


the 23rd of St. Matthew is followed by a rain of tenderness and 
pity before the chapter closes. So the Bow breaks forth in 
beauty above the altar of Noah. God when He looked on the 
sacrifice saw His Son laying down His life for the world. The 
Rainbow round about the throne of God is Love shining through 
the tears of God. 

But it was to Abraham that the meaning of the slain lamb 
was disclosed. The whole life of Abraham led up to this 
revelation. First, he was trained to resign all material things, 
home, kindred and country. He built no city. He possessed 
no land, but a tomb. He had no roots in this world. He was 
indifferent that Lot deprived him of the well-watered plain. He 
refused to accept the spoil of Sodom. Passing.up and down in 
tents among the nations, he witnessed, alone in a Godless world, 
that there is a future life, worth losing this world to win, but 
which, won, gains this world too. Christ said to Abraham, 
“ Leave all,” and was obeyed. Jesus said, “Sell,”’—not leave, 
but—“ Sell whatsoever thou hast,’ whereupon the wealthy 
young ruler turned his back on the promised Heavenly treasure. 
Does Britain to-day similarly reject the call of the Edinburgh 
Conference to yield something of her great possessions to rescue 
the millions of the Far East, whose cries for help can be heard 
coming out of the darkness ? 

Secondly, Abraham holds aloft for all ages the standard of 
faith, which Eve had dropped with doubting heart. Not less 
than six times during twenty-five years, God had solemnly and 
circumstantially promised to Abraham a son. The years passed, 
but nothing happened, till there was no longer any possibility 
of the promise being fulfilled. Then, from the dead, Isaac was 
born. The fact that the promised seed would be the miracle of 
God is thereafter emphasised in Rebekah, in Rachel, in Manoah’s 
wife, in Ruth, in Hannah, in the lady of Shunem, till a Virgin 
was thus prepared to believe the angel’s message. For without 
faith, the Christ could not be born. Among women, there is no 
recorded instance of faith comparable to Mary’s reply, “ Be it 
unto me according to Thy word.” 

Next, Ishmael had to be yielded up, and finally the demand 
came for Isaac, the child of prayer and promise. Did Abraham’s 
light go out in that darkness? His faith shines still with a 
brilliance that enheartens mankind. Neither to atone for his 
own sin, nor to placate an angry deity, was he ready to slay his 
son, but simply because “God hath said.’ That was enough 
for both Abraham and Isaac. “Shall not the Judge of all the 
earth do right?” “Lo, I come to do Thy Will, O God.” 


ON MODERN UNREST AND THE BIBLE. 3438 


When Abraham led captivity captive, he received the blessing 
of the King of Righteousness and Peace, because the act was 
prophetic of the day when Jesus would proclaim deliverance to 
all captives. Out of this experience were born his compassion 
and intercession for the guilty cities. One righteous Lot had 
brought strong succour, not only for himself, but for those with 
him, a blessing which was bestowed upon Noah in the Flood, 
and upon Paul in the shipwreck. In each case, all who accepted 
salvation, received it. The dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from 
the children’s table. Did the woman’s heart for a moment 
reflect the wideness of God’s mercy? Is there any joy in being 
saved alone? Is this the thought which underlies the pleading 
of Moses and of Paul? Did not Jesus pass through that 
blotting out and the curse that Israel may be saved ? 

Now, on the mount, the glory of Christ breaks on Abraham’s 
vision. Where Isaac lay bound, he sees the Son of God, and as 
Abraham enters into the agony of God the Father, who gives 
His only Son to vivify by His own blood a dead humanity, he 
foresees that it is through the faith, by which he trusted the 
word of God, that not only his own race, but all nations shall be 
blessed. As this Gospel is preached to Abraham (Galatians 111, 8), 
he beholds the everlasting gates of the Eternal City lifted up 
and the triumphal entry of Christ—the Lamb that was slain— 
bringing with him the rescued multitude of all kindreds and 
- tongues; and he is glad, because of the final omnipotence of 
Love by the Life laid down. 

Hitherto, the dealings of God with men had been in 
judgment: the sentence of death, the Flood, Babel, and Sodom. 
“JT am God Almighty.” In the offering of Isaac, God revealed 
Himself in Love; and from henceforth, God, the friend of 
Abraham, seeks to renew the fellowship with man which was 
broken at Eden. “Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I 
command you.” 

Abraham had typified God giving His beloved Son. Isaac 
had typified the Son brought as a Lamb to the slaughter, yet 
opening not his mouth; now, Jacob was to exhibit the long- 
suffering of God to the slayers of his son. When Jacob told 
Pharaoh that the days of his years had been few and evil, he is 
evidently referring to the long-drawn-out forbearance with 
which he had continued to dwell with the would-be murderers 
of Joseph —men unstable of principle and cruel in anger, false of 
tongue and impure in conduct—a forbearance which finally won 
their love, as is seen in the intercession of Judah for Benjamin. 

Thus, as the work of God the Father, God the Son, and God 


344 SIR ANDREW WINGATE, K.C.I.E., 


the Holy Spirit, is successively foreshadowed in the lives of 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the triune God adopts their names 
as His Name to all generations, and the way is prepared for the 
manifestation in the life of Joseph of the Christ made flesh. 

Joseph was sent with a message of goodwill and warning to 
his brethren, and soon hears their angry shout: “We will not 
have thee to reign over us.” (Genesis xxxvii, 8, and Luke xix, 
14.) Jesus was clad as a child with His Father’s coat of many 
colours. Angels and men vied to weave it. His mother never 
forgot it. But it was torn from him by Herod’s ferocity, and He 
entered on His public life with only the carpenter’s home for a 
backeround. 

Joseph’s agony had been unheeded, but his eyes were daily 
scanning the thronging crowds—searching for the faces of those 
ten men, just as in the parable the father first caught sight of 
the returning son, because love was on the watch. Not love but 
hunger drew both son and brothers within the arms of forgiving 
love. Let the Christian Church recollect that when the Jews 
ask for their land. What a nobility of forgiveness there is in 
Joseph! He intercedes for his brothers, so that in Jacob’s last 
words, where there is sharp rebuke for other sins, and where 
there is allusion to the separation of Joseph from the family, 
there is no condemnation. “Father, forgive them.” Then 
Joseph wipes away all tears from their eyes by changing remorse 
to praise. ‘They had thought evil against him, but God willed 
it for good “ to save much people alive.” “Be not grieved nor 
angry with yourselves that ye sold me hither, for God did send 
me before you to preserve life.” (Genesis xlv, 5, and I, 20.) 

Such is the majestic pardon that awaits the return of weeping 
Israel. “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.” The 
Jews do not yet recognize Jesus, because He is pouring out His 
treasures upon the nations. Jesus is seen by them in Gentile 
dress, served by Gentile ministers, and with the Gentile Church 
for Bride. Yet Joseph had never concealed his identity. From 
Pharaoh to his Steward every Egyptian knew that Joseph was 
a Hebrew, and had his brethren inquired why Joseph sat at a 
table apart, they would have found the clue to his identity. 

What caused Joseph to make himself known to his brethren 
the second time? Judah’s moving prayer of intercession; Judah’s 
life laid down—not for Benjamin’s sake, but because their father 
loved Benjamin. Has not the set time come for the Christian 
Churches to plead for the Jews ? Not because they are lovable, 
but because Jesus loves them, and laid down His life for that 
nation (John xi, 51,52). Can there be any second coming of 


ON MODERN UNREST AND THE BIBLE. 345 


our Lord—shall we see His face, except our brother be with us ? 
Must we not leave our gift before the altar and first be recon- 
ciled to our brother? Why are there not showers of blessing— 
rivers in the human deserts ? Is it not because we give no place 
in our public worship to our Lord’s dying petition ? 

The Lord Jesus can only make His love known to Israel 
through us. As long as we persecute or despise the Jews and 
shut them out of their land, we frustrate the plan of God. Why 
is the Mission Field so scantily suppled with workers? “ The 
first-born of thy sons shalt thou give unto Me.” The Christian 
Church does not teach that, but when the Jews return to th 
Lord, His vineyard will be crowded with labourers. The Gentiles 
have not sought their aid, but the Jews, entering at the eleventh 
hour, will receive a full wage. 

We have only to read the headings to such chapters as 
Isaiah xlix or Jeremiah xxxi, to realize how the Christian 
Church has appropriated promises, which belong to the Jews, 
and has deceived itself into believing that the Jews are disin- 
herited. Is it not the fact, that since the Christian nations, 
stirred up by the Churches, attempted to seize the Holy Land 
for themselves—the Crusades broke up in quarrels, which have 
never ceased—the Moslems have advanced and still maintain 
their unique position by fomenting and utilising that discord ? 

We have come then to this point, that the plan of God, as 
_ forecast in the Old Testament, has been fulfilled in the New 
‘Testament up to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and 
His rule over the nations. And that there remains for fulfilment 
the discovery by the Jews that this Gentile Prince is their own 
King—the Jesus, whom they crucified, now reigning over the 
kingdoms of the earth, but ever watching with aching heart and 
outstretched arms for their return. Already the Jews are 
bringing money in their hands, asking for the lands of their 
fathers, to be allowed to colonise there, to be guaranteed in safe 
possession; and Christ is now seeking from the Christian 
Churches and from the Christian Powers, as Joseph demanded 
from his steward and claimed from Pharaoh, practical help in 
making known His goodwill to Israel. But there is no response. 
The Churches are without faith and the Powers without concern. 
There is no expectancy of fulfilment. 

Why shall the receiving of the Jews by their King be hfe 
from the dead? Because a world without faith is dead, and the 
conversion of the Jews will restore faith to the world. The 
Jews will look upon the Risen Jesus, and will go forth to 
proclaim to all nations that this same Jesus, whom they crucified, 


346 SIR ANDREW WINGATE, K.C.I.E., 


is both Jehovah and Christ (Acts ii, 36). We note that Paul, 
the type of the conversion of Jesus-persecuting Jews, became 
the Apostle to the Gentiles. And do we not observe a tendency 
in Jewish converts to preach Christ to Gentiles, rather than to 
their unconverted brethren ? We seem to have here the indica- 
tion that when the Jews are converted they will be consumed 
with the desire to preach to the world that Jesus is very 
Christ. 

But is the world in need of life from the dead? Our Lord 
asks whether, when he comes again, he will find faith on the 
earth? There are certain indications which point to the present 
period as one when the fulness of the times of the Gentiles is at 
hand, and which aJso cause anxiety as to the future fruit-bearing 
power of the Gentile Branches. For example, a great cry was 
raised to win the world for Christ in this generation. When the 
response was evidently not equal to such a demand, the cry 
has been modified to the evangelisation of the world in this 
generation. There seems to be small hope that even this can 
be accomplished. The Churches and Societies have not even 
attempted to meet the modest demand made for India by the 
Madras Conference. Then followed the Edinburgh Conference, 
when all the churches seemed stirred and moved. Not that 
there has been no response. Study bands and Bible classes 
testify that the young are being prepared for greater efforts. 
But is there a sure hope that the thousands—nay, tens of 
thousands—of missionaries required to accomplish the preaching 
ot the Gospel to all human beings, will be speedily forthcoming, 
even reckoning the increasing aid from the Native Churches ? 

Again, is there reasonable expectation that the faith of the 
rising generation in this country and of the Native Churches is 
likely to become more vigorous? At the present moment there 
are two factors which must occasion grave anxiety. First, the 
decadence of faith at home and itsconsequences. Secondly, the 
spread of similar unbelief to the Mission Fields, re-inforced by 
the evil report carried back by Indian, Chinese, Japanese, 
African, and other visitors to our land. Both these factors are 
the product of what is known as Higher Criticism. 

When reading books, which assume to approach the Bible 
from the critical standpoint, there is no need to delay over 
the elaborate detail behind which the advance is skilfully 
masked. 

The only point worth noting is, On what books or texts of the 
Bible is the artillery fire concentrated? Probably no book in 
the world (if we except the Bible taken as a whole) has ever 


ON MODERN UNREST AND THE BIBLE. B47 


been subjected to such tremendous and increasing attack as has 
assailed the Book of Genesis within the last half-century. No 
book has had hurled against it, in such rapid succession, such a 
hail of volumes designed by the best brains. There are those 
who man the walls of The New Testament, who regard Genesis 
as a neglicible outlier, too remote for its capture to affect their 
position. But if the account of Eden is a fable, then the 
declaration that the seed of the woman shall overcome the 
Serpent is transferred from fact to fiction. If Abraham is 
mythical and eponymous, then the promise that in his seed all 
nations shall be blessed, disappears. While the argument that 
the Lord Jesus is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek 
is shattered. Our Lord’s own words fare no better: “ Your 
father Abraham rejoiced to see my day.” “God is not the God 
of the dead, but of the living.” Where there is no promised 
seed, there is no Christ to preach. 

For the same reason, of all the Psalms, the 110th Psalm is 
the one against which the heaviest guns are trained. It seems 
almost immaterial who wrote it, tillit is recollected that on its 
authorship Jesus bases the proof that “the Christ” must be at 
once the Divine Lord and the human Son of David, and Peter 
bases his assertion, in the Pentecostal Sermon, that Jesus is 
both Jehovah and Christ. 

The material of the Higher Criticism was originally manu- 
' factured inGermany. The intention was to destroy Christianity, 
and action began by a masterly flank movement against the trust- 
worthiness of the history of the Old Testament. The rise of 
criticism is synchronous with the renewed activity of Missions 
to the Jews, and doubtless there is urgency to damage the 
doctrine that Jesus is “ the Christ” before the Jews get hold of 
so potent a truth. Now thestronghold of the Bible is England, 
and the strength of England is the Bible in the hearts of the 
people. It was easy to trace the leakage of French vitality to 
the writings of Voltaire and Rousseau, and to decide that the 
solid British character would resent the scoffer, but might fall 
an easy prey were he disguised as the scholar. The ammu- 
nition was shipped to this country in ponderous cases, marked 
“for scholars only.” The stratagem, unless we awake to our 
danger, bids fair to be as successful as when the Trojans dragged 
the Grecian horse within their walls. Already the results are 
sufficiently startling. The Bible has not been injured. Possibly 
critics may not be conscious of any damage to themselves. But 
faith in the Bible of the man in the street as the standard of 
right and wrong—the nominal Christianity of the masses—is 


348 SIR ANDREW WINGATE, K.C.I.E., 


being battered to pieces, and the public mind is left defenceless 
and empty, open to occupation by all the spirits of unrest. 

Is our nation letting slip from its grasp what it is vital to 
retain? Are we losing, what France and Italy are endeavouring 
to recover, that world-famous institution, the British Sunday ? 
This weekly rest has steadied the nerves of our population and 
safeguarded us from destructive revolution or excitability in 
danger. It has cultivated the inventive faculty, which is 
vigorous in Protestant lands, much less evident in Roman 
Catholic countries, and becomes extinct in the ceaseless routine 
of the non-Christian races. It is the secret of our Commercial 
Supremacy, receiving the over strained brains and bodies at the 
close of each week and sending them back on the Monday to 
take an earnest, sane, and fresh view of business problems and 
anxieties, to meet with braced energy a tired world. It 
underlies the public respect for law and order, keeping the fear 
of God in the national conscience. It is the negation of 
materialism and sets every life clear cut against a sky radiant 
with hope of things beyond. It is the inheritance, won for the 
working man by the pioneers of British freedom, giving him 
seven days’ food for six days’ work. 

Sunday is already a day of pleasure and is fast becoming a 
day of work. Concomitant with the loss of our day of rest, we 
are letting slip Church-going, family worship, and Bible reading. 
The Head Masters of our public schools have already sounded a 
note of alarm, while window-smashing is a curious product of 
the new education of girls. Men are being taught to be ashamed 
of manual labour, and girls to be ashamed of being born women. 
Are such notions the embryonic stage of the craving for slaves 
aud female infanticide? More money is lost by strikes than is 
gained by Sunday traffic and trading, and more health is lost by 
the break-down of nerves than Sunday excitements seem able to 
cope with. This change of attitude towards Sunday and the 
Bible on the part of the nation, 1s reflecting itself in the Govern- 
ment. In the eyes of Mahomedans, by way of winning their 
respect, British officers serving in Egypt rest on the Moslem 
Friday and work on the Christian Sunday. And now, in the 
sight of the Mission Fields of the world, the Lord’s Day is being 
used to instruct men, not how to love, but how to shoot down 
their enemies. Each desecration of the day is used as an 
argument to justify the next profanation. 

Surely some subtle influence is at work. It is doubtful 
whether the clergy realize the tremendous success of the 
campaign against the authenticity of Genesis and the Old 


ON MODERN UNREST AND THE BIBLE. 349 


Testament, or are weighing the effect of the present teachine 
from Theological Colleges to Sunday Schools. The argument of 
the man in the street is logical and indefeasible. If there was 
no Abraham there is no Christ. Therefore, the Church is built 
on no rock at all, and the name Christian has no meaning. 
People will not read nor go to church to hear about a Book 
which is represented as untrustworthy. It is a foolish woman 
who plucketh her house down with her hands. (Prov. xiv, 1.) 
Before long, the masses will discover that they have no use for 
the clergy and a strong appetite for theirendowments. Already 
the echo of old-time rebellion is in the air. “Go to, let us make 
a book.” If Ezra and Josiah did it, why cannot the more 
capable men of to-day compile the religions of the world into 
a book which shall replace the Bible—a book written to XXth 
century pitch, no curses or woes, all pleasant reading ? 

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous 
do?” Cracks are showing in the superstructure. “In the 
want of people is the destruction of the prince.” France is 
eliminating the mention of God from her school books, and 
something else is eliminating the children from her schools. 
The latest statistics show, for the first time, that the total deaths. 
are in excess of the total births, a point reached after a long 
series of years of a continually declining birth-rate. Between 
emigration and service abroad, the conditions here are not so 
simple, but Zhe Times recently headed a paragraph: “The 
declining birth-rate,” and drew attention to the fact that the 
births in England and Wales in the first quarter of 1912 were 
the lowest per 1,000 ever recorded. Does a declining birth-rate 
connote declension of physical and moral qualities? There is 
at least this answer. When God wishes to bless, He says, “I 
will multiply thy seed.” 

Germany and Italy have been building up their power by the 
closer union of all the parts. The tendency in the United 
States is in the same direction. We seem to be breaking up 
our United Kingdom, and to be drifting into collision with 
those who are loyal and protestant. 

The Archbishop of Canterbury notes with anxiety the spirit 
of lawlessness which is abroad. The disregard of agreements, the 
callousness to the suffering caused, the indifference to patriotic 
considerations. A recent article in The XIXth Century and 
After ascribes the labour unrest to the call of the railway ; 
the growth of the city; the sense of new and untried powers 
produced by an education, framed to suit the children of the 
leisured and professional classes, and not suited to those 


350 SIR ANDREW WINGATE, K.C.I.E., 


intended for manual labour; and, finally, the waking of dis- 
content by being stimulated to compare what they have with 
what they are toid they ought to have. But these causes would 
not breed lawlessness, but for the weakening of the faith of 
the masses in the Bible. When Israel departed from Jehovah 
there was always unrest in the land. There are two ways of 
obtaining even what we ought to have. David was informed 
he would be king, but he refused to permit Saul to be killed. 
Hazael was informed he would be king, and he forthwith 
murdered Benhadad. 

When God blesses a nation, he makes even its enemies to be 
at peace with it. (Prov. xvi, 7; Psl. xxix, 11.) Germany and 
Britain are allied by race, religion and temperament, and by 
the long struggle with Rome to win the right of the Saxon 
peoples to possess the Bible in their own vernacular. To-day, 
the possibility of a war between Germany and ourselves is 
freely discussed, and both empires are actively increasing their 
armaments by sea and land. The entente with France, 
useful as it has been in North Africa, has fulfilled Lord 
Rosebery’s prediction that it would entail the enmity of Ger- 
many. An alliance with France, whose immediate thought is 
to recover her lost provinces, is fraught with anxieties. 

The situation is difficult, because Germany is just as desirous 
of the aid of the French fleet in the North Sea as we are to 
have it in the Mediterranean. The situation is also critical 
because events succeed one another with bewildering rapidity. 
The pressing fact is that the Mahomedan populations are 
passing under the control of Christian rulers. From Egypt to 
Morocco, together with the vast hinterlands of Nigeria and the 
Sudan, the whole continent of North Africa is being freed from 
Moslem domination. North Persia is under the firm tutelage 
of Russia, and England is being forced into a similar position in 
South Persia. This break-up of Mahomedan power has not 
only caused Germany to seek to extend her territory in Africa, 
but has warned her that some power must shortly take Turkey 
in hand. The natural expansion of Germany and Austria is 
towards Constantinople, and this brings the interests of the 
Triple Alliance into conflict with a Russian ambition, which we, 
too, have long consistently opposed. 

The pressure is being felt in Egypt, which has long enjoyed 
isolation, but is now flanked, on one side by a strong Italian 
army, and on the other, as soon as the approaching linking-up 
ofthe Anatolian and Hedjaz Railway Systems is completed, by 
Turkish troops. If Mesopotamia is to be re-created under 


ON MODERN UNREST AND THE BIBLE. S01 


German influences and the proposed Baghdad Railway is carried 
to the Persian Gulf, our relations with Persia are threatened 
and a new danger will confront the Government of India. 

The natural saviour of the Christian populations, vroaning 
under Moslem intolerance, is Protestant Germany acting with 
Austria-Hungary. For a free hand in South-Eastern Europe, 
Germany might be willing to leave the Baghdad Railway 
and the Euphrates-Tigris Irrigation Projects to be constructed 
by Jewish capitalists, and to resign Mesopotamia to British 
influences as France resigned Egypt. The Mahomedan grip on 
the lands of the Bible must soon relax, and thus the way for 
the return of the Jews is made open. What can remedy the 
situation at home? What can save the young native churches ? 
What can bring peace to the distracted nations? One simple 
act of justice. In all these contlicting policies focussing on 
Mesopotamia may be seen the Hand of God, lifted up to the 
nations, to gather the Jews out of all countries and bring them 
into their own land. (Isa. xlix, 22; Ezek. xxxvi, 24.) The 
brothers fell not out by the way, because Benjamin was with 
them, and Benjamin reminded them of Joseph. The restoration 
of this people, without ambassador to plead their cause, without 
an army to enforce their claim, will remind the world of Christ, 
how He leads captivity captive, and, as the world looks on, faith 
will return to mankind, that “nation shall not lift up sword 
‘against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” As 
soon as the nations do the will of God, faith compels the fulfil- 
ment of the Promise: “ My Presence shall go with thee, and I 
will give thee Rest.” (Exod. xxxiu, 14.) 

Recent wars have brought about the cultivation of the 
physical energies of our youth. In face of present day teaching 
that war is necessary to keep an imperial people fit, and of the 
dramatic use of the mailed fist by various governments, this is 
wise. But let it be remembered that the Philistines excelled 
in drill and equipment and numbers the little army of Israel, 
as did the Midianites, the 300 men with Gideon. The victory 
was gained by reason of that strange fear which grips men 
when they recognize that they are fighting against an unseen 
power. The Old Testament is a continuous story of the 
impotence of physical force against spiritual protection. 
Heathen grasped this truth, when, for example, they attributed 
the storm which wrecked Aeneas on the coast of Carthage to 
Juno; just as the King of Spain did, when he said he had sent 
his Armada to fight men not Aeolus. 

It may be replied, that too much importance is attached to 


302 SIR ANDREW WINGATE, K.C.LE., 


Higher Critics, that it scarcely requires the living voice to rout 
them, because they have forgotten that Jacob and Joseph were 
embalmed by Egyptians and any day a dead man’s bones may 
send them helter skelter. Also, that the bulk of the clergy do not 
hold advanced views. Eleven-twelfths of the followers of Jesus 
remained staunch, but it was the kiss of Judas that brought the 
hammer of Titus which pulverized Jerusalem. When Israel 
lost the Bible there was turmoil within and war without. 
Each time Israel found the Bible there was peace at home and 
abroad. 


Colonel MACKINLAY called upon General Halliday to move 
that the best thanks of the members of the Institute be given to 
Sir Andrew Wingate for the Annual Address he had just delivered. 

General HaLLipAy, said: The Institute was to be congratulated 
upon the address to which they had all listened with so much 
pleasure. He referred to the lessons which the address brought 
home to our own hearts in days when there is so little subjection to 
the Word, and spoke of the wondrous unity of declared purpose from 
Genesis to Revelation, and of the prevalent unrest as a result of that 
lack of subjection, whether in the nations or in individuals. He 
referred with cordial appreciation to the lessons of the Crusades and 
the Armada which Sir Andrew had emphasized, and hoped to see 
those lessons applied in our to-day’s experience. Meddling, however 
well meant, with earthly politics could not bring the “rest of God.” 

Professor LANGHORNE ORCHARD, said: It is my pleasant lot to 
second the vote of thanks, so felicitously proposed by General 
Halliday, for a deliverance which, by nobility of aim, by cogency 
and simplicity of reasoning, has worthily maintained the high 
traditions of this Society’s Annual Addresses. 

The prevailing unrest is largely owing to a spirt of discontent and 
lawlessness. To this, as pointed out in the address, various 
secondary causes—among them the inflammatory harangues of 
political demagogues—have beyond doubt tended. But, as we are 
reminded on p. 350, ‘these causes would not breed lawlessness ’ 
were it not for “the weakening of the faith of the masses in the 


ON MODERN UNREST AND THE BIBLE. 353 


Bible.” In public belief, in the forum of the public conscience, the 
Bible has stood as the symbol of supreme authority, as the expository 
of the highest law. To “the man in the street,” attacks upon the 
Bible (as he knows it) are attacks upon that authority, attacks upon 
that law. And here it should be borne in mind that disparagement of 
part of the Bible is disparagement of the whole, for W. E. Gladstone 
was unquestionably right in his contention that the Bible is an 
organic whole—if a limb be cut off, there is danger that the whole 
body bleed to death. 

Authority, if weakened at its source and fountain, is weakened 
everywhere; if respect be loosened for Divine law, it is loosened 
generally for human laws—which are professedly in equity derived 
from and based on the Divine. 

The indictment of the Higher Criticism (p. 346 and 347) is thus 
thoroughly deserved. Not that Higher Criticism is necessarily bad. 
But it becomes bad when, as is the case with that now dominant, it 
aims at weakening Biblical authority, and is conducted with injustice, 
unfairness in the interests of a preconceived theory, and without 
competent knowledge. 

It is, in my judgment, evident that the restoration of Israel to 
their own land will, by strengthening popular belief in the truth of 
‘Scripture, tend to cure unrest and discontent. ‘The restoration of 
this people, without ambassador to plead their cause, without an 
army to enforce their claim, will remind the world of Christ. . . .” 
This strange event, seen as the fulfilment of prophecy, may be 
expected to arouse attention and thoughtfulness. The children of 
Israel, going forth as evangelists, will lead men to the knowledge 
and obedience of GOD, and thus to an increased respect for law and 
liberty which is not licence. 

Yet the only complete cure for unrest in all the feverish workings 
of its protean forms is Rest from the hands of the Rest-Giver who 
says, not to the “ Labour Party” only, “ Come unto Me, all ye that 
labour and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” 

We shall subscribe to the reasoning (p. 347) that the New Testa- 
ment is unintelligible apart from the Old, so that, in logical 
consistency, belief of the New involves belief of the Old; and we 
shall agree that “the strength of England is the Bible in the hearts 
of the people.” ‘ Naught shall make her rue,” if England to her 


God, and therefore, to His holy word, “do prove but true.” 
Aeke 


354 ON MODERN UNREST AND THE BIBLE. 


The resolution was put to the meeting and carried with acclama- 
tion. 

Sir ANDREW WINGATE briefly thanked the Chairman, the proposer 
and seconder of the resolution and the meeting for their kind 
reception of his address. 

The CHAIRMAN then called upon the Secretary to give a brief 
account of the recent good progress of the Institute, a progress 
which he gratefully acknowledged was mainly due to Mr. Bishop’s 
enthusiastic and successful efforts. 

The SECRETARY stated that during the twenty months he had been 
in office 106 new members and associates had joined the Institute, 
nearly double the number who had been removed by death, or had 
retired. He gave much of the credit of this to the Council and the 
Assistant Secretary who had so wholeheartedly supported him in his 
duties and made his work both easy and pleasant. The papers read 
during the session had maintained if they had not surpassed the 
standard of former years, the attendance at the meetings had been 
uniformly large, and the interest in, and importance of the 
discussions had been so great that a much larger amount of space in 
the new volume would have to be allotted to them ‘than for many 
years past. He was sure this would be appreciated by readers of 
the volume when it came into their hands. 

The CHAIRMAN then stated that the Session of 1911-12 was now 
closed and that the new Session would open on December 9th next, 
with a paper by Dr. Whately on “ Immortality.” 


Elo. Oh: HAE 


MEMBERS, ASSOCIATES, 


C. 


& 


24.2 


COUNCIL AND OFFICERS 


Presivent. 


THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE EARL OF HALSBOURY, 
D.CiL:, BRS: 


Uice-Prestvents. 


SIR T. FOWELL BUXTON, BART., K.C.M.G. 

DAVID HOWARD, ESQ., D.L., F.0.8., F.L.C. (Trustee). 

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL, G.C.M.G., LL.D. 
LIEUT.-GEN. SIR H. L. GEARY, R.A., K.C.B. 

PROFESSOR EDWARD HULL, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S., F.G.S. 
REV. CANON R. B. GIRDLESTONE, M.A. 

GENERAL J. G. HALLIDAY. 


Ponorary Auditors. 
E. J. SEWELL, ESQ. | H. LANCE GRAY, ESQ. 


Wondrary Treasurer. 
ARTHUR W. SUTTON, ESQ., J.P., F.LS. 


Secretary anv Evitor of the Sournal. 
FREDERIC S8. BISHOP, ESQ., M.A., J.P. 


Assistant Secretary. 
MR. ALBERT E. MONTAGUE. 


Counnctl. 


(In Original Order of Election.) 


VERY REV. H. WACEH, D.D., Dean of Canterbury (Trustee). 
REV. CHANCELLOR J. J. LIAS, M.A. 

THEO. G. PINCHES, ESQ., LU.D., M.R.A.S. 

VEN. ARCHDEACON W. M. SINCLAIR, M.A., D.D. 
REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.AS. 
LIEUT.-COLONEL GEORGE MACKINLAY (Chairman). 
ARTHUR W. SUTTON, ESQ., J.P., F.LS. 
REV. PREBENDARY H. E. FOX, M.A. 

PROFESSOR H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.Sc. 
RT. REV. BISHOP J. E. C. WELLDON, D.D. 
SYDNEY T. KLEIN, ESQ., F.LS., F.R.A.S., M.R.I. 
WILLIAM J. HORNER, ESQ. 

FREDERIC S. BISHOP, ESQ., M.A., J.P. 

ALFRED T. SCHOFIELD, EsQ., M.D. 

HEYWOOD SMITH, ESQ., M.A., M.D. 

REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A. 

E. WALTER MAUNDER, ESQ., F.R.A.S. 

VEN. ARCHDEACON BERESFORD POTTER, M.A. 
REV. J. H. SKRINE, M.A., D.D. 

J. W. THIRTLE, ESQ., TED. M.R.A.S. 

E. J. SEWELL, ESQ. 

CHANCELLOR P. VERNON SMITH, LL.D. 

S. JOSHUA COOPER, ESQ. 


Bh 


* Members of Council. 

t Life Members or Life Associates, 

I Distinguishes those who have contributed Papers to the Institute. 
F Foundation Members or Associates (elected before Dec. 31, 1866). 


1876 
1895 
1901 


1896 


1OLT 
1882 
1869 
1901 
1873 
1879 


1910 
1911 
1908 


1911 
1907 
1912 
1884 
1907 
1896 


1912 
1891 


1912 
1894: 
1904 


MEMBERS. 
A. 


Aitken, Rev. Canon W. Hay M. H. M.A. Oxon. 

Alves, Lt.-Colonel M. A. R.E. 

Ami, Professor Henry M. M.A. D.Sc. F.G.S. F.R.S. 
Canada. 

Anderson, Sir Robert, K.C.B. LL.D. 


B, 


Bardsley, Rev. Cyril C. B. M.A. 
+Baring, Rev. F. H. M.A. Camb. F.R.G.S. 
+Barker, John L. Esq. 
+Bell, Colonel Alexander W. C. (late Indian Army). 
Bevan, Francis A. Hsq. D.L. J.P. 
*Bishop, F. S. Esq. M.A. Oxon. M.A. Cantab. J.P. 
(SECRETARY. ) 
Bishop, T. B. Esq. 
Blythswood, The Rev. The Lord, M.A. 
Bowles, Edward Augustus, Esq. M.A. Cantab. F.L.S. 
F.E.S. 
Braddon, John B. Esq. 
Braun, Mrs. D. von. 
Brocklebank, Mrs. Richard M. 
Brown, Rev. Claud, M.A. Oxon. 
Bruce, Rev. John Collingwood Gainsford, M.A. 
Buxton, Sir T. Fowell, Bart. K.C.M.G. F.R.GS. 
(Vice-PRESIDENT. ) 


C. 


Campbell, Charles Stewart, Esq. B.A. Camb. I.C.S. 

Carr, Rev. Arthur, M.A. late Fell. Oriel, Hon. See. 
Cent. Soc. Higher Relig. Educ. 

Challis, Frank W. Esq. M.A. 

Chapman, Geo. John, Esq. M.A. 8.C.L. F.Z.S. 

Clough, G. Benson, Esq. 


358 


1911 YColes, Rev. J. J. B. M.A. 

1906 Collett, Sidney, Esq. 

1890 Collins, Brenton H. Esq. J.P. 

1889 * Cooper, S. Joshua, Esq. 

1871 +Coote, Sir A. C. P. Bart. M.A. Camb. FRGS. 

1905 Corrie, Josiah Owen, Esq. B.A. F.R.A.S. Barr. 

1872 Coxhead, Rev. J. J. M.A. 

1897 Cunningham, Francis A. Esq. M.A. B.Sc. Attorney- — 
at-Law. 


D. 


1871 +Day, William, Esq. 

1903 Deacon, J. F. W. Esq. M.A. J.P. D.L. 

1889 Dodge, Rev. D. Stuart, M.A. 

1910. Drawbridge, Rev. Cyprian L. M.A. 

1899 Drummond, Mrs. J. M. A. 

1903 Ducie, Right Hon. The Earl of, F.R.S. F.G.S. 


K. 
1882 Ellis, Alston, Esq. A.M. Ph.D. LL.D. 


F. 


1878 Fairfax, Sir James R. 

1904 Finn, Alexander, Esq. F.R.G.S., British Consulate, 
Chicago, U.S. 

1902 Foote, Robert Bruce, Esq. F.G.S. 

1875 *Fox, Rev. Prebendary H. E. M.A. Camb. 

1876 Freeman, Miss F. H. 

1892 Fremlin, R. H. Esq. 


G. 


1892, Geary, Lieut.-General Sir H. L. K.C.B. R.A. 
(Vick-PRESIDENT.) 

1908 Gerard, Rev. John, B.A. 

1877 Girdlestone, Rev. Canon R. B. M.A. (VicE- 
PRESIDENT. ) 

1896 +Gregg, Rev. David, D.D. LL.D. 


H. 


1899 Halliday, General J.G. (Vick-PRESIDENT.) 
1888 {Hatssury, The Right Hon. Hardinge Stanley Giffard, 
Kari of, K.G. P.C. F.R.S.  (PRESIDENT.) 


309 


1901 Harrison, Edgar Erat, Esq. 

1882 Head, J. Merrick, Esq. F.R.G.S. 

1893 Heath, Captain G. P. R.N. 

1890 Hellier, Rev. Prebendary Henry Griffin, Balliol Coll. 
Oxon. 

1911 MHenty, Walter, Esq. M.A. Camb. 

1906 Hershensohnn, Joshua R. Esq. 

-1879 +Hingston, C. A. Esq. M.D. B.Sc. Lond. 

1895 Hooper, George Norgate, Esq. F.R.G.S. F.S.S. 

1912 Hopkins, Rev. Evan H. 

1906 *Horner, William J. Esq. 

1873 GHoward, David, Esq. D.L. F.C.S. F.LC. (Vict- 

PRESIDENT.) 

1873 Howard, R. Luke, Esq. F.R.M.S. 

1873 Howard, Theodore, Esq. 

1873 +Howard, W. Dillworth, Esq. 

1888+9 Hull, Professor E..M.A. LL.D. F.R.S. F.G.S.; lat. 
Director of the Geological Survey of Ireland, 
Acad. Sci. Philad. Corresp. Soc. Geol. de Belge 
(VicE-PRESIDENT). 


ied as Sas 


1911 Jefferis, Rev. William McCaulley, M.A. B.D. D.D. 
1891 +Jex-Blake, The Very Rev. T. W. D.D. 


K. 
1911 King, George A. Esq. M.A. Master of the Supreme 


Court. 

1893 +Kinnaird, The Honourable Louisa E. 

1900*4 Klein, Sydney T. Esq. F.L.S. F.R.A.S. F.R.M.S. 
F.E.S. M.R.I. 


Ley 
18919 +Lansdell, Rev. Henry, D.D. Memb. RI. Asiatic Soc. 
F.R.G.S. 


1898 Laurence, Miss M. A. 
1911 FLewis, Mrs. Agnes Smith, LL.D. 
18754 *Lias, Rev. Chancellor J. J. M.A. Hulsean Lecturer 
en Leas. 
1908 Longdon, Miss Caroline Mary. 
1911 Llandaff, The Right Rev. Joshua P. Hughes, D.D. 
Bishop of. 


M. 


1909 MacKHwan, Miss Madge D. 
19079 *Mackinlay, Lieut. -Colonel George, late R.A. (CHarr- 
MAN OF COUNCIL.) 


360 


1912 Maconachie, Robert, Esq. B.A. 

1885 +Marshall, Rev. C. J. 

1907 Martin, George H. Esq. M.D. 

1872 Matthews, John T. Esq. 

19089 *Maunder, E. Walter, Esq. F.R.A.S. 

1909 McLarty, Pharmacist Colin, U.S.N. 

1911 Minifie, Rev. William C. Ph.D. D.D. F.R.S.L. 

1898 Molony, Edmund Alexander, Esq. (Indian Civil 
Service). 

1905 +Mortimer, Rev. Alfred G. D.D. Philadelphia. 

1881 +Mullens, Josiah, Esq. F.R.G.S. 

1911 Munro, Rev. J. Iverach, M.A. Edin. 


N. 


1878 Netson, The Right Hon. The Earl. 
1881 Newton, Rey. Canon Horace, M.A. Camb. of York. 
1911 Niblock, Rev. Alex Moncnr. 


O, 


1902 Olsen, Ole Theodor, Esq. M.A. Ph.D. D.Sc. F.L.S. 
F.R.A.S. F.R.G.S. Ord. Wasa, Sweden; Ord. 
St. Olaf, Norway ; St. Andrew’s Terrace, Grimsby. 

1891*+ Orchard, H. Langhorne, Esq. Prof. of Logic, M.A. 
B.Se. (Gunning Prizeman 1909.) 


is 


1911 Panton, Rev. David M. B.A. 

1881 7Patton, Rev. F. L. D.D. LL.D. Prof. Relations of 
Philosophy and Science to the Christian Religion, 
Principal, Princeton Theo. Seminary. 

1910 Peebles, J. M. Esq. M.D. Ph.D. 

1896 +Petter, Rev. W. D. H. M.A. Camb. 

1911 Phillips, Charles Esq. F.R.G.S. 


R. 


1911 Richardson, Robert D. Esq. 

1880 Rivington, Rey. Cecil S. M.A. Hon. Canon of Bombay. 
1909 4 Roget, Professor F. F. 

1899 4 Rouse, Martin Luther Esq. B.A. B.L. 

1872 Rowe, Rev. G. Stringer. 


S. 


1903 Schuster, Rev. W. P. M.A. 
1882 +Scott-Blacklaw, Alex. Esq. 
1904 *Sewell, Ebenezer J. Esq. (Hon. Avupiror.) 


361 


1909 Shelford, Rev. Prebendary L. HE. M.A. 

1889 +Simpson, Prof. Sir Alexander R. M.D. 

1893 Smart, Francis G. Esq. M.A. M.B. J.P. F.LS. 
F.R.G.S. F.S.A. 

1873 *Smith, Chancellor Philip Vernon, M.A. LL.D. 

1892 +Stilwell, John Pakenham, Esq. J.P. 

1885 +Strathcona and Mount ent Lord, G.C.M.G. LL. D. 
F.R.G.S. F.G.8. (Vice- Presten'. ) 

19034 *Sutton, Arthur W. Esq. J.P. F.LS. (Hon. 
TREASURER. ) 

1906 Sutton, Leonard, Esq. F.L.S. 

1888 Sutton, Martin J. Esq. J.P. F.L.S. F.R.G.S. Chev. 
Leg. of Honour. 


a 


1908 *Thirtle, James W. Esq. LL.D. M.R.A.S. 

1906 Townley, Rev. Charles F. M.A. 

1899 Tremlett, James Dyer, Esq. (Barr.-at-Law) M.A. 
Camb. 

1889 Tritton, Joseph H. Esq. F.R.G.S. F.S.S. 

18949*Tuckwell, Rev. John, M.R.A.S. 

1908 Turner, Henry Charlewood, Esq. M.A. Camb. 

1883 Turton, Lt.-Col. W. H. D.S.O. R.E. F.R.G.S 


U. 


1889 { Urquhart, Rev. John (Gunning Prizeman, 1905). 
1880 Usherwood, The Ven. Archdeacon T. E. M.A. 


WN: 


18769 * Wace, Very Rev. H. D.D. Dean of Canterbury ; Hon. 
Chap. to the Queen; late Principal of King’s 
College, Lond. (TRustT#s.) 

1873 Walters, William Melmoth, Esq. 

1878 +Watson, Rev. A. Duff, M.A. B.D. 

1903 +Whidborne, Miss Alice M. 

1910 Whidborne, Mrs. G. F. 

1899 Wigram, Rev. EH. F. EH. M.A. 

1910 Wilkinson, Rev. Samuel Hinds, F.R.G.S. 

1894 Williams, Colonel Robert, M.P. 

1879 Willis, Right Rev. Alfred, D.D. 


x 
(1876 Young, C. E. Baring, Esq. M.A. F.R.G.S. 


262 


ASSOCIATES. 


1878 Adams, Rev. Canon James. 

1894 Adams, Rev. Wm. W. D.D. 

1888 +AnpRews, Rt. Rev. Walter, M.A. Bishop of Hokkaido, 
Japan. 

1905 Arnstrém, Rev. D. A. 

1887 Arrowsmith, E. M. Esq. 

1887 Ashby, Robert, Esq. 

1888 F Ashwin, Rev. C. Godfrey, M.A. 

1909 Ashwin, Rey. Edward Godfrey, M.A. Camb. 

1906 Ashwin, Rey. Forster, B.A. 

1909 Ashwin, Rev. Hamilton, LL.D. T.C.D. 

1891 +Atkinson, Rev. Edward, D.D. Master Clare Coll. 
Cambridge. 

1906 Baker, Lt.-Colonel W. W. R.E. 

1912 Balfour, Frederick R. 8. Esq. M.A. Oxon. 

1911 Balfour of Burleigh, The Right Hon. Lord. 

1911 Banham, Rev. William, B.A. 

1912 Barbour, Mrs. G. 

1912 Bardsley, Rev. Joseph Udell Norman, M.A. 

1912 Barker, Miss Marian. 

1893 Barlow, Rev. C. H. M.A. Oxon. Chap. Bengal. 

1910 Bartholomew, Mrs. Lucy Isabella. 

1902 Barton, Rev. Professor G. A. Ph.D. 

1911 Baumer, Miss E. M. 

1909 Beachcroft, Miss Mary. 

1906 Bent, Mrs. Theodore. 

1887 Berry, Rev. Canon D. M. M.A. Oxon. Demi of Magd. 
Ellerton Prizeman. 

1894 Bevan, Ven. Archdeacon H. HE. J. M.A. Camb. 
Gresham Prof. of Divinity. 

1890 +Bigelow, Professor Meiville M. Ph.D. 

1888 Bird, Arthur, Esq. F.R.G.S. 

1904 +Birkett, Rev. Arthur Ismay, M.A. 

1911 Bishop, Herbert M. Esq. M.D. Yale. 

1910 Bishop, Miss Lisa. 

1910 Bishop, Miss Penelope M. 

1911 Blackburn, Rev. Eastwood, M.A. L.Th. 

1905 Blandy, Miss Grace. 

1900 Bolton, Miss Elsie H. 

1890 Bomford, Rev. L. G. M.A. 

1902 Boord, Miss Eva J. 

1912 Bramwell, Miss Cecilia. 


363 


1895 Breed, Rev. Professor David R. D.D. 

1895 Breed, Rev. F. W. B.A. Durham. 

1887 Bridgeman, Col. the Hon. Francis C. 

1882 Broadbent, Colonel J. E. C.B. R.H. 

1900 Brown, J. Walter, Esq. 

1889 Browne, John, Hsq. C.H. 

1911 Bruce, Sir Charles, G.C.M.G. 

1893 +Bryan, Joseph Davies, Esq. 

1894+ Bullen, Rey. R. Ashington, B.A. F.L.8. F.G.S. 

1911 Burn, Major Henry Pelham. 

1893 Buswell, Ven. Archdeacon H. D. 

- 1892 +Butt, Rev. Canon G. H. B.A. 

1911 Buxton, Thomas Fowell Victor, Esq. M.A. Camb. 

1912 Cesar, Charles Edward, Esq. F.S.I. 

1889 +Cain, Rev. John. 

1910 Candy, Charles Harrison, Esq. B.A. LL.M. Camb. 

1912 Cartwright, George, Esq. 

1907 Carus-Wilson, Henry, Esq. 

1889 +Caudwell, Eber, Esq. M. R. C.S.E. L.B.C.P. 

1890 +Caudwell, Paul, Esq. B.A. Solicitor. 

1906 Chambré, Galonel H. W. Alan. 

1889 Chatterton, Rev. F. W. 

1884 Chichester, Rev. E. A. M.A. R.D. Hon. Canon of 
Winchester. 

1909 Chichester, Henry H. lL. Esq. 

1911 Churchill, Miss Louisa. 

1888 Clyde, Rev. J. C. A.B. A.M. D.D. 

1891 +Cobern, Rev. Prof. Camden M. B.A. 8.T.B. Ph.D. 

1911 Cochrane, Rev. Archibald, M.A. Camb. 

1893 Cockin, Rev. J. 

1905 Collison, Harry, Esq. M.A. Barr. 

1885 +Coote, S. V. Esq. M.A. Oxon. F.R.G.S. 

1877 Crewdson, Rev. Canon G. M.A. Camb. 

1908 Crewdson, Miss Gwendolen, M.A. 

1890 Crosbie, Rev. Howard A.. M.A. 

1890 Cruddas, W. D. Esq. D.L. J.P. 

1908 Dale, William, Esq. F.S.A. F.G.S. 

1884 Daunt, The Ven. Archdeacon W. M.A. 

1876 Dawson, Rev. W. M.A. F.R.H.S. 

1880 Day, Rev. A. G. M.A. Oxon. 

1888 Deedes, Ven. Archdeacon Brook, M.A. 

1894 +Della Rocchetta, of Dolceacqua, Count Arthur, late 
Capt. in the General Staff of Italan Army. 

1908 Derr, Andrew F. Hsq. M.A. 

1890 +De Witt, Rev. Prof. John, D.D. 

1898 Dibdin, R. W. Esq. F.R.G.S. 

1874 Dimond-Churchward, Rev. Prebendary M. D. M.A. 

1912 Douglas, Rev. John Albert, B.D. B.A. Lon. 

1897 Drake-Brockman, William Drake, Esq., late Sup. 
Hngineer P.W.D. India; late A.I.C.E. 


364 


1911 Dreaper, Miss Anna B. 

1911 Dubois, Ernest A. Esq. 

1888 DunteatH, The Rt. Hon. H. L. Lord. 

1885 DurHam, The Rt. Reverend H. C. G. Moule, D.D. 
Bishop of. 

1883 Ebbs, Miss Hllen Hawkins. 

1891 KHckersley, Rev. Jas. M.A. 

1910 Edensor, Miss Florence M. 

18854 +Hlwin, Rev. Arthur. 

1909 Evans, George, Esq. 

1886 Evans, Mrs. James Joyce. 

1896 Evincron, Right Rev. Bishop H. D.D. late (Bishop in 
Kiushin, 8. Japan). 

1899 Fairbairn, H. A. Esq. M.D. M.A. 

1899 +Farquharson, Mrs. M. 

1892 Feilden, J. Leyland, Esq. 

1876 Field, Rev. Arthur T. M.A. Camb. 

1896 +Field-King, J. M.D. C.S.D. 

1879 Finnemore, Rev. J. M.A. Ph.D. F.G.S. 

1885 Fleming, Rev. R. H. B.A. D.D. 

1881 Fleming, Sir Sandford, K.C.M.G. LL.D. F.G:S. 
F.R.G.S. V.-President Royal Soc. of Canada. 

1900 Flint, Charles A. Esq. 

1889 +FLoripa, The Right Rev. E.G. Weed, D.D. 8.T.D. 
Bishop of. 

1897 Flournoy, Rev. Parke Poindexter, D.D. (Gunning 
Prizeman, 1912.) 

1894 +Forster, Miss E. J. 

18829 ¢ Fox, C. Dillworth, Esq. 

1911 Fussell, Rev. James C. L.Th. 

1900 Gardiner, Miss Grace Dorothea. 

1873 +Gardner, Mrs. Ernest L. 

GF +Gedge, Sydney, Esq. M.A. F.R.G.S. 

1899 Gibbon, Lt.-Colonel J. Aubrey, R.E. 

19L1 Gibson, Mrs. Margaret Dunlop, LL.D. D.Litt. 

1908 Gilbertson, Francis W. Esq. B.A. 

1908 Given, J. C. M. Esq. M.D. M.R.C.P. 

1903 Goodridge, Richard E. W. Esq. 

1911 Graham, John, Esq. 

1881 Gray, Charles, Esq. 

1910 Gray, H. Lance, Esq. (Hon. AvpiToR.) 

1877 Greenstreet, Colonel W. L. R.E. 

1897 Greer, Mrs. Thomas. 

1881 Grey, Rev. H. G. M.A. 

1901 FGriswold, Rev. H. D. M.A. Ph.D. 

1897 Gutch, George A. Esq. C.E. 

1910 Habershon, Miss A. 

1903. Hamlyn- Harris, Dr. Ronald, D.Sc. F.G.S. F.LS. 

1899 Harlowe, David, Ksq. 

1901 Harmer, F. W. Esq. J.P. F.G.S. 


365 


1878 Harper, The Ven. Archdeacon H. W. M.A. 

1911 Hassé, Rt. Rev. Bishop Evelyn R. 

1911 Hawtayne, W. C. C. Esq. M.I.H.H. 

1911 Heath, Robert, Esq. 

1904 Heaton, James, Esq. Memb. Soc. Arts. 

1908 +Hemming, Miss A. E. 

1908 Hendley, Lieut.-Col. Harold, I.M.S. M.R.C.S. M.D. 
Durh. D.P.H. Camb. 

1889 +Herbert, Rev. Edward P. 

1896 Hewitt, David Basil, Esq. B.A. L.R.C.S. L.R.C.P. J.P. 

1882 Hicks, Rev. Edward, M.A. D.D. D.C.L. 

1891 Higgens, T. W. EH. Esq. A.M.I.C.EH. 

1892 +Hildesley, Rev. Principal A. H. M.A. Sanawar. 

1912 +Hill, Prof. W. Bancroft. 

1908 Hodgkin, Miss Alice Mary. 

1897 Hodgson, Rev. William, M.A. Oxon. 

1902 +Hogarth, Rev. Oswald J. M.A. 

1912 Hogg, Mrs. C. 8. 

1912 Holden, Rev. J. Stuart, M.A. Camb. 

1911. Holmes, Mrs. Mabel. 

1888 +Houstoun, G. L. Esq. F.G.S. 

1902 Howard, Sir Frederick, J.P. D.L. 

1888 Howard, Joseph, Esq. B.A. Lond. J.P. F.R.G.S. 

1911 Howson, Rev. Harold. 

1911 Hughes, Thomas George, Esq. 

1903 Hull, Charles Murchison, Esq. Civil Service, Natal. 

1900 Hull, Edward Gordon, M.A. M.D. Dub. 

1897 Hutton, Henry, Esq. 

1890 Hyslop, Rev. James, M.A. Ph.D. 

1904 FIrving, Rev. Alexander, D.Sc. F.G.S. 

1902 +Jacob, Colonel Sir S. Swinton, K.C.I.E. Jaipur. 

1898 Janvier, Rev. Cesar A. Rodney, M.A. (Princeton). 

1902 Jessop, Arthur, Esq. 

1907 Jewett, Rev. Professor Frank L. B.A. B.D. 

1907 Job, Rev. Charles Robert M.A. Camb. 

1910 Johnson, Miss EH. Zoé. 

1911 Johnson, Rev. Gifford H. M.A. 

1896 +Johnstone, Miss J. A. 

1912 Karslake, John B. P. Esq. M.A. F.S.A. 

1879 Kaye, The Ven. W. F. J. M.A. Oxon. Archdeacon and 
Canon of Lincoln. 

dF Kemble, Mrs. Stephen Cattley. 

1884 Kimball, John EH. Esq. A.M. Yale (Sup. Pub. Sc.). 

1887 Kirkpatrick, Rev. R. C. M.A. Oxon. and Dub. 

1908 Kizer, Rev. Edwin D. 

1880 +Knight, Rev. C. F. M.A. Camb. 

1908 Kwang, Sim Boon, Esq. Singapore. 

1884 Jach-Szyrma, Rev. W. 8. M.A. Oxon. 

1905 Lampe, Rev. Joseph L. D.D. 

1873 Lawrence, Ven. Archdeacon C. D. M.A. 


366 


1873 Lea, Miss G. EH. 

1905 Lees, Rev. Harrington Clare, M.A. 

1901 Lerroy, The Right Rev. G. A. D.D. Bishop of Lahore, 
India. 

1911 Leslie, Wilson Edwards, Ksq. 

1873 +tLewis, Rev. J. S. M.A. 

1911 Lightfoot, Rev. J. A. M.A. Oxon gaan C.M.S. 
College, Islington, N. 

1897 Linton, Rev. E. C. M.A. Camb. 

1883 +Lock, Rev. W. M.A. D.D. Oxon. Fell. Jun. Bursar and 
Tutor of Magdalen, Warden of Keble College. 

1892 +Logan, The Honourable James D. 

1901 Liénnbeck, Fredrick Waldemar, Stockholm. 

1909 Lovely, Rev. F. Cecil, B.A. Oxon. 

1887 Lowber, Rev. Chancellor J. W. M.A. LL.D. D.C.L. 
Se.D. Ph.D. P.S:D. F.R-G.S. Litt.D. 

1888 Lowrie, Rev. 8. T. M.A. D.D. 

1910 Macgregor, Colonel Henry Grey, C.B. 

1882 Maitland, Rev. H. F. M.A. Oxon. 

1912 tMajor, Charles H. F. Esq. 

1911 Mansel-Pleydell, Rev. J. C. M. M.A. 

1911 +Manson, Miss Amy. 

19094 * Marston, Rev. Herbert J. R. M.A. Durh. 

1893 +Martineau, A. H. Esq. (Ind. Civ. Serv.). 

18929 +Masterman, H. W. Gurney, Esq. M.D. Durh. F.R.C.S. 
HR GeS3 daa 

1901 Matthews, Ernest R. Esq. A.M.I.C.H. F.G.S. 

1912 Maunder, George William, Esq. 

1909 Maunsell, Rev. F. W. M.A. Dub. 

1888 Maxwell of Calderwood, Lady. 

1911 McCormick, Rev. Samuel Black, D.D. LL.D. Chan- 
cellor of Pittsburgh University. 

1892 4 Mello, Rev. J. Magens, M.A. F.G.S. 

1889 Millingen, J. R. Van, Esq. 

1903 Muircutnson, Right Rev. Bishop J. D.D. D.C.L. 

1899 Moffat, Rev. J. S. C.M.G. 

1892 +Molony, Major Francis A. R.H. 

1907 Moore, Rev. Henry N. M.A. 

1912 Morier, Miss. 

1882 Moule, Ven. Archdeacon A. H. B.D. D.D. 

1878 +Mullings, John, Esq. 

1893 Munt, George William, Esq. 

1871 +Nelson, J. H. Esq. M.A. 

1885 +Neve, A. Esq. F.R.C.S. L.R.C.P. Edin. 

1888 +Nimr, Faris, Esq. (Ed. ‘“‘ Mouktataf”), Cairo. 

1887 Norbury, Inspector-Gen. Sir H. F. K.C.B. M.D. 
F.R.C.S. R.N. 

1912 Norris, Rev. William Burell, M.A. 

1912 Nugent, Miss Sophia M. A. 

1879 +Oake, Rev. R. C. 


367 


1886 Oates, Rev. Alfred. 

1880 O’Dell, Professor Stackpool E. 

1908 +Oke, Alfred William, Esq. B.A. LL.M. 

1911 Outram, Francis D. Esq. late Lieut. R.E. A.M.I.C.E. 

1883 Paterson, Rev. T. M. B. 

1903 Payne, George Herbert, Esq. 

1885 +Payne, J. A. Otonba, Esq. F.R.G.S. Chief Registrar 
and Taxing Master of the Supreme Court of Lagos. 

1894 Peake, A. S. Rev. Professor, M.A. D.D. Oxon Fell. 
Merton, late Tutor Mansfield Coll. Oxon. 

1911 Pearce, The Dowager Lady. 

1908 Peirce, Harold, Esq. 

1887 +Penford, Rev. E. J. 

1908 Perkins, E. Walter, Esq. 

1911 Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Miss Mary H. 

1884 Piper, F. H. Esq. 

1881 Pippet, Rev. W. A. 

1912 Plaister, William Henry, Esq. M.R.C.S. 

1896 Plantz, Rev. President Samuel, D.D. Ph.D. 

1911 Poate, William Henry, Hsq. 

18989 *Potter, Ven. Archdeacon Beresford, M.A. T.C.D. 

1881 Pratt, Rev. J. W. M.A. D.D. 

1880 +Priestley, Rev. J. J. 8.P.G. 

1888 +Pringle, of Torwoodlee, Mrs. 

1903 Proctor, Henry, Esq. H.M.C.S. M.R.A.S. F.R.S.L. 

1891 Reddie, Edward J. Esq. 

1876 Rendell, Rev. Canon A. M. M.A. Camb. 

1899 Revie, Dugald, Esq. M.B. C.M. Glas. Univ. late Free 
Church of Scot. Medical Mission, 

1877 Rhodes, Rev. D. 

1911 Rice, Philip, Esq. M.D. 

1885 Riggs, Rev. J. F. B.A. M.A. D.D. 

1910 Roberts, Rev. Samuel. 

1912 Roberts, Vernon, Esq. 

1899 F Robinson, Rev. Andrew Craig, M.A. 

1895 Robinson, Maj.-General C. G. R.A. 

1906 Roscoe, Juhn Henry, Esq. 

1911 Rose, Reverend P. 

1884 +Ross, Rev. G. H. W. Lockhart, B.A. 

1908 Rouse, Miss Ellen. 

1881 Royston, The Right Rev. Bishop P. 8. D.D. 

1891 St. Johns, New Brunswick Free Pub. Lib. J. R. Reul, 
Esq. Chairman. 

1903 Salmensaari, Herra Sulo, M.A. Finland. 

1881 Sandford, H. Esq. 

1895 SaskatcuEewan, Rt. Rev. J. Newnham, D.D. Bishop of. 

1891*4 Schofield, Alfred Taylor, Esq. M.D. 

1908 Schwartz, John, Esq. Junior. 

1912 Scott, John, Esq. J.P. 

1911 Seagram, W. H. Esq. 


368 


1906 Searle, Malcolm W. Esq. K.C. M.A. LL.B. 

1876 +Seeley, Rev. H. 

1910 Shann, William Arthur, Esq. M.B. Cantab. 

1911 Sharp, Harry Nugent, Hsq. M.A. 

1875 FSharp, Rev. J. M.A. Queen’s Coll. Oxon.; late Editorial 
Superintendent, Bible Soc. 

1882 Shepherd, Mrs. F. Wolfskill De. 

1911 Sheppard, Rev. James W. ffranck, M.A. Dub. © 

L901 +Sherard, Rev. Clement EK. M.A. Camb. 

1882 Shore, Captain the Hon. H. N. R.N. 

1906 Sidebottom, Colonel W. J.P. 

18769 *+Sinclair, The Ven. Archdeacon W. Macdonald, M.A. 
D.D. form. Sch. of Balliol, Oxon. 

1903 Sincarors, Rt. Rev. C. J. Ferguson Davie, Bishop of. 

1909 *Skrine, Rev. John Huntley, M.A. Oxon. D.D. 

1892 Smith, Hon. Sir Charles Abercrombie, M.A. Fell. 
St. Peter’s Coll. Camb. 

1873 Smith, Major-General EH. Davidson. 

1896 Smith, His Honor Judge George Hugh. 

1893 . Smith, Sir George J. J.P. D.L. 

1906 *Smith, Heywood, Esq. M.A. M.D. 

1891 Smith, S. Ashley, Esq. M.D. 

1901 +Smith-Bosanquet, Miss Ella. 

1902 Smyth, William Woods, Esq. L.R.C.S. L.R.C.P. 

1903 Spencer, Professor J. W. Ph.D. F.G.S. 

1909 Spokes, Miss Margaret. 

1879 Statham, H. J. Esq. C.H. A.I.C.E. 

1911 Stevens, Rev. Thomas Palmer. 

1879 +Stewart, Alex. Esq. 

1912 Stewart, Rev. David Alexander, M.A. Camb. 

1872 Stewart, Sir Mark J. McTaggart, Bart. M.A. M.P. 

1912 Stewart, Thomas Andrew, Esq. 

1890 +Stokes, Anson Phelps, Esq. Vice-Pres. XIX Cent. 
Club U.S.A. Memb. Council, 8.8. Assoc. 

1894 Stokes, James, Hsq. Officer of the Legion of Honour. 

1887 Stokes, Rev. W. Fenwick, M.A. 

1903 Stovin, Mrs. Caroline. 

1911 Strange, Miss Mary R. 

1902 +Strong, John Alexander, Esq. 

1902 +Strong, Rev. Rupert S. M.A. Camb. 

1895 Swinburne, Hon. George, C.H. 

1899 Symonds, Hon. J. W. 

1899 +Talmage, Professor James HE. Ph.D. F.R.M.S. F.G.S. 
F.R.S.K. F.G.S.A. 

1882 Taylor, Rev. Hugh Walker, M.A. 

1891 +Taylor, Rev. Stephen, B.A. Corpus C. Coll. Camb. 

1905 Thomas, Rev. W. H. Griffith, D.D. late Principal 
Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. 

1911 Thornton, Rev. Claude Cyprian, M.A. Camb. 

1906 Tindall, Miss Caroline. 


369 


1910 Titterington, Edw. J. G. Esq. M.A. 
1871 Tremlett, Rev. Dr. F. W. D.D. D.C.L. Hon. Ph.D. 
Jena Univ. F.R.G.S. Chaplain to Lord Waterpark, 
Kecles. Com. for American Prelates and the Univ. 
of the South. 
1909 Trench, F. P. Esq. M.B. F.R.C.S. Edin. 
1911 Trotter, Mrs. Edward. 
1911 Trotter, Mrs. Stuart. 
1902. Trumbull, C. G. Esq. Philadelphia. 
1909 Turner, Arthur Charlewood, Esq. M.A. Camb. 
1908 Turner, Rev. Ralph Charlewood, M.A. Camb. 
1882 Torrie, Right Rev. D. 8. D.D. Bishop of Missouri. 
1902 Twigg, John Hill, Esq. late India Civil Service. 
1898 Tydeman, H. Hsq. B.A. F.R.G.S. Lawrence Military 
. Asylum. 
1887 Uhl, Rev. L. L. D.D. Principal A.E.L.M. College, 
Guntur, India. 
1912 Vismes, Major H. J. H. de. 
1912 Waldegrave, The Hon. Granville George, B.A. Camb. 
1910 Walker, William Sylvester, Esq. 
1893 Waller, Rev. C. Cameron, M.A. Camb. Principal of 
Huron Coll. 
1889 +Wallis, Right Rev. Frederic, D.D. late Bishop of 
Wellington. 
1892 Walter, Rev. H. M. M.A. Oriel Oxon. 
1894 Ward, H. B. Esq. 
1881 Waring, F. J. Esq. C.M.G. M.Inst.C.E. 
- 1895 Way, the Right Hon. Sir Samuel James, D.C.L. LL.D. 
Chief Justice S. Aust. 
1895 Weaver, George M. Esq. 
1879 Webb-Peploe, Rev. Prebendary H. W. M.A. Camb. 
J911 Wedekind, George Hermann, Hsq. 
1893*+WeELtLpon, Right Rev. Bishop J. EK. C. D.D. Dean of 
Manchester. 
1911 Weller, William, Esq. 
1887 Wherry, Rev. E. M. D.D. Lodhiana, Punjab, India. 
1907 YWhite, Rev. G. EH. M.A. D.D. Dean of Anatolia 
College. 
1882 4 White, Rev. J. M.A. T.C.D. Hon. M.A. Magd. Oxf. 
1894 +Whitehead, Rev. George, B.A. Lond. 
1911 Whitfield, Peter, Esq. 
1881 Whiting, Rev. J. Bradford, M.A. Camb. 
18709 + W hitmee, Rev. 8. J. F.R.G.S. Cor. Mem. Z.S. 
1881 +Williams, H. 8. Esq. M.A. F.R.A.S. A.C. 
1876 Williams, Right Rev. William Leonard, B.A. late 
Bishop of Waiapu. 
1896 +Wills, Harold Temple, Esq. M.A. B.Sc. 
1910 Wilson, Henry, Esq. 
1907 Winfield, Rev. J. Abbott: 
1912 Wingate, Sir Andrew, K.C.I.E. 


3710 


1911 Wingfield, C. H. Esq. 

1885 Winslow, Rev. W.C. D.D. D.C.L. LL.D. L.H.D. D.Se. 
S.T.D. Ph.D. Amer. Vice- President Egypt 
Exploration Fund. 

1889 Winter, The Ven. Archdeacon G. Smith. 

1877 Wood, The Venerable A. Maitland, M.A. Archdeacon 
of Macclesfield. 

1893 Wood, Peter F. Esq. F.R.G.S. 

1899 Wood, Walter James, Esq. F.R.M.S. 

1892 +Woodd, Rev. C. H. Basil, M.A. Camb. Nat. Sci. Trip. 
1890, M.A. 

1877 Worthington, T. Esq. B.A. T.C.D. 

1903 *+Wright, Rev. Ernest Alexanderson, M.A. 

1912 Wyatt, Herman Richard, Esq. 

1912 Yeldham, Miss F. A. 

Young, Rev. Charles, M.A. Camb. 

1912 Young, Sir W. Mackworth, K.C.S.I. 


371 


MISSIONARY ASSOCIATES. 


“{ Baylis, Rev. F. Ferndale, Warren Road, Reigate. 

Bomford, Rey. Trevor, M.A. Peshawar, Punjab. 

Byrde, Rev. Louis, B.A., Yung Chow Fu, Hunan, China. 

Carpentaria, Right Rev. Bishop of, Thursday Island, Queensland. 

Carus- Wilson, E., Esq. Woodlea, Barnet, N. 

Cavalier, Rev. A. R. Lindula, Northwood, Middlesex. 

Elwin, Rev. W. H. B.A. 7, Sasugaya Cho, Koishikawa, Tokyo. 

Fisher, Rev. William M.A., Bible House, 146, Queen Victoria 
Street, E.C. 

Joseland, Rev. Frank P. Amoy, China. 

Moore, Rev. H. A. L., Royapet House, Madras. 

“Moule, Ven. Archdeacon W.S. M.A. Ningpo, China. 

Mylrea, Rev. C, Stanley G. M.D. Bahrein, Arabia. 

Reade, Miss F. Theological Library, Cuddalore, 8. India. 

Robinson, Miss L. G. Berhampore, Bengal. 

Thornton, Right Rev. Bishop 8. D.D. 89, Broadhurst Gardens, N.W. 

Turner, Rev. G. Reynolds, M.B. Hwei-an-hsein, S. China. 

Woodley, Rev. HE. C. The Parsonage, Danville, Montreal. 


bo 


B 2 


372 


LIBRARY ASSOCIATES. 


Adelaide Public Library, South Australia. 

Berlin Royal Library (per Asher & Co.). 

Birmingham Free Library. 

Boston Public Library (per Kegan Paul & Co.). 

Chicago Public Library. 

Chicago University, U.S.A. 

Cornell University, U.S.A. 

Dublin Society, Royal. 

Harvard University (per Kegan Paul & Co.). 

Libraire Le Soudier, 1748, St. Germaine, Paris. 
Manchester, The John Rylands Library. 

Melbourne Public Lib. and Museum, Melbourne, Victoria. 
Michigan, University of Ann Arbor. ° 

Mitchell Library (F. T. Barrett, Esq.), 21, Miller Street, Glasgow. 
Newcastle-on-Tyne Public Library. 

New York Public Library, New York, U.S.A. 
Nottingham Public Library. 

Ottawa, Library of Parliament. 

Preston, Public Library. 

Rochester Theological Seminary, U.S.A. 

Rugby School Library. 

St. Andrews University Library. 

Sydney Free Library, New South Wales. 

Texas University, Austin, Texas, U.S.A. 

Wellington, New Zealand, General Assembly Rooms Library. 
Worcester Public Library, Mass., U.S.A. 

Yale University Library, New Haven, Conn., U.S.A. 


373 


SOCIETIES EXCHANGING TRANSACTIONS WITH 
THE INSTITUTE. 


American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 
American Geographical Society. 

- American Geological Society. 

American Journal of Archeology. 
American Journal of Philology (Johns Hopkins Press). 
American Philosophical Society. 
Authropological Society, New York. 
Anthropological Society, Washington. 
Archeological Institute of America. 
Canadian Institute. 

Colonial Museum of New Zealand. 
Geographical Society of California. 
Geographical Society of the Pacific. 
Geological Society. 

Harvard Museum of Comp. Zoology. 
Manitoba Historical and Scientific Society. 
Michigan, Agricultural College of, U.S. 
New Zealand Institute. 

Nova Scotian Inst. of Natural Science. 
Royal Asiatic Society, Bombay. 

Royal Colonia! Institute. 

Royal Dublin Society. 

Royal Geographical Society. 

Royal Institution. 

Royal Irish Academy. 

The Royal Society. 

Royal Society of Canada. 

Royal United Service Institution. 
Smithsonian Institution (Washington). 
Société Scientifique du Chili. 

Society of Arts. 

Society of Biblical Literature, U.S. 

Soc. Bib. Lit. and Exeg., Boston. 

Sydney Museum, New South Wales. 
Sydney Observatory, New South Wales. 
United States Bureau of Ethnology. 
United States Geological Survey. 

United States Government Geological and Geographical Survey. 
United States Government Reports. 


374 


HON. CORRESPONDING MEMBERS. 


HOME. 


1902 4 Ball, Sir R. S. LL.D. F.R.S. Prof. of Astronomy, Camb. 
The Observatory, Cambridge. 

1892 Clifford, Right Rev. A. D.D. 

1890 ¥ Geikie, Prof. James, D.C.L. LL.D. F.R.S. F.R.S.E. F.G.S. ; 
Prof. Geo. and Min. Univ. Edin. Hon. Mem. Phil. Soc. 
York, Geo. Soc. Stockholm and Geo. Paleo. Hydrol. 
Belg. Memb. Amer. Phil. Soc. Cor. Memb. Acad. Sci. 
Phila. 31, Merchiston Avenue, Edinburgh. 

1908 FGill, Sir David, K.C.B. LL.D. F.R.S. 34, De Vere 
Gardens, Kensington, W. 

1881 (Guppy, H. B. Esq. M.B. F.G.S. Mem. Min. Soc. &c. Rosario, 
Salcombe, S. Devon. 

1903 Howorth, Sir Henry H. K.C.LE. F.R.S. 30, Collingham 
Place, S.W. 

1888 Hughes, Prof. T. M’K. M.A. F.R.S. F.S.A. F.G.S.; Wood- 
wardian Prof. of Geology, Cambridge, Trin. Coll. 
Camb. Ravensworth, Brooklands Avenue, Cambridge. 

1886 Mylne, Right Rev. L. G. D.D. Alvechurch Rectory, 
Birmingham. 

1903 (Petrie, Prof. W. Flinders, D.C.L. 18, Well Road, Hamp- 
stead, N.W. 

1889*4 Pinches, Theo. G. Esq. LL.D. “ Sippara,” 10, Ozford Road, 
Kilburn, N.W. 

1889 Sayce, Rev. Prof. A. H. M.A. LL.D. Fellow and Tutor 
Queen’s Coll. Oxford. 

1899 Turner, Sir William, V.D. M.B. LL.D. D.C.L. D.Se. F.B.S. 
Prof. Anatomy, Univ. Edin. 6, Hton Terrace, Edinburgh. 

1890 Wakefield, Right Rev. G. R. Eden, D.D. Bishop of. 

1905 Woodward, Dr. Henry, F.R.S. F.G.S. 129, Beaufort Street, 
Chelsea. 


FOREIGN. 


1895 His Masesty Kine Momotu Massaquoi, West Africa. 

1881 Abbe, Professor Cleveland, M.A. Assistant in the office of 
the Chief Signal Officer of the Weather Bureau, U.S.A. 

1883 Beckwith, The Right Rev. J. W. D.D. U.S.A. 

1884 Herzog, Right Rev. E. D.D. Bishop of the Old Catholic 
Ch. of Switzerland, Berne. 

1895 MHilprecht, Rev. Professor H. V. D.D. Univ. of Pennsyl- 
vania, U.S.A. 


375 


1893 Hommel, Prof. Fritz, Ph.D. LL.D. Prof. of Semitic 
Languages in Univ. of Munich, Leopolds Strasse, 
Munich. 

1889 d’Hulst, Court Riamo, Cairo. 

1878 Jaggar, Right Rev. Bishop T. A. D.D. Bishop of S. Ohio, 
Episcopal Rooms, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A. 

1895 Lugard, His Excellency Brigadier-General Sir F. J. D.C.B. 
D.S.O. Governor of Hong Kong. 

1896 {Macloskie, Prof. G. D.Sc. LL.D. Prof. Biology (Princeton), 
U.S.A. 

1883 ¢Maspero, Prof. Sir Gaston, K.C.M.G. D.C.L. Oollége de 
France, Cairo, Egypt; 24, Avenue de I Observatoire, 

Paris. 

1904 Nansen, Prof. Fridtjof, D.Sc. LL.D. D.C.L. Lysaker, Norway. 

1883 YNaville, E. D.Lit. Ph.D. Malagny, Geneva, Switzerland. 

1888 North China, Right Rev. C. P. Scott, D.D. Bishop of, 
Peking, North China. 

1890 Ottawa, Right Rev. C. Hamilton, D.D. D.C.L. Bishop of. 

1895 Sabatier, Professor Armand, M.D. Montpellier, France. 

1898 Stosch, Rev. Prof. D.D. 24, Lutzow Street, Berlin. 

1904 |Upham, Warren, Esq. M.A. D.Sc. F.G.S. Amer. Sec. 
Minnesota Historical Society. 

1880 Vail, Right Rev. T. H. D.D. Bishop, U.S.A. 

1898 Zahn, Rev. Prof. T. H. Erlangen. 


376 


ADDITIONAL 
HON. CORRESPONDENTS. 


Adams, Rev. Richard, M.A. T.C.D. 87, Burntwood Lane, S.E. 

Anderson, J. F. Esq. F.R.G.S. Melrose, Curepipe, Mauritius. 

Batchelor, W. Esq. 7, Agnes Road, Northampton. | 

Brants, M. A. Esq. Ph.D. Burgomaster, Schiedam, Holland. 

Brown, Rev. J. B. M.A. St. James’ Vicarage, Darwen. 

Burke, Rev. R. G. M.A. LL.B. Lilydale, Melbourne. 

Caldecott, Rev. Professor A. M.A. D.D. D.Litt. 13, Howden Road, 
S. Norwood, S.E. 

Corbet, Frederick H. M. Esq. Barrister-at-Law, F.R.C.I. F.1I.Inst. 
Hon. Executive Officer for Ceylon at the Imperial 
Institute, 42, Kenilworth Avenue, Wimbledon. 

Davies, Rev. R. V. Faithfull, M.A. 15, Southend Road, Beckenham. 

Davis, Rev. W. B. M.A. Lupton, Torquay. 

Dixon, Prof. J. M. Washington Univ. St. Louts, Mo. U.S.A. 

Kast, Rev. H. E. Leithfield, Christchurch, New Zealand. 

@ Hells, Rev. M. M.A. Union City, Mason Co. Washington, D.C., 
U.S.A. 

Finn, Mrs. 75, Brook Green, W. 

Fleming, Rev. T. S. F.R.G.S. Boston Spa, Leeds (JF). 

q Frost, Edward P. Esq. D.L. J.P. West Wratting Hall, Cambridge. 

Gissing, Admiral C. E. R.N. (ret.) F.R.G.S. United Service Club, 
S.W.; Homestead, Queen’s Park, South Drive, Bourne- 
mouth. 

Gubbins, Surgeon-General Sir W. L. M.D. K.C.B. M.V.O. K.H.S. 
Army Medical Staff, War Office, 18, Victorza Street, 
S.W.; St. John’s, Worcester Park, Surrey. 

Harris, A. H. Esq. c/o I.M. Customs, Hong Kong, China. 

Harrison, Rev. A. J. B.D. LL.D. Magdalen Lodge, North End, 
Newcastle. 

Hassell, Joseph, Esq. Brittany Lodge, London Road, St. 
Leonards. 

Hechler, Rev. Prof. W. H. City House Hotel, 160, City Road, E.C. 

Hetherington, Rev. J. St. Peter’s Vicarage, Hull. 

Hudson, Rev. Canon J. C. M.A. Thornton Vicarage, Horn- 
castle. 

Hutchinson, Rev. A. B. Fukuoka, Japan. 

Hutchinson, Rev. T. 8. M.A. 13, Aldridge Road Villas, Westbourne 
Park, W. 

Kerr, Robert, Esq. 14, Loudoun Terrace, Kelvinside, Glasgow. 

@ Kidd, Walter A. Esq. M.D. B.S. M.R.C.S. F.Z.S. 12, Montpelier 
Row, Blackheath. 

Kydd, Robert, Esq. 164, Stobceross Street, Glasgow. 

McLeod, Rev. R. F. Walsden Vicarage, Todmorden. 

Nutt, Rev. George, The Rectory, Lluidas Vale, Jamaica. 

Oates, Rev. W. Somerset Hast, South Africa. 


377 


O’Donel, G. H. Esq. Mission School, Seont Chappara, C.P. India. 

Oliver, Rev. T. D.D. 118, Hampton Road, Southport. 

Oulton, Rev. R. C. M.A. B.D. 17, Warrington Place, Dublin. 

@{ Parker, Prof. H. W. 47, 7th Avenue, New York, N.Y. U.S.A. 

Peet, Rev. Stephen D. Ph.D. Editor ‘“‘ American Antiquarian,” 
5817 Madison Avenue, Chicago, Ill. U.S.A. 

Perowne, Edward S. M. Esq. F.S.A. 20 Randolph Road, Maida 
Vale, W. 

Petherick, Rev. G. W. B.A. Hawkslezgh, Southport. 

Postlethwaite, J. Esq. F.G.S. Cockermouth, Keswick and Penrith 
Railway, Keswick. 

Ragg, Rev. F. W. M.A. The Manor House, Lower Boddington, 

Byfield. 

Ramanathan, P. B.A., M.R.A.S., F.R.H.S., Manénmani Villas, 
Chintadripet, Madras. 

Redman, Rev. J. Simla, India. 

Robertson, Rev. Alex. D.D. Ca‘ Struan, Ponte della Salute, Venice. 

Shipham, Rev. Arthur, The Mound, Matlock Bridge. 

Simpson, Prof. J. Y. M.A. D.Sc. F.R.S.E. New College, Edinburgh. 

Stefansson, Jon, Esq. Ph.D. 

Storrs, Rev. W. T. B.D. Vicarage, Sandown, I. W. 

Thomas, Rev. James, British and Foreign Bible Society, 
146, Queen Victoria Street, H.C. 

{/Tisdall, Rev. W. St. Clair, M.A. D.D.32, Kimbolton Road, Bedford. 

Walter, Rev. J. C. B.A. Langton Rectory, Horncastle. 

Weidemann, Professor Alfred, Ph.D. 2, Kénig St. Bonn. 

Whiteway, Rev. R. W. B. Beulah House, Selby, Yorks. 

_ Williams, W. Esq. Supt. Govt. Telegraphs, India (ret.), Crofton, 
Combe Park, Bath. 

Willis, R. N. Esq. M.B, 2, Carlton Terrace, Rathmines, Dublin. 

Willis, T. Gilbert, Esq. 4, Kildare Street, Dublin. 

Winslow, Rev. W.C. Ph.D. D.D. D.C.L. LL.D. D.Se. 525, Beacon 
Street, Boston, U.S.A. 

q Zimmerman, Rev. Jeremiah D.D. 109, South Avenue, Syracuse, 
NY. U.0-A. 

“{Zwemer, Rev. S. M. M.A. D.D. F.R.G.S. Bahrein, Persian Gulf. 


OBJECTS, CONSTITUTION, AND BYE-LAWS 


OF 


Che Victoria Institute, 


OR 


Philosophical Society of Great Britain. 


Adopted at the First Annual General Meeting of the Members and Associates, 
May 27th, 1867, with Revisions of 1874-75, 1910 and 1912. 


a 


— § iL. Objects. 


1. THe Victoria InsritotTe, or PuiLtosopHicalL Society oF GREAT 
Britatn, is established for the purpose of promoting the fol- 
lowing objects, viz.:— 


First. To investigate fully and impartially the most important 
questions of Philosophy and Science, but more especially those 
that bear upon the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture; 
with the view of reconciling any apparent discrepancies 
between Christianity and Science. 


Second. To associate together men of Science and authors who 
have already been engaged in such investigations, and all 
others who may be interested in them, in order to strengthen 
their efforts by association; and, by bringing together the 
results of such labours, after full discussion, in the printed 
transactions of an Institution: to give greater force and 
influence to proofs and arguments which might be little 
known, or even disregarded, if put forward merely by 
individuals. 


il 

Third. To consider the mutual bearings of the various scientific 
conclusions arrived at in the several distinct branches into 
which Science is now divided, in order to get rid of contra- 
dictions and conflicting hypotheses, and thus promote the real 
advancement of true science; and to examine and discuss all 
supposed scientific results with reference to final causes, and 
the more comprehensive and fundamental principles of Philo- 
sophy proper, based upon faith in the existence of one Eternal 
God, who, in His wisdom, created all things very good. 


Fourth. To publish Papers read before the Society in furtherance 
of the above objects, along with full reports of the discussions 
thereon, in the form of a Journal, or as the Transactions of 
the Institute. 


Fifth. When subjects have been fully discussed, to make the results 
known by means of Lectures of a more pepular kind, and to 
publish such Lectures. 


Sixth. To publish English translations of important foreign works 
of real scientific and philosophical value, especially those 
bearing upon the relation between the Scriptures and Science; 
and to co-operate with other philosophical societies at home 
and abroad, which are now or may hereafter be formed, in the 
interest of Scriptural truth and of real science, and generally 
in furtherance of the objects of this Society. 


Seventh. To found a Library and Reading Rooms for the use of 
the Members and Associates of the Institute, combining the 
principal advantages of a Literary Club. 


S IL. Constitution. 


1. The Society shall consist of Members and Associates, who in 
future shall be elected as hereinafter set forth. 


2. The government of the Society shall be vested in a Council 
(whose Members shall be chosen from among the Members and 
Associates of the Society and be professedly Christians), consisting of a 
President, two or more [not exceeding seven], Vice-Presidents, an 


ill 
Honorary Treasurer, and twelve or more [not exceeding twenty-four] 


Ordinary Members of Council. The Trustees for the time being of the 
funds of the Institute shall be ev officio Members of the Council. 


3. The President, Vice-Presidents and Honorary Officers [other than 
the Trustees for the time being of the funds of the Institute] shall be 
elected annually at the Annual General Meeting of the Institute, with 
power to the Council to fill up any casual vacancies. 

At the Annual General Meeting in each year, one-third of the 
Ordinary Members of Council [or if their number be not a multiple of 
three then the number nearest to one-third] shall also retire, in order of 
seniority of election to the Council, and be eligible for re-election : as 
between Members of equal seniority the Members to retire shall be 
chosen from among them by ballot [unless such Members shall agree 
between themselves]. Vacancies thus created shall be filled up at the 
Annual General Meeting, but any casual vacancies may be filled up by 
the Council. 


4. For the annual elections taking place under Rule 3, nominations 
may be made by Members of the Institute and sent to the Secretary 
not later than December 1st in any year. The Council may also 
nominate for vacancies, and all nominations shall be submitted to the 
Members and Associates at the time when notice of the Annual General 
Meeting is posted. 

If more nominations are made than there are vacancies on the 
Council the election shall be by ballot. 


5. Any person desirous of becoming a Member or Associate shall 
send to the Secretary an application for admission, which shall be 
signed by one Member or Associate recommending the Candidate for 
admission. 


6. Upon such application being transmitted to the Secretary, the 
candidate may be elected by the Council, and enrolled as a Member 
or Associate of the Victoria Institute, in such a manner as the Council 
may deem proper. 


7. Application for admission to join the Institute being made as 
before laid down, such application shall be considered as ipso facto 
pledging all who are thereupon admitted as Members or Associates to 


lv 


observe the Rules and Bye-laws of the Society, and as indicative of their 
desire and intention to further its objects and interests ; and it is also to 
be understood that only such as are professedly Christians are entitled 
to become Members. 


8. Each Member shall pay an Entrance Fee of One Guinea, which 
the Council may from time to time suspend, and an Annual Contribution 
of Two Guineas. A Donation of Twenty Guineas shall constitute the 


donor a Life Member. 


_ 9. Each Associate shall pay an Annual Contribution of One Guinea. 
A donation of Ten Guineas shall constitute the donor a Life Associate. 


10. The Annual Contributions shall be considered as due in advance 
on the lst day of January in each year or, by resolution of the Council, 
on the anniversary of election, and shall be paid within three months 
after that date; or, in the case of new admissions within three months 


after election. 


11. Any Member or Associate who contributes a donation in one sum 
of not less than Sixty Guineas to the funds of the Institute shall be 
enrolled as a Vice-Patron thereof, and will thus also become a Life 
Member or Life Associate, as the case may be. 


12. Should any member of the Royal Family hereafter become the 
Patron, or a Vice-Patron, or Member of the Institute, the connexion 
shall be regarded as purely Honorary ; and none of the Rules and Bye- 
Laws relating to donations, annual contributions or obligations to serve 
in any office of the Society, shall be considered as applicable to such 
personages of Royal Blood. 


13. Any Member or Associate may withdraw from the Society at any 
time, by signifying a desire to do so by letter, addressed to the Secre- 
tary; but such shall be liable for the contribution of the current 
year, and shall continue liable for the annual contribution, until all sums 
due to the Society from such Member or Associate shall have been paid, 
and all books or other property borrowed from the Society shall have 
been returned or replaced. 


14. Should there appear cause, in the opinion of the Council, for the 
exclusion from the Society of any Member or Associate, a private 
intimation may be made by direction of the Council, in order to give 
such Member or Associate an opportunity of withdrawing from the 


Vv 


Society ; but, if deemed necessary by the Council, a Special General 
Meeting of Members shall be called for the purpose of considering 
the propriety of expelling any such person: whereat, if eleven or more 
Members shall ballot, and a majority of those balloting shall vote that 
such person be expelled, he shall be expelled accordingly. One month’s 
notice, at least, shall be given to the Members of any such Special General 
Meeting. 


15. Non-resident Members and Associates, or others desirous of 
promoting the objects and interests of the Institute, may be elected by 
the Council to act as corresponding Members abroad, or as Honorary 
Local Secretaries, if within the United Kingdom, under such arrange- 
ments as the Council may deem advisable. 


16. The whole property and effects of the Society shall be vested in 
two or more Trustees, who shall be chosen at a General Meeting of the 
Society. The Trustees are empowered to invest such sums as the Council 
may, from time to time, place in their hands, in, or upon any of the Stocks, 
Funds, or Securities, for the time being, authorized by statute for the 
investment of trust funds by trustees, and shall have the usual powers of 
trustees in regard thereto. [The President, the Hon. Treasurer, and the 
Secretary may officially give effect to such resolutions as a General 
Meeting may pass in regard thereto. | 


17. All moneys received on account of the Institute shall be duly 
paid to its credit at the Bankers, and all cheques shall be drawn, under 
authority of the Council, and shall be signed by any two of the following, 
the Chairman of Council, the Honorary Treasurer and the Secretary. 


18. The accounts shall be audited annually, by a Committee, con- 
sisting of two Members or Associates,—one of whom may be on the 
Council,—to be elected at an Ordinary Meeting of the Society preceding 
the Anniversary Meeting. This Committee shall make a written Report 
to the Council at the first Meeting after such audit, and also to the 
Institute, upon the day of the Annual General Meeting,—stating the 
balance in the Treasurer’s hands and the general state of the funds of the 
Institute. 


§ ILI. Bye-Laws (Privileges). 


1. A Member or Associate, when elected, shall be so informed by 
the Secretary in a printed copy of the letters, Form B, in the Appendix. 


vl 


2. Members and Associates shall not be entitled to any privileges, or 
have the right to be present, or to vote at any of the Meetings of the 
Society, till they have paid the contributions due by them. 


3. Annual subscriptions shall be considered as in arrear 
if not paid within three months after they become due. 


4, Should any annual subscription remain in arrear for six months the 
Secretary shall forward to the Member or Associate from whom the sub- 
scription is due, a letter, Form D, unless such Member or Associate reside 
out of the United Kingdom, in which case the Form D shall not be sent 
unless the subscription continues unpaid for twelve months. 


5. If any arrears be not paid within tweive months, the Council shall 
use their discretion in erasing the name of the defaulter from the list of 
Members or Associates. 


6. Members shall be entitled to introduce two Visitors at the 
Ordinary Meetings of the Society; and to have sent to them a copy 
of all the Papers read before the Society, which may be printed in its 
Transactions or otherwise, and of all other official documents which 
the Council may cause to be printed for the Society ; they will also be 
entitled to a copy of all such translations of foreign works or other books 


as are published under the auspices of the Society in furtherance of 
‘the Sixth Object (§ I.). 


7. Associates may introduce two Visitors at the Ordinary Meetings, and 
shall be entitled to all the minor publications of the Society, and to a 
copy of its Transactions during the period of their being Associates, but 
not to the translations of foreign works or other books above referred to.* 
It shall, however, be competent to the Council of the Society, when its 
funds will admit of it, to issue the other publications of the Society to 
Associates, being ministers of religion, either gratuitously or at as small 
a charge as the Council may deem proper. 


8. When it shall be found necessary to send the letter, Form D, to any 
Member or Associate who may be in arrear, the printed papers and other 
publications of the Society shall cease to be sent to such Member or 
Associate till the arrears are paid; and, until then, he shall not be 


* These, as well as the Transactions issued in the years previous to 
their joining, may be purchased at such prices as the Council may 
determine. 


vil 
allowed to attend any Meeting of the Society, nor have access to any 
public rooms which may be in its occupation. 


9. The Library shall be under the management and direction of the 
Council, who are empowered to designate such works as shall not be 
allowed to circulate. | 


10. Members may borrow books from the Library, and have not more 
than three volumes in their possession at the same time ; pamphlets and 
periodical publications are not to be kept above fourteen days, nor any 
other book above three weeks. Associates may see books in the Library 
during office hours. 


11. Members who may borrow books from the Library shall be 
answerable for the full value of any work that is lost or injured. 


12. Periodical publications shall remain on the table for a month, 
other books for a fortnight, after they are received. 


13. When a book or pamphlet is wanted, and has been the stipulated 
time in the possession of any Member, the Secretary shall request its 
return, and a fine of threepence a day shall be incurred for every day it 
may be detained, which fine shall commence on the third day after the 
transmission of the notice in the case of town Members, and after the 
sixth day in the case of country Members ; and until the return of such 
works, and the discharge of all fines incurred, no further issue of books 
shall be permitted to the Member applied to. 


14. The books shall be ordered in for inspection at such times as the 
Council shall appoint, and a fine of half-a-crown shall be incurred for 
neglecting to send in books by the time required in the notice. 


15. A book shall lie on the Library table in which Members may 
insert, for the consideration of the Council, the titles of such works as 
they desire to be purchased for the Institute. 


§ IV. Bye-Laws (General and Ordinary Meetings). 


1. A General Meeting of Members and Associates shall be held 
annually on 24th May (being Her late Majesty’s birthday, and the 
Society’s anniversary), or on the Monday following, or on such other day 
as the Council may determine as most convenient, to receive the Report 


vill 
of the Council on the state of the Society, and to deliberate thereon ; 
to discuss and determine such matters as may be brought forward 


relative to the affairs of the Society ; and to elect Members of Council 
and Officers for the ensuing year. 


2. The Council shall call a Special General Meeting of the Members 
and Associates, when it seems to them necessary, or when required to do 
so by requisition, signed by not less than ten Members and Associates 
specifying the question intended to be submitted to such Meeting. Two 
weeks’ notice must be given of any such Special General Meeting ; and 
only the subjects of which notice has been given shall be discussed 
thereat. No alteration in, or addition to, the existing rules shall be 
made except at such Special General Meeting. 


3. The Ordinary Meetings of the Society shall usually be held on the 
first and third Monday afternoons or evenings in each month, frem 
January to June inclusive and in December: or on such other afternoons 
or evenings as the Council may determine to be convenient: and a 
printed card of the Meetings for each Session shall be forwarded to each 
Member and Associate. j 


4. At the Ordinary Meetings the order of proceeding shall be as 
follows: The President, or one of the Vice-Presidents, or a Member of 
the Council or someone specially invited by the Council shall take the 
chair at the time fixed for the commencement of the Meeting; the 
minutes of the last Ordinary Meeting shall be read by the Secretary, and, 
if found correct, shall be signed by the Chairman ; the names of new 
Members and Associates shall be read ; the presents made to the Society 
since their last Meeting shall be announced ; and any other communi- 
cations which the Council think desirable shall be made to the Meeting. 
After which, the Paper or Papers intended for discussion shall be 
announced and read, and the persons present shall be invited by the 
Chairman to make any observations thereon which they may wish 
to offer. 


The claims of Members and Associates to take part in a discussion 
are prior to those of Visitors. The latter, when desiring to speak upon 
any Paper, must first send their cards to the Chairman and ask permission, 
(unless they have been specially invited by the Council to attend, and 
join in considering the subject before the Meeting, or are called upon by 
the Chairman). 


2-C 


1x 
5. The Papers read before the Society, and the discussions thereon 
fully reported, shall be printed by order of the Council; or, if not, the 


Council shall, if they see fit, state the grounds upon which this Rule has 
been departed from, in the printed Journal or Transactions of the Society. 


6. The Council may at their discretion authorize Papers of a general 
kind to be read at any of the Ordinary Meetings, either as introductory 
lectures upon subjects proper to be afterwards discussed, or as the results 
of discussions which have taken place, in furtherance of the Fifth 
Object (§ 1). 


7. The Council may, at its discretion, request any Lecturer or Author 
of a paper to be read at any Meeting, previously to submit an outline of 
the proposed method of treating his subject. 


8. At the Ordinary Meetings no question relating to the Rules or 
General Management of the affairs of the Society shall be introduced, 
discussed or determined. 


S V. Bye-Laws (Council Meetings). 


1. The Council shall meet at least once every month from October 
to June inclusive, or at any other time and on such days as they may 
deem expedient. The President, or any three Members of the Council, 
may at any time call a Special Meeting, to which the whole Council shall 
be summoned. 


2. At Council Meetings three shall be a quorum ; the decision of the 
majovity shall be considered as the decision of the Meeting, and the 
Chairman shall have a casting vote. 


3. Minutes of the Proceedings shall be taken by the Secretary, 
or, in case of his absence, by some Member present, whom the Chair- 
man may appoint; which Minutes shall afterwards be entered in a 
minute-book kept for that purpose, and read at the next Meeting of the 
Council, when, if found correct, they shall be signed by the Chairman. 


§ VI. Bye-Laws (Papers). 


1. Papers presented to be read before the Society shall, when read, be 
considered as the property of the Society, unless there shall have been 
any previous engagement with its author to the contrary; and the 
Council may cause the same to be published in any way and at any time 
they may think proper after having been read. If a Paper be not read, 
it shall be returned to the author; and, if a Paper be not published 


x 


within a reasonable time after having been read, the author shall be 
entitled himself to publish it, and he may borrow it for that purpose. 


2. When a Paper is sent to the Society for the purpose of being read, it 
shall be laid before the Council, who may refer it to two of that body, or 
of the other Members or Associates of the Society whom they may select, 
for their opinions as to the character of the Paper and its fitness or 
otherwise for being read before the Society, which they shall state as 
briefly as may be, in writing, along with the grounds of their respective 
opinions. Should one of such opinions be adverse to the Paper and 
against its being read before the Society, then it shall be referred to some 
other referee, who is unaware of the opinion already pronounced upon the 
Paper, in order that he may state his opinion upon it in like manner. 
Should this opinion be adverse to the Paper, the Council shall then 
consult and decide whether the Paper shall be rejected or read ; and, if 
rejected, the Paper shall be returned to the author with an intimation of 
the purport of the adverse opinions which have been given with respect to 
it; but the names of the referees are not to be communicated to him, 
unless with their consent or by order of the Council. All such references 
and communications are to be regarded as confidential, except in so far as 
the Council may please to direct otherwise. 


3. The Council may authorize Papers to be read without such previous 
reference for an opinion thereon ; and when a paper has been referred, 
and the opinion is in favour of its being read in whole or in part, the 
Council shall then cause it to be placed in the List of Papers to be so 
read accordingly, and the author shall receive due notice of the day 
fixed for its reading. 


4. The authors of Papers read before the Society shall, if they desire 
it, be presented with twenty-five separate copies of their Paper, with the 
discussion thereon, or with such other number as may be determined upon 
by the Council. 


§ VIL. Bye-Laws (General). 


1. The government of the Society, and the management of its 
concerns are entrusted to the Council, subject to no other restrictions 
than are herein imposed, and to no other interference than may arise 
from the acts of Members and Associates in General Meeting assembled. 

2. With respect to the duties of the President, Vice-Presidents 
and other Officers and Members of Council, and any other matters not 
herein specially provided for, the Council may make any regulations and 

4-6 2 


a 


arrangements as they deem proper, and as shall appear to them most 
conducive to the good government and management of the Society, and 
the promotion of its objects. And the Council may hire apartments, and 
appoint persons, whether Members of the Council, or Members or Asso- 
ciates of the Institute, or not, to be salaried officers, clerks, or servants, for 
carrying on the necessary business of the Society ; and may allow them 
respectively such salaries, gratuities, and privileges, as to them, the 
Council, may seem proper; and they may suspend any such officer, clerk 
or servant from his office and duties, whenever there shall seem to them 
occasion ; provided always, that every such appointment or suspension 
shall be reported by the Council to the next ensuing General Meeting of 
the Members and Associates to be then confirmed or otherwise as such 
Meeting may think fit. | 


xil 


‘MM ‘uopuory ‘puvsyg ‘asnopy, o0vi10 7, 1ydjepy i 
‘FLOLIISNT VINOLOIA 94} Jo Aueyotoag AaBLouoyzy 


ay? 07 Juas aq o2 sr wsof svyy payyyl ueyMY 


VIUOLOTA 247 f0 


0 


ayy fo sayowossy 


‘paynys alay aq hnw sy1om | “OYVIOOSSY Fl] 
sayppripuny ayy fo awpu ay ‘voyynp uv {7 “ty 
‘o}BlDOSS V 
ssauppy LO 
| ‘raquo OF] 
“wouourysyp Layjo 40 : 40 
a Ts “7.6 ‘sauhap hpsiaaruyy Sworssafong 219%T, ‘LOqULO J 
LO 
‘hanssavau fr ‘amnu ‘1OL}Bq-9OL A, 
ynf pun ‘aungoubrgy huowmpso sayopypuny) J q.lasur alayT x 


NIVALIU LVaut) AO ALAINOS TVOIHdOSOTIHG +8) ‘ALOLILSNT 
yD payjosua aq Of alisap hqasey [ 
‘[ajnq | 


"ALALILSN[T VIYOLOLA 


wo ‘suaquayy ‘suoung-a014 fo worwssrupy ay? of NOMLVOITddy dO WO 


‘Vo Wado 


Xl 


FORM |B: 
SIR, 19 
I have the pleasure to inform you, with reference to 
your application dated the , that you have 
duly been elected a of the Victoria InstrrurE, oR 


PHILOSOPHICAL Soctery oF GREAT BRITAIN. 


I have the honour to be, Sir, 
Your faithful Servant, 


Tout eae aa Sec. 


FORM C. 


(Bankers) Messrs. 


* Please pay Messrs. Barciay & Co., 1, Pall Mall Kast, 8.W., 
my Annual Contribution of Two Guineas to the VICTORIA 
INSTITUTE, due on the Ist of January, 19 , and the same 


amount on that day in every succeeding year, until further notice. 


I am, 
Your obedient Servant, 


19 


If this Form be used, please add your Signature, Bunker’s Name, and the 
Date, and return it to the Office, 1, Adelphi Terrace House, W.C. Receipt- 
stamp required. 

* The above is the form for Members. The form for Associates is the same 
except that the Subscription stands as ‘OnE GUINEA.” 


THE 


VICTORIA INSTITUTE 
TRANSACTIONS. 


INDEX. 


October, 1912. 


Back numbers of these Volumes can be obtained from the 


Secretary at the following prices :— 


Vols. XLIII and XLII at 10s. 6d. each. 

Vols. XLI to XXXV at 2s. 0d. - 

Previous Vols. at 1s. Od. a os 
(Vols. I, III, and V excepted.) 


1, ADELPHI TERRACE HOUSE, 
CHARING Cross, W.C. 


INDEX TO AUTHORS. 


Arthur, Rev. W. Time and space. Vol. 22. 
Ashwin, Rev. C. Godfrey, M.A. Modern science and natural religion. Vol. 23. 
Avery, Prof. J. On the religion of the Aboriginal tribes of India. Vol. 19. 


Ball, Sir Robt., LL.D., F.R.S. Origin of new stars. Annual Address. Vol. 33. 

Bardsley, Archdeacon. The origin of man. Vol. 17. 

Bateman, Mr. J. F., F.R.S., F.R.S.E. Darwinism tested by recent researches 

in language. Vol. 7. 

Meteorology, rainfall. Vol. 15. 

Baylee, Rev. J.,.D.D. Nature of human language, ete. Vol. 3. 

Baylis, Rev. F., M.A. Science in reiation to Missions. Vol. 43. 

Beale, Prof. Lionel S., M.B., F.R.C.P.Lond., F.R.S. New materialism un- 
scientific. Vol. 16. 

— The living and the non-living. Vol. 16. 

— The new materialism. Vol. 16. 

. —— Structure and structureless. Vol. 20. 

— The nature of life. Vol. 32. 

Vitality. Vol. 33. 

—— Water essential to all life. Vol. 34. 

—— The living God of living nature from the science side. Vol. 35. 

— Unseen life of our world and of living growth. Vol. 35. 

Obituary notice, June 1906. Vol. 38. 

Bernard, Prof., D.D. The philosophic basis of the argument from design 
Vol. 26. 

Bey, Dr. Grant. The climate of Egypt in Geologic, Prehistoric, and Ancient 
Historic Times. Vol. 32. 

Birks, Rev. Prof., M.A. Indestructibility of force. Vol. 9. 

—— On the uncertainties of modern physical science. Vol. 11. 

— On the Bible and modern astronomy. Vol. 11. 

— Modern geogenies and the antiquity of man. Vol. 13. 

Blackett, Rev. W. R., M.A. Some thoughts on the evolution of religions. 
Vol. 19. 

Blencowe, Rev. G. Modern science of religion. Vol. 15 (Max Miiller’s 

Chips, etc.). 

Human responsibility. Vol. 19. 

Bompas, Mr. G. Cox., F.G.S. Evolution and design. Vol. 29. 

Boord, Miss Hilda. On the hot lakes district, New Zealand. Vol. 36. 

Boscawen, Mr. W. St. C., F.R.Hist.Soc. Cuneiform inscriptions as illustrating 
times of Jewish captivity. Vol. 18. 

— Historical evidences of the migration of Abram. Vol. 20. 

Boultbee, Rev. T. P., LL.D. Moral and social anarchy of modern unbelief 
Vol. 8. Annual address. 


2D 2 


4 INDEX TO AUTHORS. 


Bree, Dr. C. R., M.D. Darwinism and its effects on religious thought. Vol. 7. 

Brinton, Dr. D. G. Human footprints in Nicaragua. Vol. 22. 

Brodie, Rev. J.. M.A. Lessons taught us by geology in relation to God. Vol. 1. 

Brooke, Mr. Ch., M.A., F.R.S. Simplification of first principles in physical 

science. Vol. 3. 

Force and energy. Vol. 7. 

Brown, Mr. R., F.S.A. The system of Zoroaster—archaic monotheism. 

Vol. 13. 

Religion and mythology of the Aryans of N. Europe. Vol. 14. 

Language and the theories of its origin. Vol. 15. 

Bruce, Sir Charles, G.C.M.G., Annual address—The true temper of Empire. 
Vol. 43. 

Budge, Mr. E. A., M.A., M.R.A.S. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon— 
recently discovered inscriptions of this King. Vol. 18. 

Bullen, Rev. R. Ashington, B.A., F.G.8. Eolithic implements. Vol. 33. 

Burnett, Mr. C. Mountford, V.P. Difference in scope between science and 
scripture. Vol. 1. 


Caldecott, Prof. A., King’s College, London. Heredity and eugenics. Vol. 42. 
Callard, Mr. T. K., F.G.S. Does the contemporaneity of man with extinct 
mammalia prove the antiquity of man. Vol. 13. 

Breaks in the continuity of mammalian life at certain geological periods— 

fatal to Darwinism. Vol. 16. 

Carus-Wilson, Mr. C. A., M.A., M.I.C.E. LEzekiel’s Vision of the Divine 
Glory. Vol. 41. 

Challis, Prof., M.A., F.R.S., F.R.A.S. On the principles of modern pantheistic 
and atheistic philosophy, etc. Vol. 8. 

—— Onthe magnitudes in creation, ete. Vol. 9. 

— On the relation of the Bible account of the deluge to physical science. 
Vol. 10. 

—— On the metaphysics of scripture. Vol. 11. 

On the indestructibility of matter. Vol. 12. 

Chaplin, Dr. T. Some diseases mentioned inthe Bible. Vol. 34. 

Charlesworth, Mr. E., F.G.S. On the structure of the gorilla. Vol. 20. 

On flint bodies in the chalk known as paramoudra. Vol. 26. 

Christian, Mr. F. W., B.A. On the evidence of Malay, Japanese, Arabian, and 
Persian admixture in the Inca or Keshua language of Peru, amongst the 
Aymara language of the peasant class. Vol. 40. 

Clarke, Rev. H. J., The fundamental assumptions of agnosticism. Vol. 20. 

Evolution. Vol. 21. 

—— The meaning and history of the logos of philosophy. Vol. 23. 

— The science of rectitude as distinct from expedience. Vol. 24. 

Deontology. Vol. 25. 

Claughton, Bp. Piers C., D.D. On Buddhism. Vol. 8. 

Cleland, Prof. J., F.R.S. Classification of the vertebrata. Vol. 30. 

Coles, Rev. J. J. B., M.A., F.R.G.S. Theosophy. Vol. 43. 

Collingwood, Dr. C., M.A., M.D. Instinct and reason. Vol. 24. 

Collins, Rev. R., M.A. On Buddhism. Vol. 18. 

On some characteristics ot primitive religions. Vol. 19. 

— On Krishna. Vol. 21. 

Buddhism and the light of Asia. Vol. 28. 

Conder, Col. C. R., R.E., D.C.L. On tke Canaanites. Vol. 24. 

On the comparison of Asiatic languages. Vol. 27. 

Cooper, Mr. W. R., F.R.A.S., M.R.A.S. Serpent myths in ancient Egypt. 
Vol. 6. 

— The myth of Ra. Vol. 11. 

— The Horns myth. Vol. 12. 


— 


INDEX TO AUTHORS. 9) 


Cotterill, Bp., D.D. On the relation of scientific thought to religion. Vol. 12. 

On the relation cf science and religion—principles of unity, order, and 

cansation. Vol. 15. 

Courtney, Dr. W. L., LL.D. On the reality of the self. Vol. 25. 

The alleged scepticism of Kant. Vol. 27. 

Crommelin, Dr. A. C. D., D.Sc., F.R.A.S. The return of Halley’s comet. Vol. 42. 

Cunningham, Rev. W., D.D., Deacon of Ely. Christianity and Socialism. 
Vol. 41. 


Dabney, Prof. R. L., D.D., LL.D. Inductive logic. Vol. 19. 

On final cause. Vol. 20. 

Davison, Rev. M. ‘The Noachian deluge. Voi. 4. 

Dawson, Sir J. Wm., C.M.G., F.R.S., etc. Introduction of genera and species 
in geological time. Vol. 7. 

——— Biblical interpretation in connection with science. Vol. 9. 

—— Flint agricultural implements of America. Vol. 11. 

— Pliocene man in America. Vol. 15. 

— On prehistoric man in Egypt and the Lebanon. Vol. 18. 

— Chronology of animal life on the earth prior to advent of man. Vol. 20. 

Useful and ornamental stones of ancient Egypt. Vol. 26. 

— Causes of climatal changes. Vol. 26. 

— Specimens illustrating physical characters, etc., of Guanches of Canary 
Islands. Vol. 29. 

De la Mare, Rev. A., M.A. On theology asa science. Vol. 3. 

Duns, Prof. J., D.D., F.R.S.E. On the theory of natural selection and the 

theory of design. Vol. 20. Ditto Vol. 22. 

Stone folk-lore. Vol. 29. 

Marks of mind in nature. Vol. 32. 


.Eells, Dr. M., Rev. The worship and traditions of the aborigines of America. 

Vol, 19. 
— The worship and traditions of the aborigines of the islands of the Pacific 

Ocean. Vol. 32. 

Elwin, Rey. Arthur. Ancestral worship. Vol. 36. 

Confucianism. Vol. 37. 

English, Rev. W. W., M.A. On miracles, their compatibility with philosophical 
principles. Vol. 1. 

—— Ethical philosophy. Vol. 3. 

Biblical pneumatology and psychology. Vol. 6. 


Fayrer, Sir Joseph, M.D., K.C.S.1., F.R.S. On rainfall and climate of India. 
ol. 15. 

--— On serpent worship and the venomous snakes of India. Vol. 26. 

Fisher, Rev. J.,. D.D. On the organ of the mind. Vol. 14. 

Fleay, Mr. Fredk. Gard., M.A. The synchronous chronology of the Kings of 
Israel and Judah. Vol. 36. 

Forsyth, Mr. W., Q.C., LL.D., V.P. On the rules of evidence as applicable to 
the credibility of history. Vol. 8. 

Fox, Mr. C. Dillworth. On the glaciers in the south island of New Zealand. 
Vol. 40. 

Fradenburgh, Dr. J. N., Ph.D., D.D., LL.D. The literature of Egypt in the 
time of Moses. Vol. 31. 

Fraser, Dr. J., LL.D. Aborigines of Australia, their ethnic position and relations. 
Vol. 22. 


6 INDEX TO AUTHORS. 


Frazer, Rev. W. H., D.D. Experiences in South Africa during the war. 
Vol. 35. 

Frost, Dr. Edw. P., D.L. The influence of physiological discovery on 
thought. Vol. 37. 


Gabbett, Rev. Edw., M.A. On respective provinces of the observer and reasoner 
in scientific investigation. Vol. 4. 

Galton, Rev. Arthur, M.A. Present position of Catholics in France. 
Vol. 41. . 

Garratt, Canon M.A. Samaritan text of the Pentateuch. Vol. 36. 

Geikie, Prof. James, D.C.L., F.R.S. The glacial period and the earth move- 
ment hypothesis. Vol. 26. 

Gerard, Rev. John. Species and their origin. Vol. 42. 

Gill, Sir David, LL.D., F.R.S. The sidereal universe. Vol. 43. 

Girdlestone, Rev. Canon, M.A. Scientific research and biblical study. 
Vol. 29. 

—— The resurrection of Jesus Christ April 17,1905. Vol. 37. 

—— The scriptural idea of miracles. Vol. 39. 

Indications of a scheme in the universe. Vol. 43. 

Gladstone, Dr., F.R.S. Mutual helpfulness of theology and natural science. 
Vol. 1. 

Gordon, Surg.-Gen. Sir Ch. A., M.D., K.C.B., Q.H.P. On climate in relation 
to organic nature. Vol. 17. 

—— On certain theories of life. Vol. 17. 

—— Ethnology and ancient chronology of China. Vol. 23. 

— Philosophy and medical knowledge of ancient India. Vol. 25. 

—— Chinese ethics and philosophy. Vol. 28. 

China’s place in ancient history. Vol. 29. 

Gosse, P. H., Esq. On the high numbers in the Pentateuch. Vol. 5. 

Gosse, E. W., On the ethical condition of the early Scandinavian peoples. Vol. 9. 

Graham, Rev. C. Some scriptural aspects of man’s tripartite nature. Vol. 6. 

Grimaldi, Rev. A. B., M.A. The zodiacal arrangement of the stars. Its 
historical and biblical connections. Vol. 38. ' 

Grimthorpe, Rt. Hon. Lord. Did the world evolve itself? Vol. 17. 

—— On the beauty of nature. Vol. 21. 

On human responsibility. Vol. 25. 

Griswold, Rev. H. D., M.A.,Ph.D.Lahore. The Arya Samaj. Vol. 35. 

The Messiah of Qadian. 15 May, 1905. Vol. 37. 

Ground, Rev. W. D. On Herbert Spencer’s theory of the will. Vol. 16. 

Examination of the philosophy of Herbert Spencer. Vol. 16. 

Guppy, Mr. H. B., M.B., F.R.S.E. Keeling Atoll. Vol. 23. 

—— Coral Islancls and savage myths. Vol. 23. 

—— Dispersal of the plants....of the Keeling Islands. Vol. 24. 

Polynesians and their plant names. Vol. 29. i 

Plant distribution from an old standpoint. Vol. 39. 

Gwatkin, The Rev. Prof. H. M., Dixie Prof. Eccles. Hist. Camb. Arianism 
in its bearing on modern questions. Vol. 42. 


Hammond, Canon, LL.B. Samaritan passover of 1861. Vol. 36. 

Hassell, Mr. J. Theory of evolution taught by Haeckel, etc. Vol. 16. 

Was primeval man a savage? Vol. 19. 

—— On Agnosticism. Vol. 20. 

Hendley, Col. T. Holbein, C.I.E. Rajputs and the history of Rajputana. 
16 Jan., 1905. Vol. 37. 

Orissa, a little kuown province of the Indian Empire. Vol. 39. 

Resemblances between Iudian and Jewish ideas and customs. Vol. 40. 


INDEX TO AUTHORS. 4 


Henslow, Rev. G., M.A., F.L.S. Certain analogies between methods of the 
Deity in nature and revelation. Vol. 4. 

—— Phyllotaxis. Arrangement of leaves by mathematical law. Vol. 6. 

Natural theology, with respect to modern philosophy. Vol. 7. 

Hill, Dr. Alex., V.C. of Camb. Univ. From reflex action to volition. Vol. 26. 

Hitchman, Dr. W., M.D. The true anthropology. Vol. 5. 

Holland, Rev. F. W., M.A. The topography of the Sinaitic Peninsula. 
Vol. 14. 

Hopkins, Evan, Esq., C.E., F.G.S. General character of geological formations, 
Vol. 1. 

Terrestrial changes and probable ages of the continents, founded on 

astronomical and geological facts. Vol. 2. 

Howard, D., F.C.S. The structure of geological formations an evidence of 
design. Vol. 11. 

Howard, Mr. J. E., F.R.S. On scientific facts and Christian evidence. Vol. 7. 

— On contrast between crystallization and life. Vol. 8. 

— On the early dawn of civilization from the Bible point of view. Vol. 9. 

— An examination of the Belfast address from a scientific point of view. 
Vol. 10. 

— On Egypt and the Bible. Vol. 10. 

— The influence of true and false philosophy. Vol. 12. 

Creation and providence. Vol. 12. 

— The Torquay caves and their teaching. Vol. 13. 

— The Druids and their religion. Vol. 14. 

—— The early destinies of man. Vol. 15. 

Scientific facts and the caves of South Devon. Vol. 15. 

—— The supernatural in nature. Vol. 16. 

On certain definitions of matter. Vol. 17. 

Howorth, Sir Henry H., D.C.L., F.R.S. Ice or water. Vol. 38. 

Hudleston, Mr. Wilfred H., F.R.S Origin of marine fauna of Tanganyika. 
Vol. 36. 

—- Biographical notice. Vol. 41. 

Hughes, Prof. T. McKenny, F.R.S. Evidence already obtained as to the 

antiquity of man. Vol. 13. 

Evidence of later movements of elevation and depression in British Isles. 

Vol. 14. 

— On caves. Vol. 21. 

—— Cuts on bone as evidence of man’s existence in remote ages. Vol. 238. 

Nationality. Vol. 32. 

Hull, Prof. Edw., M.A., LL.D., F.R.S, Petra. Vol. 21. 

Expedition to Arabia, Petreea and Palestine. Vol. 21. 

God in nature. Vol. 24. 

— Sketch of the geological history of Egypt and the Nile Valley. Vol. 24. 

— How the waters of the ocean became salt. Vol. 27. 

Holy scripture illustrated by recent discoveries in the East. Vol. 28. 

—— Supposed discovery of remains of animal between man and ape. Vol. 28. 

British Isles. Vol. 30. 

Proposed scheme for embanking waters of Nile. Vol. 30. 

— Where is Sinai? See Vol. 31. 

— Physical conditions of the Mediterranean basin. Vol. 31. 

— Sub-oceanic terraces and river valleys on west coast of Europe. Vol. 31. 

— Another cause of the glacial epoch. Vol. 31. 

— Our coal resources at the end of the ninteenth century. Annual 
address. Vol. 32. 

Sub-oceanic river valleys of West African continent, etc. Vol. 32. 

— Physical history of Norwegian Fjords. Vol. 34. 

—— Cheesewring, Cornwall, and its teaching. Vol. 35. 

—— Age of last uprise in the British Isles. Vol. 36. 


8 INDEX TO AUTHORS. 


Hull, Prof. Edw., Thickness of the Lucerne glacier of the Post-Pliocene period. 

Vol. 36. 

Dr. Nansen’s bathymetrical researches in the Arctic Ocean as compared 

with those on the Atlantic coast. Vol. 37. 

——- On the spread of existing animals through Europe and to the islands of 

the Atlantic; based on Dr. Scharf’s recent work, “ European animals.” 

Vol. 40. 

Geneva and Chamounix half a century ago and to-day. Vol. 48. 

—— Abnormal conditions of water. Evidence of Design. Vol. 42. 

Hull, Miss E. H. The early Celtic churches of Britain and Ireland. 
Vol. 38. 


Irons, Preb., D.D. Analysis of human responsibility. Vol. 4 (twice). 
The Darwinian theory. Vol. 6. 

Prof. Tyndall’s Fragments of science for unscientific people. Vol. 7. 
—— Mr. Mill’s essay on theism. Vol. 9. 

Examination of the unseen universe. Vol. 11. 

Irving, Rev. A., D.Sc. Evolutionary law in the creation story. Vol. 38. 
Light, luminaries and life. Vol. 42. 


Jack, Dr. R. Logan, LL.D. Artesian water in Queensland. Vol. 34. 

James, W. P., F.L.S. The argument from design in nature. Vol. 17. 
Pessimism. Vol. 18. 

Relation of fossil botany to theories of evolution. Vol. 19. 

On accounts of the creation. Vol. 20. 

Jervis, Chev. W. P., F.G.S. Thalassographical and thalassological notes on 
the North Sea. Vol. 32. 

Prehistoric remains near Tenda, Italy. Vol. 36. 

—— The minerals and metals mentioned in the Old Testament. Vol. 37. 


Kelvin, Lord, G.C.V.O. Extracts from his Presidential address before British 
Association. Vol. 31. On design. 

— The age of the earth as an abode of life. Annual address. Vol. 39. 

Kidd, Dr. Walter A., F.Z.S. Plan and purpose in nature. Vol. 31. 

Creation or evolution. Vol. 32. 

— Methods of protection among animals. Vol. 33. 

—— Adaptation and selection in nature. Vol. 34. 

—— Two paths, one goal. Vol. 36. 

Kirby, Mr. W. F., F.G.S. The butterflies and moths of Africa. Vol. 23. 

Kirk, Rev. Prof. John. Past and present relations of geological science to 

sacred scriptures. Vol. 1. : 

Relations of metaphysical and physical science to Christian doctrine of 

Prayer. Vol. 2. 

Doctrine of creation according to Darwin, Agassiz, and Moses. Vol. 4. 

—— Spontaneous generation ; or, problem of life. Vol. 5. 

Origin of the moral sense. Vol. 7. 

Klein, Mr. Sydney T., F.LS., F.R.A.S. Conception of the great reality. 
Vol. 36. 


Laming, Mr. R. Immediate derivation of science from the great first cause. 
Vol. 3. 

Lansdell, Rev. H., D.D., M.R.AS., F.R.G.S. Titae-giving among Pagan 
nations. Vol. 31. 

Legge, Prof. J., M.A., Oxford. Chinese chronology. Vol. 25. 

Leitner, Dr., Ph.D., LL.D., D.O.L. On the sciences of language and ethno- 
graphy. Vol. 23. 


INDEX TO AUTHORS. 9 


Lias, Rev. Chancellor, M.A. Christianity as a moral power. Vol. 11. 

Mr. Mat. Arnold and modern culture. Vol. 12. 

Is it possible to know God? Vol. 17. 

—— Miracles, science, and prayer. Vol. 29. 

— Modifications in the idea of God. Vol. 34. 

Modernism. Its origin and tendencies. Vol. 40. 

— On the decay of Ultramontanism from an historical point of view. 
Vol. 40. 

Lobley, Prof. J. Logan, F.G.S., F.R.G.S. Sub-oceanic depression—‘ La fosse 

de Cap Breton.” Vol. 33. 

Preparations of the earth for man’s abode. Vol. 34. 

Volcanic action and the West Indian eruptions of 1902. Vol. 35. 

Biological change in geological time. Vol. 38. 

-— History of the spread of the European fauna. Vol. 39. 

— The American fauna and its origin. Vol. 40. 


McCann, Rev. J..D.D. A demonstration of the existence of God. Vol. 5. 

Force and its manifestatious. Vol. 7. 

—— The nature and character of evidence for scientific purposes. Vol. 5. 

McCaul, Rev. A. I., M.A. On biblical interpretation in connexion with science, 
Vol. 9. 

McCausland, Dr., Q.C., LL.D. On some uses of sacred primeval history, 
Vol. 3. 

MacCulloch, Rev. Canon. The descent into Hades; a study in comparative 
theology. Vol. 43. 

Macdonald, Dr. John D., ILH.R.N., F.R.S. Man’s place in creation. Vol. 4. 

— The human colour sense and its accordance with that of sound as bearing 
on the analogy of sound and colour. Vol. 32. 

Macdougall, Rev. J. The present day materialism. Vol. 10. 

Mackinlay, Lt.-Col. G., late R.A. Biblical astronomy. Vol. 37. 

The morning star in the gospels. Vol. 38. 

-—- The date of the Nativity was 8 B.c. Vo). 41. 

Mackintosh, Mr. D., F.G.S8. On the recency of the close of the glacial epoch, 


Vol. 19. 

Maclaren, Mr. J. M., F.G.S8. Physical history of the New Zealand Fjiords. 
Vol. 34. 

Macloskie, Prof. G., D.Sce., LL.D. The mechanical conception of Nature. 
Vol. 28. 


Common errors as to the relation of science and faith. Vol. 32. 

Main, Rev. K., F.R.S., V.P.R.A.S. Modern philosophic scepticism examined. 
Vol. 10. 

Margoliouth, Prof. D.S., D.Litt., Prof. of Arabic, Oxford. The future of Islam. 
Vol. 35. 

Marston, Rev. H. J. R., M.A. Plato’s theory of public education in relation to 
the Christian doctrine of human nature. Vol. 42. 

Maspero, Prof. ‘Lhe list of Thothmes III. Vol. 20. 

Excavations round the Sphinx. Vol. 20. 

— The list of Thothmes III. Vol. 22. 

The list of Shishak. Vol. 27. 

Masterman, Dr. E. W.G. Water supply of Jerusalem. Vol. 35. 

Recent discoveries in Palestine in relation to the Bible. Vol. 39. 

Mathews, Mr. R. H. Pictorial art among the Australian Aborigines. Vol. 33. 

Maunder, Mr. E. Walter, F.R.A.S., Greenwich Observatory. Annual Address, 
The Bible and Astronomy. Vol. 40. 

Max Miiller, Prof. Note on Polynesians. Vol. 29. 

— Note on Tithe givings. Vol. 31. 


10 INDEX TO AUTHORS. 


Mello, Rev. J., M.A., F.G.S. The prehistoric factory of flints at Spennes. 
Vol. 18. 

—— The dawn of Metallurgy. Vol. 23 

On primitive man. Vol. 30. 

Mitchell, Rev. R. On the identity of reason in Science and Religion. Vol. 8. 

Mitchell, Rev. Walter, M.A. Falling stars and meteorites. Vol. 1. 

——- Inaugural Address, Vol. 1. 

Geometrical Iso-morphism of crystals . . . cubical system. Voll. 2. 

—— The unphilosophical character of some objections to divine inspiration of 
scripture. Vol. 3. 

Monier-Williams, Sir M., K.C.I.E., D.C.L. Egyptian discoveries in 1888. 

Vol. 21. 

Sacred books of the East. Vol. 21. 

Contrasts between doctrines of Buddhism and Christianity. Vol. 23. 

— Annual Address. Vol. 23. 

— The Monism, Pantheism and Dualismi of Brahmanical and Zoroastrian 
philosophers. Vol. 25. 

Morris, Prof., of Baltimore. The final cause as principle of cognition and 
principle in nature. Vol. 9. 

The theory of unconscious intelligence as opposed to Theism. Vol. 11. 

Morshead, Mr. E. J. On comparative psychology. Vol. 3. 

On comparative psychology. Vol. 5. 

— On comparative psychology. Vol. 11. 

Moule, Rev. H. More than one universal deluge recorded in scripture. 
Vol. 4. 

— — Israel in Egypt. Vol. 5. 

Murphy, Mr. J. J. Physical theory of moral freedom. Vol. 22. 

—- The factors of evolution in language. Vol. 23. 

Murray, Rt. Hon. Sir C., K.C.B. On flint arrow heads of delicate structure. 
Vol. 22. 


Naville, Dr. E., Ph.D. Historical results of excavations at Bubastis. Vol. 23. 

—— The route of the Exodus. Vol. 26. 

Neil, Rev. J.. M.A. Land tenure in ancient times in Palestine. Vol. 24. 

Nicholson, Dr., Prof. H. A., M.D., F.R.S E. On the bearing of certain pale- 
ontological facts on Darwinian theory of the origin of species and evolution 
in general. Vol. 9. 

— On the place of science in education. Vol. 10. 

——— Of the nature of life. Vol. 14. 


Odling, Mr. C. W., C.LE., M.Inst.C.E. Observations on irrigation works in 
India. Vol. 36. 

O’Neil, the Lord. The action of will in formation of universe. Vol. 15. 

The credibility of the supernatural. Vol. 16. 

—— On misrepresentations of Christianity. Vol. 18. 

Orchard, Prof. H. Langhorne, M.A., B.Sc. Philosophy and_ evolution. 
Vol. 40. 

—— Attitude of science towards miracles. Vol. 42. Gunning Prize, 1909. 


Parker, Prof. H. W., M.D. The principles of rank among animals. Vol. 27. 
Pattison, Mr. 8. R., F.G.S. Geological proof of divine action. Vol. 5. 

—— On the chronology of recent geology. Vol. 10. 

—- Nature’s limits: an argument for Theism. Vol. 12. 

— Evolution of the pearly nautilus. Vol. 18. 

Pedigree of the coral reefs of England. Vol. 21. 


INDEX TO AUTHORS. 11 


Peet, Rev. 8. D. Traditions of the Aborigines of North America. Vol. 21. 

Penny, Mr. E. B. Onmiracles. Vol. 1. 

Petrie, Capt. F. W. H., F.G.8S. On the Moabite Stone. Vol. 6. 

Antiquity of man. Note. Vol. 20. 

—— The late Prof. Asa Grey. Vol. 22. 

—~ Importance of Babylonian excavations. Vol. 22. 

Science and religion. Vol. 23. 

— Man’s place in Nature Vol. 24. 

Petrie, Prof. W. M. Flinders, D.C.L. Annual Address: Discoveries in 

Egypt. Vol. 35. 

Researches in Sinai. Vol. 39. 

Phene, Mr. J. S., LL.D., F.S.A. On prehistoric traditions and customs in 
connection with sun and serpent worship. Vol. 8. 

Pinches, Dr. Theophilus G., LL.D., M.R.A.S. Some recent discoveries in the 
realm of Assyriology. Vol. 26. 

— Religious ideas of the Babylonians. Vol. 28. 

—— Certain inscriptions, etc., Babylonia and Elam. Vol. 29. 

Report on Congress on Religions, Paris. Vol. 33. 

Babylonian story of creation, Bel’s fight with the dragon. Vol. 35. 

Report on Congress of Orientalists at Hamburg. Vol. 35. 

Hammurabi’s code of laws. Vol. 35. 

—— Discoveries in Babylonia, etc. Vol. 41. 

Assur and Nineveh. 7 March, 1910, Vol. 42. 

Prof. Hilprecht’s newly discovered deluge fragment. Vol. 43. 

Pope, Rev. G. U., D.D. History of the Manikka Vacarga “ Foe of Buddhists.” 
Vol. 30. 

Porter, Prof. Noah, President of Yale University. On science and man. 

Vol. 13. 

On physiological metaphysics. Vol. 14. 

Porter, Rev. J. Leslie, D.C.L. Physical geography of the East. Vol. 12. 

Science not opposed to revelation. Vol. 18. 

_-—- Egypt, physical, historical, literary, and social. Vol. 20. 

Jewish, Pheenician and early Greek art. Vol. 21. 

Post, Prof. G. H., D.D. M.D. Meteorology of Syria and Palestine. Vol. 20. 

Botanical geography of Syria and Palestine. Vol. 22. 

Potter, Ven. Archdeacon Beresford. Determinism. Vol. 42. 

Powell, Rev. T., F.L.S. A Samoan tradition of the creation. Vol. 20. 

Prestwich, Sir J., K.C.B., D.C.L., F.R.S. A possible cause for the origin of the 
tradition of the Flood. Vol. 27. 

Putnam, Prof. Some Guanche skulls. Vol. 29. 


Ramsay, Sir William, F.R.S., D.C.L. Exploration of Asia Minor, as bearing 

on the historical trustworthiness of the New Testament. Vol. 39. 

A country town of Lycaonia. Vol. 41. 

Rassam Mr. Hormuzd. Late Assyrian and Babylonian research. Vol. 14. 

Babylonian cities. Vol. 17. 

—— The Garden of Eden: acriticism. Vol. 25. 

Biblical lands, races, customs, ete. Vol. 30. 

cysts Mr. James. On various theories of Man’s past and present condition. 
ol. 11. . 

Geological chronology, in reply to Huxley. Vol. 2. 

— On Utilitarianism. Vol. 2. 

—— On credibility of Darwinism. Vol. 2. 

—— Why man must believe in God. Vol. 5. 

Civilization: moral and material. Vol. 6. 

Richmond, Judge C.W. Materialism. Vol. 16. 


ile) INDEX TO AUTHORS. 


Robbins, Rev. J., D.D. Fatalism. Vol. 7. 

Robinson, Rev. Andrew Craig, M.A. The bearing of recent Oriental 
a on Old Testament history. Second Gunning Prize, 1905. 

ol. 38. 

Roget, Prof. F. F. On Ernest Naville. Vol. 43. 

Rouse, M. L., Esq., B.L. Procopius’s African monument. Vol. 34. 

—— The Pedigree of the Nations. Vol. 38. 

—— The Pedigree of the Nations. Vol. 39. 

Row, Preb. C. A., M.A. On the relation of reason to philosophy, theology and 
revolution. Vol. 3. 

—— On some of the philosophical principles in Buckle’s History of Civiliza- 
tion... Vol.d. 

—— On the testimony of philosophy to Christianity as a moral and spiritual 
revelation. Vol. 5. 

—— Dr. Newman’s Essay in aid of a Grammar of Assent. Vol. 6. 

Remarks on some of the current principles of historic criticism. Vol. 7. 

—— Principles of modern pantheistic anc atheistic philosophy as expressed in 
the last work of Strauss, Mill, ete. Vol. 8. 

Rule, Rev. Dr. Monotheism. Vol. 12. 

Rutland, Mr. Joshua. The Maoris’ place in history. Vol. 33. 


Saunders, Mr. Trelawney. Recent survey of West Palestine and its bearing on 
the Bible. Vol. 17. 

Saville, Rev. B. W., M.A. On evidence of Egyptian monuments to sojourn of 
Israel in Egypt. Vol. 6. 

— On the harmony between chronology of Egypt and Bible. Vol. 9. 

On heathen cosmogonies compared with Hebrew. Vol. 10. 

Sayce, Rev. A. H., M.A., D.D., LL.D., Prof. of Assyriology, Oxford. Cuneiform 
inscriptions of Tel el Amarna. Vol. 24. 

Schofield, Dr. A. T., M.D. An inquiry into the formation of habit in man. 
Vole2z: 

— The natural and the artificial. Vol. 29. 

Some relations of mind and body. Vol. 30. 

—— The scope of mind. Vol. 382. 

—— Philosophy of education. Vol. 33. 

—— Springs of character. Vol. 34. 

Science and the unseen world. Vol. 41. 

Searle, Mr. G. F. C., M.A., F.R.S., Univ. Lect. in Expl. Physics, Camb. 
Modern conceptions of the universe. Vol. 42. 

Sharp, Rev. John, M.A. The last century’s witness to the Bible. Vol. 43. 

Shaw, Rev. G. A., F.Z.S. Arab immigration in south-east Madagascar. 
Vol. 33. 

Sinclair, Ven. Arch., D.D. On the being of God. Vol. 33. 

Slater, Mr. J. W., F.C.S., F.E.S.. The weak sides of natural selection. 
Vol. 26. 

— The philosophy of Comte. Vol. 28. 

Life as compared with physical forces. Vol. 32. 

Smith, Dr. Gerard, M.R.C.S. Design as exemplified in the form of the human 
foot. Vol. 31. 

Smith, Judge G. H., Los Angeles, Cal. Jurisprudence, theory of. Vol. 43. 

Smith, Rev. I. Gregory, D.D. Psychology. Vol. 43. 

Smith, Bp. Saumarez, D.D. Practical optimism. Vol. 21. 

Southall, Dr., of U.S.A. Lapse of time since glacial epoch determined by date 

of polished stone age. Vol. 13. 

Pliocene man in America. Vol. 15. 

Spencer, Dr. J. W., M.A., Ph.D., F.G.S. On geological relationship of the 
volcanoes of the West Indies. Vol. 35. 


INDEX TO AUTHORS. 13 


Statham, Mr. HEH, J., Assoc.M.Inst.C.B. Ancient script in Australia. 
Vol. 33. 

Stefansson, Dr. Jon. Ph.D. Iceland, its history and _ inhabitants. 
Vol. 34. 

—— Iceland, its history and inhabitants. Vol. 38. 

Stokes, Sir G. G., Prof. On the bearings of natural science, ete., on our religious 

ideas. Vol. 14. 

—— Absence of real opposition between science and revelation. Vol. 17. 

—— Annual Address. Vol. 20. 

—— The one origin of the books of Revelation and of Nature. Vol. 22. 

—— The luminiferous ether. Annual Meeting. Vol. 28. 

Perception of light. Annual Address, 1895. Vol. 29. 

Rontgen rays. Annual Address, 1896. Vol. 30. 

— Perception of colour. Annual Address, 1897. Vol. 31. 


Taylor, the Rey. Isaac, M.A. On the Etruscan language. Vol. 10. 

The history of the alphabet. Vol. 12. 

Temple, Sir Richard, Bart., G.C.S.I. The unity of truth. Annual Address, 
Vol. 32. 

Thompson, Dr. J. P., D.D., LL.D. Final cause: a' critique of the failure of 
Paley and fallacy of Hume. Vol. 13. 

—— Implements of the stone age as demarcation between man and animals. 
Vol. 15. 

Thompson, Dr. Silvanus P., F.R.S. Reconstruction and restatement. Annual 
Address. Vol. 37. 

Thornton, Rev. R., D.D. On comparative philology. Vol. 1. 

_—— On the logic of scepticism. Vol. 2. 

—— On the credulity of scepticism. Vol. 4. 

— The numerical system of the Old Testament. Vol. 5. 

—— The varying tactics of scepticism. Vol. 9. 

The sorrows of scepticism. Vol. 10. 

‘Thornton, Rt. Rev. Bishop 8., D.D. Problems of aboriginal art in Australia. 
Vol. 30. 

Tisdall, Rev. W. St. Clair, D.D. Islam. Vol. 25. 

Mithraism, Christianity’s greatest rival under the Roman Emperors. 

Vol. 43. 

Titcomb, Bp., D.D. Antiquity of civilisation. Vol. 3. 

Common origin of American races with those of Old World. Vol. 3. 

Origin of the negro. Vol. 5. 

—— Prehistoric monotheism, in relation to man as an aboriginal savage. 
Vol. 6. 

——- Ethnic testimonies of the Pentateuch. Vol. 6. 

— On magnitude in creation and their bearings on Biblical interpretation. 
Vol. 9. 

Tomkins, Rey. H. G. On history in the time of Abraham. Vol. 12. 

The life of Joseph (external sources). Vol. 15. 

—— Biblical proper names from sources external to Bible. Vol. 16. 

Recent Egyptological research in its biblical relations. Vol. 18. 

Tristram, Rev. H. B., D.D., LL.D., F.R.S. Canaan, ancient and modern. 

Vou 21. 

Obituary notice, p. 12. Vol. 38. 

Tuckwell, Rev. John, M.R.A.S. Modern theories re composition of Holy 
Scripture. Vol. 35. 

Tulloch, Maj.-Gen., C.B., C.M.G. The passage of the Red Sea by ithe 
Israelites. Vol. 28. 

Turner, Rey. F. Storrs, B.A. The right way in psychology. Vol. 37. 

Mencius. Vol. 32. 


14 INDEX TO AUTHORS. 


Upham, Dr. Warren, M.A., D.Sc., F.G.S.A., Hon. Corres. Member. On the 
post glacial period. Vol. 25. 

— On the recession of Niagara Falls. Vol. 27. 

Causes of the ice age. Vol. 29. 

—— The divisions of the ice age. Vol. 33. 

——— The nebular and planetesimal theories of the earth’s origin. Vol. 37. 

— The San Francisco and Valparaiso earthquakes and their causes. 
Vol. 39. 

Urquhart, Rev. John. Gunning Prize Essay, 1905. The bearings of recent 
Oriental discoveries on Old Testament history. Vol. 38. 


Virchow, Prof. Rudolph. Remarks on evolution. Vol. 19. 
The origin of man. Vol. 24. 


Wace, Henry, the Very Rev. the Dean of Canterbury. On the ethics of beliefs. 
Vol; Fi. 

— On the data of ethics. Vol. 14. 

—-— Ethics and religion. Vol. 33. 

Authority. Vol. 41. 

Walker, Rev. Dr. F. A., F.L.8. Oriental entomology. Vol. 21. 

Oriental entomology. Vol. 22. 

Colours in nature. Vol. 23. 

—— Botany and entomology of Iceland. Vol. 24. 

Herodotus (on Egyptian geology). Vol. 31. 

Hornets, British and foreign. Vol. 33. 

—— Locusts and grasshoppers. Vol. 34. 

Obituary notice, p. 100. Vol. 37. 

Walkey, Mr. R. H. Archeology and evolution. Vol. 29. 

Ward, Mr. H. B. Note on earthquake of San Francisco. Vol. 38. 

Warington, Mr. G., F.C.S. Existing relations between science and scripture. 

Vol. 1. 

Credibility of Darwinism. Vol. 2. 

Biblical cosmogony considered scientifically. Vol. 3. 

Warring, Dr. Chas. B., M.A., Ph.D. Geological exterminations. Vol. 37. 

Watson, Rev. H.C. M. Onmiracles. Vol. 20. 

Weldon, Rev. G. W., M.A. On the law of creation. Vol. 7. 

Welldon, Bishop, Dean of Manchester. Annual address. Development of the 
religious faculty in man, apart from revelation. Vol. 39. 

Whateley, Rev. A. R., D.D. The demand for a Christian philosophy. 
Vol. 43. 

Wheatley, Dr. J. H., Ph.D. On life, its origin. Vol. 3. 

On life, its origin. Vol. 4. 

Whidborne, Rev. G. F. Evolution from geological point of view. Vol. 33. 

Genesis of nature. Vol. 36. 

Biographical notice, p. 320. Vol. 42. 

White, Rev. G. E., Dean of Anatolia College, Turkey. Visit to the Hittite cities. 
Vol, 80:4 

—— Survivals of primitive religion among people of Asia Minor. Vol. 39. 

—— The Shia Turks. Vol. 40. 

White, Rev. J..M.A. Remarks on evolution and development. Vol. 19. 

Darwinism and Malthus. Vol. 42. 

Whiting, Rev. J. B. The growth of the kingdom of God. Vol. 37. 

Whitley, Rev. D. Gath. Ivory islands in the Arctic Ocean. Vol. 42. 

Primeval man in Belgium. Vol. 40. 

Whitley, Mr. N. Brixham cavern and its testimony to antiquity of man. 
Vol. 8. 


INDEX TO AUTHORS. 15 


Whitley, Mr. N. Paleolithic age examined. Vol. 8. 

—— Flint implements of Brixham cavern. Vol. 11. 

Whitmee, Rev. 8S. J., F.L.S. The ethnology of the Pacific. Vol. 14. 

Wiener, Mr. Harold M., M.A., LL.B. Legislations of Israel and Babylonia. 
Vol. 41. 

Wilson, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. W., R.E., H.R.S. Recent investigations in Moab and 
Edom. Vol. 33. 

The water supply of Jerusalem. Annual Address. Vol. 34. 

Wood, Rev. T., M.A. On the apparent cruelty of nature. Vol. 25. 

Woods-Smyth, Mr. W., L.R.C.8. The Bible in the light of modern science. 
Vol. 38. 

Woolls, Rev. W., Ph.D., F.L.S. Remarks on the past, present, and future of 
the Australian flora. Vol. 32. 

Wright, Prof. G. Fredk., LU.D., F.G.S. Am. The influence of the glacial 
epoch upon the early history of mankind. Vol. 40. 

Wright, Rev. W., D.D. The empire of the Hittites. Vol. 21. 


Young, Prof. J. R. On the language of gesticulation and origin of speech. 
Vol-I: 


Zwemer, Rev. S. M. Star worshippers of Mesopotamia. Vol. 31. 
— Wahabis ; origin, history, tenets and influence. Vol. 33. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 


Aborigines— 
Religion of aboriginal tribes of India. Avery. Vol. 19. 
Worship and traditions of of America. Eells. Vol. 19. 
Traditions of of North America. Peet. Vol. 21. 
of Australia. Fraser, J. Vol. 22. 
Abram— 
History in the time of ——. Jenkins. Vol. 12. 
Historical evidences of the migration of Boscawen. Vol. 20. 
Africa. The butterflies and moths of Kirby. Vol. 23. 
Agassiz. Creation according to Darwin, ,and Moses. Kirk. Vol. 4. 
Agnosticism— 
Fundamental assumptions of 
On Hassell. Vol. 20. 
Alphabet. The History of 
America— 
Common origin of American races with those of the Old World. 
Titcomb. Vol.3. ~~ . 
Traditions of aborigines of North ——. Peet. Vol. 21. 
Fauna and origin of Lobley. Vol. 40. 
Ancestral worsnip. Elwin. Vol. 36. 
Anthropology. The true Hitchman. Vol. 5. 
Arabia. Expedition to Petrea. Hull. Vol. 21. 
Archeology and evolution. Walkey. Vol. 28. 
Arianism in its bearing on modern questions. Gwatkin. Vol. 42. 
Arrow heads. Flint —— of delicate structure. Murray. Vol. 22. 
Art. Jewish, Phenician, and early Greek ——. Porter. Voi. 21. 
Aryans. Religion and mythology of of Northern Europe. Brown. 
Vol. 14. 
Arya Somaj. Griswold. Vol. 35. 
Asia. On the comparison of Asiatic languages. Conder. Vol. 27. 
Asia Minor— 
Exploration of Ramsay. Vol. 39. 
Survivals of primitive religion in ——. White,G. E. Vol. 39. 
Lycaonia. Ramsay. Vol, 41. 
Assur and Nineveh. Pinches. Vol. 42. 
Assyriology— 
Late Assyrian and Babylonian research. Rassam. Vol. 14. 
Some recent discoveries in the realm of Pinches. Vol. 26. 
Astronomy— 
Used in relation to geological facts and ages. Hopkins. Vol. 2. 
On current physical —_.  Reddie. Vol. 4. 


Clarke. Vol. 20. 


Taylor. Vol. 12. 


Bible and modern Birks.» Vol; i145. 
Biblical Mackinlay. Vol. 37. 
The Bible and —-. Maunder. Vol. 40. 


Atoll. Keeling ——-. Guppy. Vol. 23. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS. Le 


Australia— 
Aborigines of 
Problems of aboriginal art in 
Flora of Woolls. Vol. 32. 

Ancient script in Statham. Vol. 33. 
Pictorial art among the aborigines. Mathews. Vol. 33. 

Authority. Wace. Vol. 41.’ 


Fraser, J. Vol. 22. 
Bishop Thornton. Vol. 30. 


Babylonia— 
Late Assyrian and Babylonian research. Rassam. Vol. 14. 
Babylonian cities. Rassam. Vol. 17. 
- Nebuchadnezzar of , recently discovered inscriptions. Budge. Vol. 18. 
Importance of Babylonian excavations. Petrie. Vol. 22. 
Religious ideas of Pinches. Vol. 28. 
Inscriptions, etc. Pinches. Vol. 29. 
Story of creation. Pinches. Vol. 35. 
Discoveries in Pinches. Vol. 41. 
Legislations of Wiener. Vol. 41. 
Bathymetrical. Dr. Nansen’s researches, Arctic Ocean, etc. Hull. 
Vol. 37. 


Bible— 
' Difference in scope between and science, Burnett. Vol. 1. 

Relations of geological science to Scriptures. Kirk. Vol. 1. 
Sketch of the relations between and science. Warington. Vol. 1. 
Importance of language and phraseology of ——~. Baylee. Vol. 3. 
Objections to Divine inspiration of Mitchell, W. Vol. 3. 
Biblical pneumatology and psychology. English. Vol. 6. 
Biblical interpretation and science. McCaul. Vol. 9. 


Early dawn of civilization in light of ——-. Howard. Vol. 9. 

Magnitudes in creation and bearing on Biblical interpretation. Titcomb. 
Val. 9: 

On harmony between chronology of Egypt and ——. Saville. Vol. 9. 


On Egypt and the Howard. Vol. 10. 

--— and modern astronomy. Birks. Vol. 11. 

Metaphysics of Scripture. Challis. Vol. 11. 

Biblical proper names from outside sources. Tomkins. Vol. 16. 

Recent survey of West Palestine and its bearing on 
Vol. 17. 

Recent Egyptological research and Tomkins. Vol. 18. 

illustrated and confirmed by recent discoveries, etc. Hall. Vol. 28. 

Scientific research and Biblical study. Girdlestone. Vol. 29. 

Biblical lands, customs, races, etc. Rassam. Vol. 30. 

Diseases in Chaplin. Vol. 34. 

Modern theories of construction of 


Saunders. 


Tuckwell. Vol. 35. 


The in the light of modern science. Woods Smyth. Vol. 38. 
The last century’s witness to Sharp. Vol. 43. 
Biology — 


The nature of life. Beale. Vol. 32. 

Vitality. Beale. Vol. 33. 

Water essential to life. Beale. Vol. 34. 

Unseen life of our World. Beale. Vol. 35. 
Bone. Cuts on as evidence of man’s existence. Hughes. Vol. 23. 
Brixham— 

Its testimony to antiquity of man. Whitley, N. Vol. 8. 

Flint implements of Whitley, N. Vol. 11. 
Bubastis. Historical results of excavations at Naville. Voi. 23. 

2E 


18 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 


Buddhism— 
On ——. Claughton. Vol. 8. 
On Collins. Vol. 18. 


Contrast between and Christianity. Monier Williams. Vol. 28. 
and the Light of Asia. Collins. Vol. 28. 
Butterflies. The —— and moths of Africa. Kirby. Vol. 23. 


Canaan, see Palestine— 
ancient and modern. ‘Tristram. Vol. 21. 
On the Canaanites. Conder. Vol. 24. 
Canary Islands. The Guanches of Dawson. Vol. 29. 
Captivity. On cuneiform inscriptions ve Boscawen. Vol. 18. 
Catholics. Present position of Galton. Vol. 41. 
Caves— 
Brixham Whitley, N. Vol. 8. 
Brixham ——. Whitley, N. Vol. 11. 
Torquay ——, etc. Howard. Vol. 13. 
of South Devon. Howard. Vol. 15. 
Hughes. Vol. 21. 
Celtic. Early churches of Britain and Ireland. Hull, Miss. Vol. 38. 
Character. Springs of Schofield. Vol. 34. 
Cheesewring, Cornwall. Hull. Vol. 35. 
China— 
Ethnology and ancient chronology of 
Chinese Chronology. Legge. Vol. 25. 
Chinese ethics and philosophy. Gordon. Vol. 28. 
China’s place in ancient history. Gordon. Vol. 29, 
Christianity— 
asa morai power. Lias. Vol. 11. 
On misrepresentation of O’Neill. Vol. 18. 
Civilization. Antiquity of ——. Titcombe. Vol. 3. 
Climate— . 


Gordon. Vol. 28. 


of India. Fayer. Vol. 15. 
in relation to organic nature. Gordon. Vol. 17. 
Causes of climatic changes. Dawson. Vol. 26. 
Coal. Our resources end of nineteenth century. Hull. Vol. 32. 
Colour— 
Colours in nature. Walker. Vol. 23. 
Perception of Stokes. Vol. 31. 
Comets. Halley’s comet. Crommelin. Vol. 42. 
Comte. The philosophy of Slater. Vol. 28. 
Confucianism. Elwin, Arthur. Vol. 37. 
Coral— 
Pedigree of the reefs of England. Pattison. Vol. 21. 
Islands and savage myths. Guppy. Vol. 23. 


Cosmogonies— 
On the Biblical scientifically considered. Warington. Vol. 3. 
On heathen compared with Hebrew. Savile. Vol. 10. 
Creation— 


Doctrine of ——, according to Darwin, Agassiz, and Moses. Kirk. Vol. 4. 
Man’s place in Macdonald. Vol. 4. 

Law of , unity of plan, variety of form. Weldon. Vol. 7. 
Magnitudes in ——. ‘Titcomb. Vol. 9. 

and Providence. Howard. Vol. 12. 

A Samoan tradition of Powell. Vol. 20. 

Accounts of James. Vol. 20. 

Light, luminaries, and life in relation to ——. Irving. Vol. 42. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 19 


Criticism. Current principles of historic Row. Vol. 7. 
Crystallization— 
Geometrical Isomorphism of crystals, and derivation of cubical system. 
Mitchell, W. Vol. 2. 
Contrast between and life. Howard. Vol. 8. 
Cuneiform— 
inscriptions of Jewish captivity. Boscawen. Vol. 18. 


The inscriptions at Tel-el-Amarna. Sayce. Vol. 24. 
Darwinism— 
Credibility of Warington, Reddie. Vol. 2. 


The creation according to Darwin. Kirk. Vol. 4. 

The Darwinian theory. Irons. Vol. 6. 

— and its effects on religious thought. Bree. Vol. 7. 

—— tested by recent researches in language. Bateman. Vol. 7. 
Bearing of paleeontological facts on ——. Nicholson. Vol. 9. 
The weak sides of natural selection. Slater. Vol. 26. 

and Malthus. White. Vol. 42. 


Deluge— 
More than ane —— recorded in Scripture. Moule. Vol. 4. 
The Noachian Davison. Vol. 4. 
Relation of Bible account of 
A possible cause of the origin of the tradition of 
Hilprecht’s fragment on Pinches. Vol. 43. 
Deontology. Clarke. Vol. 25. 


to physical science. Challis. Vol. 10. 
. Prestwich. Vol. 27. 


Design— 

Structure of geological formations as evidence of Howard, D. 
Noli. 

The argument from in nature. James. Vol. 17. 

The theory of Duns. Vol. 20. 

The theory of ——. Duns. Vol. 22. 

The philosophic basis of the argument from ——. Bernard. Vol. 26. 

Evolution and Bompas. Vol. 28. 
in nature, note. Kelvin. Vol. 31. 

Adaptation and selection in nature Kidd. Vol. 34. 

Abnormal conditions of water illustrating Hull. Vol. 42. 


Determinism and free will. Potter. Vol. 42. 

Devon. Scientific facts and the caves of South ——. Howard. Vol. 15. 
Druids and their religion. Howard. Vol. 14. 

Dualism. Monier-Williams. Vol. 25. 


Earth— 
as an abode fitted for life. Age of Kelvin. Vol. 31. 
Preparation of for man’s abode. Lobley. Vol. 34. 
Nebular and planetesimal theories of the earth’s origin. Upham. Vol. 37. 
Earthquakes— 
San Francisco. Ward, H.B. p. 17, Vol. 38. 
Valparaiso and San Francisco. Upham. Vol. 39. 
East— 
Physical geography of the Porter, J. L. Vol. 12. 
Sacred books of the ——. Monier-Williams. Vol. 21. 
Eden. The garden of - Rassam. Vol. 25, 
Education— 


Place of science in Nicholson. Vol. 10. 
Philosophy of Schofield. Vol. 33. 
Plato’s theory of ——. Marston. Vol. 42. 


2E2 


20 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 


Edom. Recent investigations in 
Egypt— 


Wilson. Vol. 33. 


Israel in Egypt. Moule. Vol. 5. 


Evidence for sojourn of Israel in 


Savile. Vol. 6. 


Serpent myths in ancient ——. Cooper. Vol. 6. 


Harmony between chronology of 
and the Bible. Howard. Vol. 10. 
Dawson. Vol. 18. 


On 


Prehistoric man in 


and Bible. Savile. Vol. 9. 


Recent Egyptological research in its Biblical relations. Tomkins. Vol. 18. 


Egypt: physical, historical, 


literary, and social. Porter. Vol. 20 


Egyptian discoveries in 1888. Monier-Williams. Vol. 21. 


Geological history of 


Useful and ornamental stones of ancient 


Literature of in time o 
Geology of 
Climate of 
Annual address. Petrie, W 

Elam. Inscriptions at , ete. 


Empire. True temper of 


Hull. Vol. 24. 
Dawson. Vol. 26. 
f Moses. Fradenburgh. Vol. 31. 


Herodotus. Walker. Vol. 31. 
in ancient times. Grant Bey. Vol. 32. 


. Flinders. Vol. 35. 
Pinches. Vol. 29. 
Bruce. Vol. 43. 


Walker. Vol. 21. 


Entomology— 
Oriental -—. Butterflies. 
Oriental Walker. Vol. 22. 


Kolithic implements. Bullen. 
Ether. The luminiferous 
Ethics— 


Vol. 33. 
Stokes. Vol. 28. 


Ethical philosophy. English. Vol. 3. 
On the ethical condition of Scandinavians. Gosse. Vol. 9. 


On the 
On the data of 
and religion. Wace. 


of belief. Wace. Vol. 11. 
Wace. Vol. 14. 


Vol. 33. 


Ethnography. Sciences of language and ——. Leitner. Vol. 23. 


Ethnology— 
Ethnic testimonies to the P 
The 
Eugenics. Heredity and ——. 
European. Fauna of , spre 
Evidence— 


Scientific facts and Christian 
as applicable to credibility of history. Forsyth. Vol. 8. 


On the rules of 
Nature and character of 
Evolution— 


Bearing of paleontological facts on 
Breaks in continuity of mammalia fatal to 
as taught by Heckel. Hassell. Vol. 16. 


Theory of 


entateuch. ‘Titcomb. Vol. 6. 


of the Pacific. Whitmee. Vol. 14. 


Caldecott. Vol. 42. 
ad of. Lobley. Vol. 39. 


Howard. Vol. 7. 


for scientific purposes. McCann. Vol. 10. 


Nicholson. Vol. 9. 
Callard. Vol. 16. 


Did the world evolve itself? Grimthorpe. Vol. 17. 


of the pearly nautilus. 


Pattison. Vol. 18. 


—by natural selection. Hassell. Vol. 19. 


On 
Remarks on 
Relation of fossil botany to 
Thoughts on the 
Factors of 
Archeology and 
and design. Bompas. 
Creation or 


and development. 


in Genesis i. 
Orchard. Vol. 40. 


Law of 


White. Vol. 19. 


Virchow. Vol. 19. 


James. Vol. 19. 


theories of 


of religions. Blackett. Vol. 19. 
in language. Murphy. Vol. 23. 
Walkey. Vol. 28. 


Vol. 28. 


Kidd. Vol. 32. 
from a geological point of view. Whidborne. Vol. 33. 


Irving. Vol. 38. 


até. QR, i Gea kh tee! ae 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS. yA 


Exodus. The route of the Naville. Vol. 26. 
Ezekiel’s vision. Carus-Wilson. Vol. 41. 


Faith. Common errors in relation to science and faith. Macloskie. Vol. 32. 
Fatalism. Robbins. Vol. 7. 

Final cause— 

as principle in cognition and nature. Morris. Vol. 9. 

— Thompson. Vol. 13. 

Dabney. Vol. 20. 


Flint— 

agricultural implements in America. Dawson. Vol. 11. 
implements of Brixham cavern. Whitley, N. Vol. 11. 
Prehistoric factory of at Spiennes. Mello. Vol. 18. 
arrow heads of delicate structure. Murray. Vol. 22. 
bodies in chalk, Paramoudra. Charlesworth. Vol. 26. 
Folk-lore. Stone Duns. Vol. 28. 
Force— 


and energy. Brooke. Vol. 7. 
and its manifestations. McCann. Vol. 7. 


Indestructibility of Birks. Vol. 9. 
Genesis— 

Evolutionary law in Chapter i. Irving. Vol. 38. 
Geology— 


General character of geological formations. Hopkins, E. Vol. 1. 
Lessons of in relation to God. Brodie. Vol. 1. 
Relation of geological science to Bible. Kirk. Vol. 1. 
Changes and ages of continents. Hopkins. Vol. 2. 
Geological chronology. Reddie. Vol. 2. 
Geological proofs of Divine action. Pattison. Vol. 5. 
Introduction of genera and species in geological time. Dawson. Vol. 7. 
See Glacial epoch. 
See Paleolithic. 
Chronology of recent Pattison. Vol. 10. 
Structure of geological formations on evidence of design. Howard, D. 
Vol. 11. 
Elevation and depression of the British Isles. Hughes. Vol. 14. 
Breaks in continuity of mammalian life. Callard. Vol. 16. 
Volcanoes of West Indies. Spencer. Vol. 35. 
Age of last uprise in British Isles. Hull. Vol. 36. 
Geological exterminations. Warring. Vol. 37. 
Biological change in geological time. Lobley. Vol. 38. 
Glacial epoch— 
Lapse of time since determined by, etc. Southall. Vol. 13. 
On the recency of the close of Mackintosh. Vol. 19. 
On the post period. Upham. Vol. 25. 
The —— period and the earth movement hypothesis. Geikie. Vol. 26. 
Another clause of ——. Hull. Vol. 31. 
The influence of on early history of mankind. Wright. Vol. 40. 
Glaciers in New Zealand. Fox. Vol. 40. 
God— 
Relation of geology’s lessons to God. Brodie. Vol. 1. 
Analogies between His methods in nature and revelation. Henslow. 
Vol. 4. 
A demonstration of the existence of ——. McCann. Vol. 5. 


22 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 


God—continued— 


Why man must believe in —— ? Reddie. Vol. 5. 


Is it possible to know P) Tags;  Yoll a7. 
in nature. Hull. Vol. 24. 
On the being of Sinclair. Vol. 33. 
Modifications in the idea of Lias. Vol. 34. 
Gorilla. Charlesworth. Vol. 20. 


Guanches— 
Characteristics of Dawson. Vol. 39. 
Skulls of Putnam. Vol. 39. 


Habit. An enquiry into the formation of ——- in man. 
Hades. Descent into ——. MacCulloch. Vol. 48. 
Hamburg Congress. Pinches. Vol. 35. 

Hammurabi’s code. Pinches. Vol. 35. 

Heredity and eugenics. Caldecott. Vol. 42. 
Herodotus. On Egyptian geology. Walker. Vol. 31. 
Hittite— 


Schofield. Vol. 27. 


Empire of the Hittites. Wright, Rev. W. Vol. 21. 


cities. White, G.8. Vol. 33. 
Hornets. Walker. Vol. 33. 
Horns. The myth. Cooper. Vol. 12. 
Human responsibility— 

Analysis of —— (2 parts). Irons. Vol. 4. 


Ice— 
Causes of the ice age. Upham. Vol. 29. 
age’s divisions. Upham. Vol. 33. 
—. Howorth. Vol. 38. 
Iceland— 
Botany and entomology of 
Stefansson. Vol. 34. 
——. Stefansson. Vol. 38. 
Inca language. Christian, F. W. Vol. 40. 
India— 
Rainfall and climate of ——. Fayrer. Vol. 16. 
Religion of the aboriginal tribes of 
Philosophy and medical knowledge of ancient 
Worship of snakes in Fayrer. Vol. 26. 
Irrigation works of Odling. Vol. 36. 
On Indian customs. Hendley. Vol. 40. 


Walker. Vol. 24. 


Avery. Vol. 19. 
Gordon. 


Inspiration. Objections to Divine inspiration of Scripture. 


Vol. 3 
Instinct and reason. Collingwood. Vol. 24. 
Islam— 

—. Tisdall. Vol. 25. 

Future of Margoliouth. Vol. 35. 
Israel— 


in Egypt. Moule. Vol. 5. 
Synchronous chronology of kings of . Fleay. 
Ivory islands in Arctic Ocean. Whitley. Vol. 42. 


Jerusalem— 
Water supply of ——. Annual address. Wilson. 
Water supply of ——. Masterman. Vol. 35. 


Vol. 36. 


Vol. 34. 


Mitchell, W. 


i 
; 
’ 
: 
} 
4 


eS ee ery Se ee ee a es ee 2 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS. ao 


Joseph— 
Life of from external sources. Tomkins. Vol. 15. 
Jurisprudence. Smith. Vol. 43. 


Kant. The alleged scepticism of ——. Courtney. Vol. 27. 
Keeling Islands— 
Keeling Atoll. Guppy. Vol. 23. 
Dispersal of plants Guppy. Vol. 24. 
Kingdom of God. The growth of —~. Whiting, Rev. J. B. Vol. 37. 
Krishna. Collings. Vol. 21. 


Language— 
On of gesticulation and origin of speech. Young. Vol. 1. 
Nature of human Baylee. Vol. 3. 
Darwinism tested by recent researches in ——. Bateman. Vol. 7. 
The Etruscan Taylor. Vol. 10. 
and the theories of its origin. Brown. Vol. 15. 
Sciences of and ethnography. Leitner. Vol. 23. 
Factors of evolution in - Murphy. Vol. 23. 
Comparison of the Asiatic languages. Conder. Vol. 27. 
Lebanon. Prehistoric man in Dawson. Vol. 18. 
Life— 
On , its origin. Wheatley. Vol. 3. 
On , its origin. Wheatley. Vol. 4. 
Spontaneous generation on the problem of Kirk. Vol. 5. 
Contrast between crystallization and Howard. Vol. 8. 
On the nature of Nicholson. Vol. 14. 
The living and the non-living. Beale. Vol. 16. 
On certain theories of Gordon. Vol. 17. 
Chronology of animal on earth prior to man. Dawson. Vol. 20. 
as compared with physical forces. Slater. Vol. 32. 
The nature of Beale. Vol. 32. 
Light, luminaries and Irving. Vol. 42. 
Light— 
Perception of Stokes. Vol. 29. 
luminaries, and life, etc. Irving. Vol. 42. 
Locusts and grasshoppers. Walker. Vol. 34. 
Logic. Inductive Dabney. Vol. 19. 
Logos. The meaning and history of the of philosophy. Ciarke. Vol. 23. 
Lucerne. Thickness of glacier of the post pliocene period. Hall. 
Vol. 36. 
Lycaonia. Ramsay, Sir W. M. Vol. 41. 


Madagascar. Immigration of Arabs into Shaw. Vol. 33. 

Malthus. Darwinism and ——. White. Vol. 42. 

Man— 
Theories of man’s past and present condition. Reddie. Vol. 1. 
Man’s place in creation. Macdonald. Vol. 4. 
Bible aspects of man’s tripartite nature. Graham. Vol. 6. 
Brixham cavern’s testimony to antiquity of Whitley, N. Vol. 9. 
Evidence already obtained ve antiquity of Hughes. Vol. 13. 
Contemporaneity of with extinct mammalia. Callard. Vol. 13. 
Modern geogenies and antiquity of Birks. Vol. 13. 


24 INDEX TO 


Man—continued— 
Science and 
Early destinies of Howard. 
Implements of stone age dividing 


SUBJECTS 


Porter. Vol. 13. 


Vol. 15. 
and animals. Thompson, J. P. 


Vol. 15. 
Pliocene in America. Dawson. Vol. 15. 
Origin of ——. Bardsley. Vol. 17. 
Prehistoric in Egypt. Dawson. Vol. 18. 
Was primeval a savage? Hassell. Vol. 19. 
Antiquity of Petrie, Capt. Vol. 20. 


Chronology of animal life on earth prior to 
Virchow. Vol. 24. 


Origin of 
Manikka Vacagar. Pope. Vol. 30. 
Materialism— 

The present day Macdougal 
Beale. Vol. 16 (2 papers). 
Richmond. Vol. 16. 


Matter— 
On the indestructibility of 
Certain definitions of 

Matthew Arnold and modern culture. 

Mediterranean, Physical conditions of 

Mencius. Turner, F. Storrs. Vol. 42. 

Mesopotamia. Star worshippers of 

Metaphysics— 

The 
On physiological 

Metallurgy. The dawn of 

Meteorites. On falling stars and : 

Meteorology. 

Mind— 

On the organ of 
Some relations between 


Porter, N. 


The scope of 
The marks of 


Dawson. Vol. 20. 


). Volto: 


Challis. Vol. 12. 
Howard. Vol. 17. 


Iias. Vol. 12. 
basin, ete. Hull. Vol. 31. 


Zwemer. Vol. 31. 


of scripture. Challis. Vol. 11. 


Vol. 14. 


Mello. Vol. 23. 


W. Mitchell. Vol. 1. 


: rainfall. Bateman. Vol. 15. 


Fisher. Vol. 14. 

and body. Schofield. Vol 30. 
Schofield. Vol. 32. 

in natvre. Duns. Vol. 32. 


Minerals. The —— and metals of the Old Testament. Jervis. Vol. 37. 
Miracles— 

On Penny. Vol. 1. 

On —. English. Vol. 1. 

On Watson. Vol. 20. 


Scriptural idea of 
Attitude of science towards 


Missions. Science in relation to Christian 


Mithraism. Tisdall. Vol. 43. 
Moab— 


, Science and prayer. Lias. Vol. 29. 
Girdlestone. Vol. 30. 


Gunning Prize. Orchard. Vol. 42. 
Baylis. Vol. 43. 


Moabite stone. Petrie, Capt. Vol. 6. 
Recent investigations in ——. Wilson. Vol. 33. 


Modernism. Lias. Vol 40. 
Monism. Monier-Williams. Vol. 25. 


Monotheism— 
Prehistoric in relation to man 
On Rule. Vol. 12. 
Archaic Brown. Vol. 13. 
Moral— 
Origin of sense. Kirk. Vol. 
Physical theory of freedom. 


Morning star. Mackinlay. Vol. 38. 


as savage. Titcomb. Vol. 6. 


@: 
Murphy. Vol. 22. 


— “=o ~~ 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 


Myths— 
Serpent —— in ancient Egypt. Cooper. Vol. 6. 
The ——- of Ra. Cooper. Vol. 11. 
The Horns Cooper. Vol. 12. 
Coral Islands and savage Guppy. Vol. 23. 


Nativity. Date of Mackinlay. Vol. 41. 
Nationality. Hughes, Prof. T.M. Vol. 32. 
Natural Selection— 


Bearing of paleontological facts on ——. Nicholson. 
Evolution by ——. Hassell. Vol. 19. 
_ The theory of ——. Duns. Vol. 22. 
Nature— 
Methods in and in revelation. Henslow. Vol. 4. 


Final cause as principle in Morris. Vol. 9. 
limits : an argument for Theism. Pattison. Vol. 
The supernatural in Howard. Vol. 16. 

Climate in relation to organic ——-. Gordon. Vol. 17. 
The argument from design in James. Vol. 17. 
The beauty of Grimthorpe. Vol. 21. 


The one origin of the books of Revelation and of ——. 
Colours in ——. Walker. Vol. 23. 
God in Hull. Vol. 24. 


Man’s place in Petrie. Vol. 24. 

On the apparent cruelty of Wood. Vol. 25. 
Mechanical conception of Macloskie. Vol. 28. 
Plan and purpose in ——. Kidd. Vol. 31. 

Marks of mind in Duns. Vol. 32. 

Adaptation and selection in 


Vol. 9. 


12. 


Stokes. 


, design. Kidd. Vol. 34. 


Genesis of Whidborne. Vol. 36. 
’ Nautilus. Evolution of the pearly ——. Pattison. Vol. 18. 
Naville, Ernest. ’s life. Roget. Vol. 43. 


Negro. The origin of the Titeomb. Vol. 5. 
New Zealand— 


The Maoris’ place in history. Rutland. Vol. 33. 


Fjords of Maclaren. Vol. 34. 
Hot lakes of ——. Boord. Vol. 36. 
Niagara— 


Recession of Falls. Upham. Vol.19. Note. 
Recession of Falls. Upham. Vol 27. 
Nicaragua. Human footprints in Brinton. Vol. 22. 
Nineveh. Assur and Pinches. Vol. 42. 
Norway. fjords. Hull. Vol. 34. 
Numerical System. The 


Ocean— 
How waters of 


became salt. Hull. Vol. 27. 


of the Old Testament. Thornton. 


Sub-oceanic river valleys, British Isles. Hull. Vol. 30. 
Sub-oceanic river valleys, West Europe. Hull. Vol. 31. 


Sub-oceanic river valleys, West Africa. Hull. Vol. 32. 
Sub-oceanic depression. Lobley. Vol. 33. 
Optimism. Practical Smith, Saumerez. Vol. 21. 
Oriental discoveries— 
On—-. Urquhart. Vol. 37. 
On ——. Robinson. Vol. 38. 


25 


Vol. 22. 


Vol. 5 


26 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 


Origin— 
Of man. Bardsley. Vol. 17. 
Of man. Virchow. Vol. 24. 
Orissa. Hendley. Vol. 39. 


Pacific — 
The ethnology of the Whitmee. Vol. 14. 
Traditions of Aborigines of islands of Qcean. Dr. Eells. Vol. 19. 

Palestine— 

Recent survey of West 
Meteorology of 


Saunders. Vol. 17. 
Post. Vol. 20. 


Botanical geography of Post. Vol. 22. 

Land tenure in ancient times in ——. Neil. Vol. 24. 

On the Canaanites. Conder. Vol. 24. 

Recent discoveries in ——. Masterman. Vol. 39. 
Palezolithic— 

The 


age examined. Whitley, N. Vol. 8. 
Facts and evolution. Nicholson. Vol. 9. 
Pantheism— 

Principles of modern ——. Row. Vol. 8. 

On Monier-Williams. Vol. 25. 
Pentateuch— 

On high numbers in ——. Gosse. Vol. 5. 

Ethnic testimonies to ——. Titcomb. Vol. 6. 

On Samaritan text of ——. Garret. Vol. 36. 
Pessimism. James. Vol. 18. 
Petra. Hull. Vol. 21. 
Philology. On comparative 


Thornton. Vol. 1. 


Philosophy— 
The relation of reason nt -—-. Row. Vol. 8. 
Ethical English. Vol. 3. 


Philosophical principles in Mr. Buckle’s history. Row. Vol. 3. 
The testimony of to Christianity as a moral and spiritual revelation. 
Row. Vol. 5. 
Natural theology and modern Henslow. Vol. 7. 
Influence of true and false Howard. Vol. 12. 
and evolution. Orchard. Vol. 40. 
The demand for a Christian Whateley. Vol. 43. 
Phyllotaxis. Henslow. Vol. 6. 
Plants— 
Polynesians and their names. Guppy. Vol. 29. 
Distribution. Guppy. Vol. 39. 
man in America. Dawson. Vol. 15. 
and their plant names. Guppy. Vol. 29. 


Pliocene. 
Polynesians. 
Prayer— 
Relation of science to Kirk,’ Vol,j2. 
Miracles, science and ——. Lias. Vol. 29. 
Primeval man in Belgium. Whitley. Vol. 39. 
Primitive man. Mello. Vol. 30. 
Primeval history. Uses of. MacCausland. Vol. 3 
Procopius. ’*s African monument. Rouse. Vol. 34. 
Protection. Methods of of. Kid. Vol. 33. 
Providence. Creation and —— MHavard. Vol. 12. 
Psychology— | 
On comparative Morshead. Vol. 3. 
On comparative Morshead. Vol. 5. 
Biblical ——. English. Vol. 6. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS. Ot 


Psychology—continued. 
On comparative Morshead. Vol. 12. 
——. Turner, F. Storrs. Vol. 37. 
—. Smith, I. Gregory. Vol. 43. 


Qadian. The Messiah of Griswold. Vol. 37. 
Queensland. Artesian water in ——. Jack. Vol. 34. 


Ra. The myth of Ra. Cooper. Vol. 11. 
Rainfall— 
Meteorology ——. Bateman. Vol. 15. 
and climate of India. Fayrer. Vol. 15. 
Rajputana. Hendley, Col. T. H. Vol. 37. 
Rank. Principles of among animals. Parker. Vol. 27. 
Reason— 
Relation of 


to philosophy, theology and revelation. Row. Vol. 3. 
Identity of in science and religion. Mitchell, R. Vol. 8. 
Instinct and Collingwood. Vol. 24. 
Reconstruction. Thompson, 8. P. Vol 37. 
Rectitude, The science of as distinct from expedience. Clarke. Vol. 24. 
Red Sea. Passage of —— by Israelites. Tulloch. Vol. 28. 
Religion— 
Identity of reason in science and Mitchell, R. Vol. 8. 
Relation of thought to Cotterill. Vol. 12. 
Modern science of ——. Blencowe. Vol. 15. 
Relation of science and Cotterill. Vol. 15. 
On comparative ——:. Note. Vol. 19. 
Some characteristics of primitive ——. Collins. Vol. 19. 
Science and Petrie. Vol. 23. 
Modern science and natural Ashwin. Vol. 23. 
Religions of the East— 


Some thoughts on the evolution of ——. Blackett. Vol. 19. 
List of Society’s publications on Vol. 30. 
Responsibility— 


On human —— (2 parts). Irons. Vol. 4. 


On human Blencowe. Vol. 19. 
On human Grimthorpe. Vol. 25. 
Resurrection. The of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Girdlestone. 
Vol. 37. 
Revelation— 
Relation of reason to Row. Vol. 3. 
_ Analogous methods of deity in nature and ——. WHenslow. Vol. 4. 
Absence of opposition between science and ——. Stokes. Vol. 17. 


Porter. Vol. 18. 
and of nature. Stokes. Vol. 22. 


Science not opposed to 
One origin of the books of 
Réntgen rays. Stokes. Vol. 30. 


Samaritan— 

text of Pentateuch. Garrett. Vol. 36. 

Passover of the year 1861. Hammond. Vol. 36. 
Samoa. A tradition of creation. Powell. Vol. 20. 
Scandinavians. On their ethical condition. Gosse. Vol. 9. 
Scepticism— 

The logic of ——. Thornton. Vol. 2. 


28 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 


Scepticism—continued — 
The credulity of ——. Thornton. Vol. 4. 
Anarchy of modern unbelief. Boultbee. Vol. 8. 
The varying tactics of ——. Thornton. Vol. 9. 
Modern philosophic examined. Main. Vol. 10. 
Science— 
Mutual helpfulness of theology and physical Gladstone. Vol. 1. 
Difference in scope between scripture and Burnet. Vol. 1. 
A sketch of the relations between scripture and Warington. 
Vol. 1. 
Relation of to prayer. Kirk. Vol. 2. 
Simplification of first principles in physical Brooke. Vol. 3. 
Immediate derivation of from great first cause. Laming. Vol. 3. 
Provinces of the observer and reasoner in investigation. Gabbett. 


Vol. 4. 
Identity of reason in —— and religion. Mitchell, R. Vol. 8. 
Biblical interpretation and McCaul. Vol. 9. 
Place of in education. Nicholson. Vol. 10. 


Uncertainties of modern physical -——. Birks. Vol. 11. 

Relation of scientific thought to religion. Cotterill. Vol. 12. 

-—— andman. Porter, N. Vol. 13. 

Bearings of study of - upon our religious ideas. Stokes. Vol. 14. 
Modern of religion. Blencowe. Vol. 15. 

Relation of and religion. Cotterill. Vol. 15. 

Absence of opposition between and revelation. Stokes. Vol. 17. 
not opposed to revelation. Porter. Vol. 18. 


Note on and religion. Petrie. Vol. 23. 

Modern and natural religion. Ashwin. Vol. 28. 
Self. On the reality of the Courtney. Vol. 25. 
Serpents— 


myths in ancient Egypt. Cooper. Vol. 6. 
Sun and worship. Phene. Vol. 8. 


On worship and the venomous snakes of India. Fayrer. Vol. 26. 
Shishak. The list of Maspero. Vol. 27. 
Sidon. Discoveries at ——. Vol. 21. 
Sinai— 


The topography of the —— peninsula. Holland. Vol. 14. 

Where is Mount 2. Halls Vet oh. 

Researches in Prof. Petrie. Vol. 39. 
Socialism. On Christianity and Cunningham. Vol. 41. 
Sound. and colour. Macdonald. Vol. 32. 
South Africa. Experiences in the war. Frazer. Vol. 35. 
Space. Time and Arthur. Vol. 22. 
Species— 

Introduction of in geological time. Dawson. Vol. 7. 
and their origin. Gerard. Vol. 42. 
Spencer, Herbert— 

On -—— philosophy. Ground. Vol. 16. 

On theory of the will. Ground. Vol. 16. 
Spiennes. Factory of flints at Mello. Voi. 18. 
Sphinx. Note on excavations round . Maspero. Vol. 20. 
Spontaneous generation. or problem of life. Kirk. Vol. 5. 
Stars— 

worshippers of Mesopotamia. Zwemer. Vol. 31. 

Origin of new Ball. Vol. 33. 

Falling Meteorites. 

Sidereal universe. Gill. Vol. 43. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 29 


Stone age— 
Date of the polished Southall. Vol. 13. 
Implements of man, and animals. Thompson, J. P. Vol. 15. 

Structure. and structureless. Beale. Vol. 20. 

Sun. On — worship. Phene. Vol. 8. 

Supernatural. On the credibility of the 

Syria— 
Meteorology of 
Botanical geography of 


O'Neill. Vol. 16. 


Post. Vol. 20. 
Post. Vol. 22. 


Tanganyika. Marine fauna of Hudleston. Vol. 36. 
Tel el Amarné. On the cuneiform inscriptions of Sayce. Vol. 24. 
Thalassography. On North Sea. Jervis. Vol. 32. 
Theism— 
Mill’s essay on Irons. Vol. 9. 
Unconscious intelligence as opposed to 
Nature’s limits, an argument tor 
Theology— 
Mutual helpfulness of and natural science. Gladstone. Vol. 1. 
asa science. Dela Mare. Vol. 3. 
Relation of reason to Row. Vol. 3. 


Morris. Vol. 11. 
Pattison. Vol. 12. 


Natural and modern philosophy. Henslow. Vol. 7. 
Comparative MacCulloch. Vol. 43. 

Theosophy. Coles. Vol. 43. 

Thothmes— 


Names on the list of 
Names on the list of 


Maspero. Vol. 20. 
Maspero. Vol. 22. 


Thought— 
The unknown in modern Lias. Vol. 17. 
The influence of physiological discoveries on ——. Frost. Vol. 37. 
- Time. and space. Arthur. Vol. 22. 
Tithegiving. among ancient Pagan nations and note by MacMiiller on 


same. lLansdell. Vol. 31. 
Turkey. Shia Turks. White, G.E. Vol. 40. 


Ultramontanism. Lias. Vol. 40. 


Unity. The of truth. Annual address. Temple. Vol. 32. 
Universe— 
Examination of the unseen ——. Irons. Vol. 11. 
Action of the will in formation of ——. O’Neill. Vol. 15. 
Modern conceptions of Searle. Vol. 42. 
Scheme of Girdlestone. Vol. 43. 
Sidereal Gill. Vol. 43. 


Unseen world. On science and ——. Schofield. Vol. 41. 
Utilitarianism. Reddie. Vol. 2. 


Victoria, Queen— 


Communications from ——. Her Jubilee. Vol. 29. 
Death of Vol. 33. 
Volcanoes— 


of West Indies. Spencer. Vol. 35. 
Volcanic action and West Indian eruptions of 1902. Lobley. Vol. 35. 
Volition. From reflex action to ——. Hill. Vol. 26. 


30 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 


Wahabis. Origin, history, etc., of ——. Zwemer. Vol. 33. 
Will— 
The action of 
On Herbert Spencer’s theory of the 


in the formation of universe. O’Neill. Vol. 15. 
Ground. Vol. 16. 


Zodiac. The zodiacal arrangement of stars. Grimaldi. Vol. 38. 
Zoroaster— 


The system of and archaic Monotheism. Brown. Vol. 13. 


On Philosophers. Monier-Williams. Vol. 25. 
VOL. XLIV. 
Annual Address. Modern Unrest and the Bible. By Sir Andrew Wingate, 
K.C.1.E. 


The Genealogies of Our Lord in St. Matthew and St. Luke. By Mrs. Agnes 
Smith Lewis, LL.D., St. Andrews D.D., Heidelberg. 

Natural Law and Miracle. By Dr. Ludwig von Gerdtell. 

The Greek Papyri. By the Rev. Professor G. Milligan, D.D. 

The Conditions of Habitability of a Planet, with special reference to the Planet 
Mars. By E. Walter Maunder, Esq., F.R.A.S. 

The Historicity of the Mosaic Tabernacle. By the Rev. Professor James Orr, 
M.A., D.D. 

The Real Personality or Transcendental Ego. By Sydney T. Klein, Esq., M.R.I., 
E.LLS.,. ERAS; . 

Difficulties of Belief. By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Down, D.D. 

Some Lucan Problems. By Lieut.-Colonel G. Mackinlay. 

Archeology and Modern Biblical Scholarship. By the Rev. John Tuckwell, 
M.R.A.S. 

Adaptations in Plants and Animais to their Conditions of Life are the result 
of the Directivity of Life. By the Rev. Professor G. Henslow, M.A., 
ELS: 

International Arbitration in the Greek World. By Marcus N. Tod, Esq., M.A. 

The Influence of Babylonian Conceptions on Jewish Thought. By the Ven. 
Archdeacon Beresford Potter, M.A. 

Index of previous volumes. 


LONDON 
HARRISON AND SONS, PRINTERS IN ORDINARY TO HIS MAJESTY, 
ST, MARTIN’S LANE. 


LOCAL 


3 2044 128 418 001 


Lf 
? Y + : A wef = 
C eevee) ee env ee Al 


; : 
tted RSt 
PN eee ee Oe Te Te et ee Soe TF 

" — 


Fn Ce ee ee Ok eee en eon ee Un 


.* 


iS : ster et SIRS 


‘cease te rket anions 
= ay > ~ 2 


A 
- 
2 
oD 
= 
Y, ° 
zi 5S oy 
* *“ C 
; ,, 
” e 
A ‘ 
, 
‘ 
o 
: NP 


pF! 
Cox 


See awl 
xa 
: : ae 
»* ; = 
on “4 
bakeries 
Nee od 
see aN? 


SPN AE, 
7 


aye 
Sear 


4 


¢ 


vf 


a4) 


pe 


Se 


eee 


ere 
+ 
s 


Paezer 
om fg 


zy 


sid: 


? 


Fy 
43% 


a 


s82 Nigh neem IRR Gd Risse BLAS pala ie VR YANIADY AE WoL Aaa are pede KY Sone RRAL ect tea fatto ate: < Yann Sean) ; road 
Ce TR Ee ee Or tea to einer seta RIOR Lae Oe SE Se ee nT te eS RB era aoa hikaCR ;