Full text of "Journal of the transactions of the Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain"

See other formats

cag

Poe
6
a4

—

JOURNAL OF THE TRANSACTIONS

Mine VICTOR VACINS TIT U VE

VOLVALIL

JOURNAL OF

THE TRANSACTIONS

OGhe Victoria Institute,

OR,

Boiss intel Wh ee
Abilosophical Society of Great Britain,

EDITED BY THE SECRETARY.

LONDON:
(Publishev hy the Institute, 1, Avelpht Terrace Wouse, Charing Cross, GU.C.)

1910.

LONDON:
7 HARRISON AND SONS. PRINTERS IN ORDINARY TO HIS LATE MAJESTY,
ST. MARTIN’S LANE.

PREFACE,

—_-——_

UST as he was completing the work of editing this Volume

Mr. H. Charlewood Turner was obliged through ill-health

to resign his duties as Secretary of the Institute and Editor

of the Journal. He retires with the best wishes of the Council

for his speedy recovery and their sincere thanks for the good
work he has done during his two years of oftice.

In putting the finishing touches to his work as Editor it
devolves upon me to write this preface. I commence the work
with the benefit which thirty years’ membership of the Institute
and two years’ experience on the Council has given me; but I
enter upon the duties with the greater confidence because it is
‘the unanimous wish of my colleages that I should do so, and
because I know I can rely upon their cordial help.

The Council regrets that owing to the causes mentioned above
the publication of this Volume has been delayed beyond its
usual time of issue. They desire me to express their acknow-
ledgments to the writers of papers and to those taking part in
the discussions, and invite the assistance of members in
obtaining high-class papers suited to the needs of the times
and an increase in the number of Members and Associates.

I have pleasure in recording the taithful and efficient help of
the Assistant Secretary, Mr. A. E. Montague, to whom the
Institute owes much for the unseen but none the less important
work which he does so conscientiously and successfully.

FREDERIC S. BISHOP,
Secretary.

CONTENTS.

—__ —
PAGE
PREFACE eee ees Ss hes Sez sae’ ive iste tae
REpoRT OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE YEAR 1909-10 _.... ae ea a
APPENDIX TO REPORT : ALTERATIONS TO THE CONSTITUTION AS
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING, 1910 sed iit oe ase pera, eas)

ANNUAL ADDRESS :—

On THE “RETURN OF HALLEY’s ComET IN 1910.” By A. C. D.
CromMELIN, D.Sc., F.R.A.S._ .... ee < Saf a 2S
499TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING :—
“THe Ivory Isuanps IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN.” By THE Rev.
D. Gato WHITLEY ee ae a one peli aoe
500TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING :—
“THe Mopern Concerrion oF THE UNIVERSE.” By G. F. C.
Seare, M.A., F.RS.. .... ote wos dass eves Be Tate!
5Olst ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING :—

“Tie ATTITUDE OF ScIENCE TowarDs Mrracues.” By Pro-
Fressor H. LANGHORNE OrcHarD, M.A., B.Sc. aie ais SOL

[THe Gunning Prize Essay, 1909.]

Vill CONTENTS OF VOL. XLII.

PAGE
502NpD OrDINARY GENERAL MEETING :—

“SPECIES AND THEIR OrIGIN.” By THE Rey. JoHN GERARD,
BA. PLS. wi Seas ie abe aoe sus sion Le

503rD ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING :—

“ ARIANISM AND Moprern Tuoueut.” By tur Rey. PRoressor
H. M. Gwarkin, M.A., D.D. .... est se ar vos? HAO

504TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING :—

“ ASSur AND NINEvEH.” By Tueopuitus G. Pincues, LL.D.,
MURGALS: ).:. a tee set fae “ce: ote wwe 154

505TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING :—

“Tiaut, LuMINARIES AND LIFE; IN CONNECTION WITH THE
GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION.” By Rev. A. IRVING,
D.Sc., B.A. ie sto Les bis fe a sone. MOA

506TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING :—

“ DaRWINISM AND Matruvus.” By tae Rev. JAMES WHITE,

“ ABNORMAL CONDITIONS OF WATER ; AS EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN
Nature.” By Pror. E. Hurt, LL.D., F.RS. _... wee 243
507TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING :—

“Puato’s THErory oF PuBsLic EDUCATION IN RELATION TO THE
CurIstiAN Doctrine oF Human NATURE.” By Rev. H.
J. R. Marston, M.A. .... Se sane ia dade we 251

508TH OrpINARY GENERAL MEETING :—

“HEREDITY AND EvuGenics.” By THE Rey. Pror. A. CALDECOTT,
DiLron MEAL) to. ee a tes wate suse Pe Al

CONTENTS OF VOL. XLII. 1X

509TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING :—

“DETERMINISM AND FREE WILL.” By THE VENERABLE ARCH-
DEACON BERESFORD PortrerR, M.A. _.... ae es eee LOE

BrograPHicaL Notice OF THE LATE Rey. G. F. Wutippornet, M.A. 320
List oF MEMBERS .... ads sie mee waa Rt a aon OO

CONSTITUTION AND RULES.... nate Riss oe ae as oer i

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

; ne : ;
: TSS Bal
a pth pecans

a
.

ae
7

ln
{= —
_ 2
7
-

ee
a
- ~=
a =
'

~~
+

——
——-

ee
ee
y

ieee
<=
~~
=
.

VICTORIA INSTITUTE.

REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE YEAR 1909.

1. Meetings.

The meetings of the Institute during the present session have
been well attended and the discussions keenly maintained.

The subjects dealt with may be arranged under the following
heads :—

1. ARCH#OLOGICAL.
“ Assur and Nineveh.” By Tueoputuus G. Puycuss, LL.D., M.R.A.S.

2. BIBLICAL.

“The Attitude of Science towards Miracles.” By Professor H.
LancHorneé Oxcuarp, M.A., B.Sc. [The Gunning Prize Essay. |
“ Light, Luminaries and Life.” By Rev. A. Irvine, D.Sc., B.A.

3. CoNTEMPORARY MOVEMENTS.

“Determinism.” By the Ven. Archdeacon BeresrorD Porter, M.A.
“ Heredity and Eugenics.” By the Rev. Professor A. CALDECOTT,
M.A., D.Litt.

4, HisToricau.

“ Arianism and Modern Thought.” By Rev. Professor H. M.
GwatTkIN, M.A., D.D.

5. GEOGRAPHICAL.

“The Ivory Islands in the Arctic Ocean.” By the Rev. D. GatH
WHITLEY.

6. PHILOSOPHICAL.

“Plato’s Theory of Public Education in Relation to the Christian
Doctrine of Human Nature.” By the Rev. H. J. R. Marston,
M.A.

7. SCLENTIFIC

“ Abnormal conditions of water as a proof of Design in Creation.”
By Professor E. Hui, LL.D., F.R.S.

‘Species and their Origin.” By Rev. J. Gerarp, B.A., F.L.S.

“Darwinism and Malthus.” By Rev. James Wuits, M.A.

“ Modern Conceptions of the Universe.” By G. F. C. Srarze, Esq.,
M.A. F.R.S. [Read at 500th Ordinary General Meeting of the
Institute. |

It will be seen that the subjects selected are of wide interest
at the present time. A very large number of the Members and
Associates had suggested the subjects to be discussed, and
great care was taken in their selection by the Council.

2. Grants of Literature.

The usual grants of literature have been made to over thirty
societies engaged in Missionary and other Christian work,
Many letters of thanks have been received acknowledging the
practical use of the papers published in our Transactions.
Missionaries and others in distant places especially have found
much profit from the reading of our papers which deal with
modern investigations of Philosophy and Science, especially
those which bear upon the great truths contained in Holy
Scripture. The Council desire to bring this aspect of the
work prominently before the Members and Associates.

Officers and Council.

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.

Lieut.-Gen. Sir H. L. Geary, K.C.B.

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

Right Hon. Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, LL.D., F.G.S.
Professor E. Hull, LL.D., F.R.S., F.G.S.

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

Honorary Correspondents.
Sir David Gill, K.C.B., LL.D., F.R.S.

Professor E. Naville (Geneva). Professor Fridtjof Nansen, D.Se.
Professor Maspero ( Paris). Professor Warren Upham, D.Sc.
Professor A. H. Sayce, D.D., LL.D. Protessor F. F. Roget (Geneva).

Honorary Auditors.
Lieut.-Col. G. Mackinlay, late R.A. | E. J. Sewell, Esq.

Gouncil.

(In Order of Election.)

Very Rev. Dean Wace, D.D. (Trustee). Professor H. Langhorne Orchard, M.A., B.Sc.

Edward S. M. Perowne, Esq., F.S.A. (Hon. Rt. Rey. Bishop J. E. Welldon, D.D,
Treasurer). Sydney T. Klein, Esq., F.L.S., F.R.A.S.,

Martin Luther Rouse, Esq., B.A., B.L. M.R.I.

Rev. John Tuckwell, M.R.A.S. William J. Horner, Esq.

Lieut.-Colonel G. Mackinlay. Frederic S. Bishop, Esq., M.A., J.P.

General J. G. Halliday, A. T. Schofield, Esq., M.D.

Arthur W. Sutton, Esq., F.L.S., J.P. Heywood Smith, Esq., M.A. M.D.

Rey. W. H. Griffith Thomas, D.D.

Secretary and Editor of the Journal.
H. Charlewood Turner, M.A.

Assistant Secreturp.
Albert E. Montague.

4, Election of new Members of Council.

In accordance with the alterations in the rules passed on
June 24th last one-third of the Council now retire and the
Council have nominated the following to fill the eight vacancies
thus created :—

Rey. Chancellor Lias, M.A.*

T. G. Pinches, Esq., LL.D., M.R.A.S.*

Ven. Archdeacon W. M. Sinclair, M.A., D.D.*
Rev. H. J. R. Marston, M.A.

E. W. Maunder, Esq., F.R.A.S.

Ven. Archdeacon Beresford Potter, M.A.
Rev. J. H. Skrine, M.A.

J. W. Thirtle, Esq., LL.D.

There is a further vacancy which the Council recommend
that the Annual General Meeting should fill, and they have
therefore nominated for that purpose :—

E. J. Sewell, Esq.

Due notice was sent to all Members asking them for nomina-
tions for these vacancies to be sent in before March 31st, but
none were received.

5. Obituary.

The Council regret to have to record the death during the

past year of the following supporters of the Institute :—

Professor A. Agassiz, D.C.L., F.R.S8. (Hon. Correspondent), John
Allen, Esq. (Hon. Auditor), W. G Black, Esq., M.D., Edward Clapton,
Esq., M.D., Ralph J. Fremlin, Esq., The Very Rev. W. Lefroy, D.D.,
Dean of Norwich, Alexander McArthur, Esq., D.L., J.P., Vice-President
and Vice-Patron, Rev. H. Ross, D.D., Rev. Alexander Stewart, M.D.,
LL.D., J. Townsend Trench, Esq., Rev. R. Tapson, Rev. Canon R
Taylor, Rev. G. F. Whidborne, M.A., F.G.S. (Member of Council), Rev.
Canon Bernard Wilson, M.A.

6. New Members and Associates.

The following are the names of Members and Associates
elected since the last Annual Meeting :—
Mempers.— Colin McLarty, Esq., U.S. Navy, Professor F. F. Roget,

Rev. Prebendary L. E. Shelford, M.A., Rev. Cyprian L., Drawbridge
M.A., T. B. Bishop, Esq.

* Retiring Member of Council.

AssoctaTgs.—Rev. F. Cecil Lovely, B.A., Rev. F. W. Maunsell, M.A.,
Miss Margaret Spokes, Henry Wilson, Esq., Miss A. Habershon, Dr. W.
A. Shann, Rev. 8. H. Wilkinson, Colonel Henry Grey MacGregor, C.B.

7. Numbers of Members and Associates.

The following statement will show the number of the
supporters of the Institute at the present time, May 9th,
1910, including hon. corresponding members, ete. :—

Life Members Hee Ee a 33 in number.
Annual Members ... Lie tid 99 A
Life Associates... ail ON 66 fe
Annual Associates... sz bine WETS
Missionary Associates... bie 13 ;
Hon. Corresponding Members... 108 m
Library Associates ane _ 20 as
Total 612

8. Changes in the Constitution.

The long-considered changes in the constitution have at length
been carried into effect at a Special General Meeting held on
January 24th; they are given in detail in the appendix. The
chief point is that one-third of the members of Council retire at
the Annual General Meeting each year, subject to re-election ;
this rule to come into force at the Annual Meeting, 1910. The
Council trust that by this means the bond between the Council
and the Members and Associates at large will be strengthened
and that fresh life and interest will be quickened in the Council
itself. ‘The rules have also been so altered that our Annual
Meeting may in future be held early in the year. It is there-
fore proposed to have the next Annual Meeting early in
February 1911, when the audited accounts for 1910 will be
presented, and when another third will be elected to serve on
the Council. It is intended that the commemorative address
shall be given as hitherto, towards the end of the session in
May or June.

9. The Gunning Prize.

The Prize Essay by Professor H. Langhorne Orchard, M.A.,
B.Se., was read at the Society of Arts on January 24th, 1910.
It drew together a large audience, and the discussion was well
maintained. The essay has met with wide approval, it is

eminently suited to the needs of the times, and the Council feel
assured that its circulation will be productive of much good. It
is now printed and can be purchased (in pamphlet form). Copies
have been sent for review to the leading periodicals and papers.
The Council will be grateful to all Members and Associates
who -will do what they can to circulate this useful essay, which
so well carries out the objects and aims of the Victoria Institute.

10. Special features of the Current Year.

As already noted the annual retirement of one-third of the
Members of the Council is a special feature in the history of
the Institute. This has been inaugurated this year.

The reading of the 500th paper was made a special occasion,
when a most excellent paper was contributed by Professor G. F.
C. Searle, M.A., F.R.S., on “Modern Conceptions of the Universe.”
Another paper, by the Rev. Professor Gwatkin, M.A., D.D.,
the chief authority on Early Church history, on “ Arianism
and Modern Thought,’ attracted the greatest attention, and
lastly, there is the Prize Essay already mentioned by Professor
H. Langhorne Orchard.

11. Local Meetings for the. Victoria Institute.

The Council are making a forward movement in holding
Meetings for the Victoria Institute in country towns and in the
suburbs of London. They will gladly send lecturers, or help in
any other way Members or Associates who will hold sueh
meetings in their own localities. If two or three Members or
Associates live near each other, a joint effort may be made with
this object in view. The Secretary will gladly introduce
Members and Associates to each other. Two Members have
arranged for an invitation meeting at a hall in Upper Norwood,
on May 12th next, at which Professor H. Langhorne Orchard,
M.A., B.Sc., will give an address on the subject of his prize essay
and W. Carruthers, Esq., Ph.D., F.R.S., and others have
also kindly promised to speak. Another meeting is being
arranged for in the autumn at Wimbledon. In places where
courses of winter lectures are given the Council will gladly
send a lecturer from the Victoria Institute to take part;
by this means the aims and objects of the Victoria Institute
will be directly furthered, and the work of the Institute
itself will be made known to a wide circle.

6
12. Financial.

The Council are glad to report that there is improvement
in the financial position, though the situation still demands
care and attention. Nothing was taken from the small
reserve fund as in previous years. The cash statement
nearly balances, and would have quite done so had it been
possible to publish the volume of Transactions at the usual
time. After making a careful estimate the Council have every
reason to believe that the income of the current year will meet
the expenditure. They appeal with confidence for increased
support in carrying on the work of the Victoria Institute.
They warmly welcome the Members and Associates who have
joined during the past year, and they trust that many more
may be added during the coming one.

In addition to the donations received last year in response
to the special Financial Appeal the following amounts have
since been contributed and they are now acknowledged with
thanks :—

pees Ae
Arthur W. Sutton, Esq., J.P. e aad | be Maa
S. Joshua Cooper, Esq. .... se za 18530

Further additions to this fund will greatly help the finances
of the Institute.

The Balance Sheet to 31st December, 1909, has been duly
audited, the Hon. Auditors being Lieut.-Colonel Mackinlay and
Mr. E. J. Sewell, to whom the Council tender their thanks.

Conclusion. ’

The past year has been one of progress and advance: the
work of the Institute is much needed at the present time—never
more so. The Council look forward to the future with hope
and confidence that this work may be in the words of our motto,
“ Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.”

Signed on behalf of the Council,
HALSBURY,
President.

1, Adelphi Terrace House, Strand, W.C.

“SLojipn { 109:

*SPUOUTZSOATIT O1[} POYLIOA OSTV OATTT 9 AA

See sa cen

tbe AD ee) ‘
(0) ES)

0 0 OV +
0 O OL Te
OG a

G
6
Pp 8 OF

*y00}g ABATIRAT

TIT SI S9cF

O|NGTSUYT VLLOJOT A

: ‘TTHAMAS “LH
‘LT ‘XVINIMOVW ADUOUY

DITB [CT

pleypya1g aossojorg aS a

sostodxnp “
YLT ia “ce ce
soadazayy OT, —GO6T ‘WI9S AML

“ee ce

ee oe

|
.
|

82 9
9 ¢
teh ie
vy 0)
‘D's

L
9 an
9 a0
F

‘GNOH WZlYd DNINNDD

S81 PEF oztpuos OF poqoodxo 020m onp suorjdritosqus Jo svar PE

@ 6 6z{ us "* "DZ ‘SOL &2F ISTE toquiooaqg yur ur ysep
; : axe ‘PL ‘SOT GF ITE aoqurooag pury ut ysxg Ayoq
oot) = aE ne ‘* -yavg wor pouingor onboyy
9 TLZ isa ve a an an a ‘+ gorapung
OT GI T ga ne 4 Be ns se sooIvyO yurg
O.-2L°0 es ee rg Je xe ‘+ gouRINsUy OTT
9 2 Il se oe oe oe on ee ee Aveaqry
by TEES oer ce ue . ae eal oer pur sry
0 &L gt sie we oe ve pe . * -quoy
vo Ole 5 oe a oe og ** gouRINSUT 8 yloTO
9 OL 006 ~~ se 26 e oe ss SOTLVTRS
@ € cL Me = me oe oY be man jo sosued xo
ie, WSs ee we a vai AY : o5v4s0g
£8 &1 an AT, “+ SBT Jo SITIq £1IUOTYRAG
of ao pirdun op} oto “pe “SLT OTF eseyy jo ee
(d

WHOLIGNAd Xe

1G tei th

soeF
(B) Oh (ONL ra
OF26=9 a
OL 6- $I ae
ry OL €8 a
0 ZT 00S
(Qiy it
(Oy |!
O F
Oy a7
Oma
OFS
0 F
OME
(oy (0)
6° LL. ¥
pis F p's

IE[MSUIUOT vIpUyT ywouyg goe;yF ‘puny ysnay, Suraansy oy Jo peydep ory osye ‘sposuog °

“OTGL ‘Tady WST

‘QoolIOD WOT] PUY PUR SLAYONOA PUL syood oT4 IIIA Wor parrdintos pur syunodor oT} [[e poylsa oavy o)

“

GOGT “4ST 4,0
GOGT ‘pug ‘ure 4ysat0j,UT
* SO06T WOtf voUelBey

"S/T GOTF OF poqunoume sypiq predug
, $2 ‘OLGF Jo wns jejzrced v st ovat,

: **(sostodxq) pun Sarmuny wo.
: 5c wa ar * suoreu0g
: Sr ee an "+ puaprary
: 7 ae dic ae * saqeg
" OT6T ery!

* 6061 [ez

* S061 ae

~ JOT ‘sd }VIDOSSV p

' 9O6T ‘oyVloossy T

> OI6L ae

* 606L 4: z6

* S061 ‘SLOquLoy, Z

: ** ‘aqua, eyty T—!suoyditosqng
SOGL Woay oouRleg ysep

“SLd THOU

-606T ‘STE AQ uiaoa(y Burpua os ayy lof, ‘LNUNLLVLS HSVvQ

APPENDIX TO THE REPORT.

A Special General Meeting of the Victoria Institute was held on
Monday, January 24th, at 4 p.m., to consider certain alterations in
the Constitution recommended by the Council.

Lieut.-Col. MACKINLAY, who was in the Chair, in moving the
adoption of the alterations on behalf of the Council, gave the
following explanation of their purpose and effect.

The Council consider, as mentioned at the last Annual Meeting,
that it would be wise to follow the example of many of the leading
Scientific Societies of retiring a third of their number each year,
subject to re-election, thus introducing fresh blood, and keeping in
closer touch with the members and associates. The necessary
alterations of our Constitution and Bye-Laws are now proposed by
the Council for the sanction of the Special General Meeting now
assembled.

It was stated at the last Annual Meeting that the Council
contemplate holding the Annual Meeting at the beginning of the
year instead of in May or in June, as has hitherto been the
custom. The advantages of the new plan were mentioned at the
Annual Meeting. According to §IV, Bye-Laws, 1, the Council
may determine the most convenient day in the year, this change is
therefore not alluded to in the proposed alterations, except that as
the new § II. Constitution.—Rule 4.—December Ist, is mentioned as
the limit of time for sending in the names of those nominated to
serve on the Council; this day will be at a convenient interval
before an Annual Meeting at the beginning of the year. The neat
Annual Meeting will however be held in May next, but in 1911 and
subsequently the intention is to hold the Annual Meeting at the
beginning of the year.

Advantage has been taken of the opportunity to make various
minor alterations tending to simplification and also to sanction the
practical arrangements of many years past.

For instance, as all the Meetings for reading the papers are
exactly alike, the term Intermediate Meeting has been given up.

Unnecessary formalities connected with application for membership

have been done away with, and it is now laid down that the
entrance fee of a guinea may be suspended by the Council at

times.
Mr. A. W. SuTToN seconded the resolution.
The following alterations in the Rules were then taken in order,

and passed.
The old Rules are printed below with the alterations on the

opposite pages :—

B 2

§ II. Constitution.
Old Rules.

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, a
Treasurer, one or mere Honorary Secretaries, and twelve or more (not
exceeding twenty-four) Ordinary Members of Council, whe shall be
elected at the Annual General Meeting of the Members and Associates
of the Institute. But, in the interval between two Annual Meetings,
vacancies in the Council may be filled up by the Council from among the
Members of the Society; and the Members chosen as Trustees of the
funds of the Institute shall be ex oficio Members of Council.

3. Any person desirous of becoming a Member or Associate shall
make application for admission by subscribing the Form A of the
Appendix, which must be signed by two Members of the Institute, or
by a Member of Council, recommending the candidate for admission as a
Member; or by any one Member of the Institute, for admission as an
Associate.

§ II. Constitution.
Rules as altered.

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, oue-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 Ist 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.

Old Rules.

4. Upon such application being transmitted to one of the Secretaries,
the candidate for admission may be elected by the Council, and enrolled
as a Member or Associate of the Victoria Institute, in such manner
as the Council may deem proper ; having recourse to a ballot, if thought
necessary, as regards the election of Members; in which case no person
shall be considered as elected unless he have three-fourths of the votes in

his favour.

5. Application for admission to join the Institute being thus made
by subscribing Form A, as before prescribed, such application shall
be considered as ipso facto pledging all who are thereupon admitted
as Members or Associates to 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.

6. Each Member shall pay an Entrance Fee of One Guinea and an
Annual Contribution of Two Guineas. A Donation of Twenty Guineas
shall constitute the donor a Life Member.

Rules 7-15 (incl. 14¢).

16. Both Members and Associates shall have the right to be present
to state their opinion, and to vote by show of hands at all General and
Ordinary Meetings of the Society ; but Members only shall be entitled to
vote by ballot, when a ballot is taken in order to determine any question

at a General Meeting.

S IV.

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 of the
Council on the state of the Society, and to deliberate thereon; and to
discuss and determine such matters as may be brought forward relative
to the affairs of the Society ; also, to elect the Council and Officers for the

ensuing year.

Rules as Altered.

6. Upon such application being transmitted to one of the Secretaries,
the candidate may be elected by the Council, and enrolled as a Member
or Associate of the Victoria Institute, in such 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
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.

Renumbered 9-18.

Deleted.

g IV.

1. Read for last clause :—
“ Also to elect Members of Council and Officers for the ensuing
year.”

Old Rules.

only the subjects of which notice has been given shall be discussed
thereat.

3. The Ordinary Meetings of the Society shall usually be held on the
first and the Intermediate Meetings on the third Monday evenings in
each month, from November to June inclusive or on such other 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.

4, At the Ordinary and Intermediate Meetings the order of proceeding
shall be as follows: The President, or one of the Vice-Presidents, or a
Member of the Council, shall take the chair at 4.30 o'clock precisely, the
minutes of the last Ordinary or Intermediate Meeting shall be read aloud
by one of the Secretaries, 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 communications which the Council think desirable shall be
made to the Meeting. After which, the Paper or Papers intended for
the evening’s 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). 1875.

6. The Council may at their discretion authorise Papers of a general
kind to be read at any of the Ordinary or Intermediate 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 5th Object of the Society (§ L.).

Rules as Altered,

2. The following Clause is inserted at the end of this rule :—
* And 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, from
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.

4, line 1, omit “and intermediate.”

line 3, for 4.30 read “at the time fixed for the commencement of
the Meeting.”

line 10, omit “ the evening’s.”

End of note, omit “ 1875,”

6. line 2. For “ Ordinary or Intermediate” read “ Ordinary.”

Old Rules.

7. With respect to Intermediate Meetings, the Papers read at which
are not necessarily printed nor the discussions reported, the Council at
its discretion may request any lecturer or author of a Paper to be read
thereat, previously to submit an outline of the proposed method of
treating his subject.

8. At the Ordinary or Intermediate Meetings no question relating to
the Rules or General Management of the affairs of the Society shall be
introduced, discussed or determined.

§S VI.

3. The Council may authorise 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 evening
fixed for its reading.

§ VII.

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 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 such regulations and
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 not being Members of the Council, nor Members .or
Associates of the Institute, 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
shai] be reported by the Council to the next ensuing General Meeting of
the Members to be then confirmed or otherwise as such Meeting may
think tit.

is
Rules as altered.
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. For “Ordinary or Intermediate ” read “ Ordinary.”

§ VI.

3. line 5. For “evening” read “ day.”

§ VII.

1. last line. For “ Members” read “ Members and Associates.”

2. line 15. For “ Members” read “ Members and Associates.”

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING.
MONDAY, MAY 9ru, 1910.

Tue Ricut Hoy. Tue Eart or HAtssury, F.R.S. (PRESIDENT),
IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the preceding Annual General Meeting were read
and confirmed.

An Address to His Majesty King George V. was moved from the
Chair and adopted, all present standing.

The Annual Report was presented and adopted.
The following Members of the Council were elected :—

Rev. Chancellor J. J. Lias, M.A.*

Rev. H. J. R. Marston, M.A.

E. W. Maunder, Esq., F.R.A.S.

Theo. G. Pinches, Esq., LL.D., M.R.A.S.*
Ven. Archdeacon Beresford Potter, M.A.
Ven. Archdeacon W. M. Sinclair, M.A., D.D.*
tev. J. H. Skrine, M.A.

E. J. Sewell, Esq.

J. W. Thirtle, Esq.,.LL.D., M.R.A.S.

The Annual Address was then delivered.

ADDRESS ON THE RETURN OF HALLEY’S COMET
IN 1910.

By A. C. D. CRoMMELIN, Esq., D.Sc., F.R.A.S.

We have the privilege this year of welcoming a rare visitor,

that few indeed of those now living have seen before,
or can expect to see again. Its visits occur at intervals of
three-quarters of a century, or more exactly it makes thirteen
visits in 1,000 years. The idea of welcoming a comet is one
that would have sounded strange to our ancestors, who regarded
these visitors with terror as most ill-omened and precursors of
plague, famine, and war. Their terror was not wholly unrea-
sonable, for even from our modern standpoint, comets remain

* Retiring Members re-elected.

THE RETURN OF HALLEYS ComMET IN 1910. 19

in many respects very mysterious ; to the ancients the mysteries
that they presented were quite baffling, and seemed to traverse
all that they knew, or thought they knew, about the heavenly
movements, which they rightly regarded as the embodiment. of
majestic law and order, “ Let them be for signs and for seasons
and for days and years”; “He hath established them for ever
and for ages of ages; He hath made a decree, and it shall
not pass away.” We may not all of us realise how fully these
movements were understood even 2,000 years ago; thus Fathers
Epping and Strassmaier published a work a few years ago on
the Babylonian astronomy as revealed by the cuneiform tablets,
in which they showed that a regular astronomical almanac like
our Nautical Almanac was published year by year, predicting
the places of the sun, moon, and planets for the year. (Father
Kugler is now bringing out a still fuller treatise on the same
subject.) When they came to the comets, however, their power
of prediction utterly broke down. These were utterly unlike
the other bodies in their appearance and their movements,
which refused to conform to the Zodiac or track of the planets,
but were at random in all directions, and in all parts of the
heavens. They were often so extremely rapid as to suggest
great proximity, possibly even within the confines of our own
atmosphere, in which case the apprehension was quite natural
that evil effects, such as pestilence and famine, might be the
result of their approach. It was indeed almost impossible for
the ancients to form a true idea of the cometary movements ;
their mathematical knowledge was not sufficient. Seneca, an
illustrious Roman philosopher, who lived at the beginning of
the Christian era, made a remarkable prediction about comets.

“Some day there will arise a man who will demonstrate in
what regions of the heavens the comets take their way; why
they journey so far apart from the other planets ; what their
size, their nature” (Quest: Nat., lib. vii, ce: xxvi). For over
1,600 years this remarkable prophecy remained a dead letter ;
then at last the man appeared, of whom it is said :—

Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night,
God said ‘ Let Newton be,” and all was light.

Newton showed that, under the force of gravitation attracting
according to the law of the inverse square of the distance, four
forms of orbit were possible; first, the circle, which is very
nearly the course pursued by the earth and most of the planets.
Secondly, the ellipse, or oval, which shades through all varieties
of flattening from an almost circular form, as in the orbits of

20 A. C. D. CROMMELIN, ESQ., D.SC., F.R.A.S., ON

Mars and Mercury, to an extremely elongated form. Thus in
the case of Halley’s comet the breadth is a quarter of the length,
but the ellipse may be still more flattened than this; there is
indeed no limit to the amount, and we are led on to the third
form, the parabola, which we may look on as simply an ellipse
of infinite length. The fourth form, the hyperbola, does not
occur much in the heavens, and need not detain us. Newton
soon saw that comets might be explained by supposing them
to move in very elongated ellipses, or even in parabolas,
remaining invisible for most of the time, and only being visible
for a short time, when in the portion of their orbit nearest to
the sun. Halley, who had more inclination than Newton for
the huge arithmetical computations required, entered into the
new ideas with enthusiasm, and computed the orbits of all the
comets for which observations of the necessary accuracy were
available. They were twenty-four in number, and went back
for about 200 years before his time. By a piece of good
fortune, which he had most richly merited by his assiduous
labours, the same comet occurred three times in his list, and
when he came to tabulate the results he noticed that the
comets of 1531, 1607, 1682 were travelling in practically the
same orbit round the sun. It should be mentioned that the
assumption of parabolic motion was made in the first instance,
as the necessary computations were simplified, since all parabolas
are similar curves, and tables can be made which will serve for
all cases, while in the case of ellipses different tables would be
required for every case. When he noticed the resemblance of
orbits he at once conjectured that this was the same body
returning at intervals of three-quarters of a century. On
finding the elements of the necessary ellipse to correspond
with this period, he saw that it satisfied the observations of the
comet better than the parabolic assumption, and this streng-
thened his conclusion. The only thing against it was that the
intervals between the returns were not exactly equal; the first
being fifteen months longer than the second. This puzzled him
for a time till he recollected that, even in the case of the
planets, one revolution was not exactly equal to another. It is
true that the differences here were only minutes or hours, not
months or years; the cause of the irregularities he knew to be
the perturbations which the planets produce on each otber’s
motion, and he saw that these would be greater in the case of
the comet, which passed at times very much closer to the giant
planets than these can do to each other ; further, in an elongated
orbit a small alteration in the velocity, when not very remote

THE RETURN OF HALLEY’S COMET IN 1910. ot

from the sun, has a much greater effect on the period than
would be the case in a circular orbit. Halley was quite right
in these conclusions, and we now know that the planetary
influences can alter the period by even more than the fifteen
months required by the case before him; the total range is five
years, the longest on record is seventy-nine years, four and a
half months, between A.p. 451 and 530; the shortest is that in
the revolution just completed, which is seventy-four years,
five months. Making a rough allowance for the action of
Jupiter, Halley said the comet might be expected to return to
perihelion at the end of 1758, or the beginning of 1759; be it
noted that this was the first time in the world’s history that the
return of a comet had been predicted; Halley was fully con-
scious of the new epoch in astronomy that he was opening, and
said, “(Quo circa si secundum predicta nostra redierit iterum
circa annum 1758, hoc primum ab homine Anglo inventum
fuisse non inficiabitur aequa posteritas.” It is rather a curious
commentary on these words that it is just in England that we
find scepticism expressed as to the fulfilment of the prediction.
The well-known Gentleman’s Magazine, in its issue for Oct., 1758,
has these verses, which show that the writer had not even ‘taken
the trouble to find exactly what Halley had predicted, fancying
that he had dated the comet’s return a year earlier than he had
actually done :—

Comet that came in eighty-two,
Would come, it was foretold, anew,
Late in the last, or soon this year,
That sees, tho’ late, none such appear
An insignificant delay !

It will come yet, some sages say ;
Tho’ it should not appear, say some
As sure as fortune, it will come.
Prediction, this, that bears the shape,
To vulgar eye, of an escape ;

Or trick of cometary learning,

To set itself above discerning.

Now, Mr. Urban, you must know,
Wager was laid, a year ago,

That it would come ; and time within
Last year, or present, is to win.
Should it then come, and not be seen,
Pray, in your ancient magazine,

To which both parties have referred,
Let the uncommon case be heard.

22 A. C. D. CROMMELIN, ‘ESQ., D.SC., F.B.A.S., ON

That public sense may try the cause,
And tell us by what wondrous laws,
We may be sure, in any year,

That Comets come which don’t appear.
For tho’ philosophers may sing,

That calculation proves the thing,
Pray, let them tell us how they show
That this, their calculation’s true.

At the very time when these scornful words were being
written in England, the well-known French astronomers,
Clairaut and Lalande, were so convinced of the truth of Halley’s
prediction, that they undertook, and with the help of Madame
Lepaute, successfully carried out the computation of the
planetary perturbations for the two revolutions of the comet,,.
1607-1682, and 1682-1759. It was necessary to compute the
earlier revolution to find the actual angular velocity of the
comet in 1682, and the later one, in order to find how much
that velocity was modified by planetary action during the
ensuing round. Their result was successful, considering that
the masses of Jupiter and Saturn were still imperfectly known,
and that Uranus and Neptune were undiscovered. The date
they assigned was just a month too late, the comet being found
by the amateur astronomer Palitsch, on Christmas day, 1758,
and passing its nearest point to the sun on March 13th, 1759.
After the discovery the Gentleman's Magazine executed a
remarkable volte-face, and forgot its earlier attitude. In its
issue for May, 1759, it published these verses, which are dated
New York, April 16th, 1759 :—

Hah! There it flames, the long-expected star,
And darts its awful glories from afar !
Punctual at length the traveller appears,
From its long journey of near fourscore year's.
Lo! the reputed messenger of fate,

Array’d in glorious but tremendous state,
Moves on majestic o’er the heavenly plane,
And shakes forth sparkles from its fiery train.
Ah! my misfortune that I live retired,

And nought avail me arts I once acquired ?
Here, like a hermit, in my lonely cell,

Far from the mansions where the muses dwell.
I’m forced to act the common gazer’s part,
Alas! unfurnished with the aids of art.

O for the tube, with philosophic eye,

To trace the shining wanderer through the sky !

bo
C4
Oo

THE RETURN OF HALLEY’S COMET IN 1910.

O for the ampler arch, in nicer mode,

To mark its stages through the azure road !
But vain the wish! Oh! ye that can survey
The glorious orb, and track its radiant way ;
While vulgar crowds with dull attention gaze,
And gaping wonder at the silver blaze:

Ye sons of science, from your high abodes,
Desery its oblique path, and mark its nodes,
Explore with what velocity ’tis hurled,

And how exact its period round the world.
Now, now in this delightful work engage,
Pursue the steps of the sagacious sage,*
And be this wiser than the former age.

I think these verses are of sufficient interest to reproduce, as
showing the ideas that were prevalent in England both before
and after the comet was seen. Perhaps Halley’s reputation
shone all the more brightly from the temporary scepticism ; it
was certainly a noble achievement to have robbed this comet of
the superstitious dread which for centuries had accompanied its
appearance, and to have transformed it from an aimless wan-
derer to a permanent member of thesolar system, whose behaviour
can now be foretold almost as accurately as that of the planets.

Halley recognised that his comet might be carried backwards
as well as forwards, by studying cometary records, and he was
successful in identifying the comet of 1456 as the same body.
Before that time his efforts were less successful; failing to
realise how greatly the period of the comet might be altered by
the action of the planets, he proceeded with a uniform time-
interval, and deduced a series of returns which were all
erroneous, extending back to the comet stated to have been
observed at the death of Julius Cesar, and that very brilliant
one that is said to have signalised the birth of Mithridates.

It was not till the nineteenth century that the early history
of the comet was placed on a more satisfactory basis. M.
Laugier showed that Halley was wrong in taking the comet of
1580 as his; the right one was that of 1578; he also showed
that the comets of A.D. 451 and 760 were in all probability the
same body. A few years later Dr. Hind, who was for many
years the superintendent of the Nautical Almanac, drew up a
list of conjectural identifications for every return from 12 B.c.
to A.D. 1301, some fairly certain, from the exactitude with
which their paths had been described, other admittedly vague

* Dr. Halley.

24 A. C. D. CROMMELIN, ‘ESQ., D.SC., F.R.A.S., ON

and doubtful. In the last few years a large piece of compu-
tational work, in which I have borne a part, has been carried
out, with the object of testing Hind’s list.

The effect of the planets on the period of the comet has been
calculated for each revolution, and conjecture has given place
to certainty. On the whole Hind’s list was singularly
accurate, but he was seriously wrong in two cases; in A.D. 608
he was one and a half years too late, and in A.D. 1225 nearly a
year too late. The history of the comet now extends with
certainty to 240 B.c., and with some degree of probability to
613 B.c., in the autumn of which year a comet passed through
the Great Bear. The great cometographer Pingré fancied that
this comet might be alluded to by the prophet Jeremiah (i, 13) ;
“T see a boiling caldron, and the face thereof from the face of
the north.” He even conjectured that the “rod watching” in
verse 11, might be the tail of the comet; Pingré suggested that
the tail was seen before the head had risen; when the latter
appeared it resembled a caldron with steam rising from it.
The insertion of the word “north” lends colour to the sugges-
tion that a celestial apparition may be indicated.

These guesses seem to me to be extremely doubtful, but
the interest of finding a possible reference to our comet in
Scripture justified us in quoting them. Two revolutions later,
in 467 B.c., both Anaxogoras and Aristotle relate that a
meteoric stone fell at Aegospotami, and that a comet was seen
at the same time. It is interesting to find these events
mentioned in juxtaposition at such an early date. This comet
was also seen in China, but unfortunately no details are given
of its track through the constellations, so its identification is
doubtful. Three revolutions later we come to our first certain
identification, in 240 B.c., when the Chinese annals state that a
comet was seen first in the east, then in the north, and finally
for sixteen days in May in the west. The return in 12 B.C. is
interesting, being so near the birth of Our Lord, which
according to the date assigned by Lt.-Col. Mackinlay, fell four
years later. This comet is described with great fulness in the
Chinese annals, to which we are indebted for most of our
knowledge of ancient comets; the European records are far
Jess precise, and in this case simply relate that “A comet was
seen for several days, it appeared suspended over the city of
Rome; then it appeared to break up into several little torches.”
Halley’s comet next appeared in A.D. 66, January, four years
before the fall of Jerusalem. It is not impossible that this
was the comet resembling a sword, which according to

THE RETURN OF HALLEY’S Comet IN 1910. 25
Josephus, appeared suspended over Jerusalem shortly before
its fall. At least we have no certain record of any other comet
nearer the time of the fall. Then follow returns on a.p. 141
March 25th, a.p. 218 April 6th (described as a terrifying
spectacle, preceding the death of the Emperor Macrinus), A.D.
295 April 7th, a.p. 373 November 7th, A.pD, 451 July 3rd. This
comet came about the time of the defeat of Attila by AXtius ;
it is referred to by Idatius, who says it was seen as a morning
star in June, and an evening star in July. The Chinese annals
accurately describe its course from the Pleiades through Leo,
ending near Beta Leonis. A.D. 530 November, when it was
described as very grand and terrifying, resembling a burning
torch; A.D. 607 March, A.D. 684 October. This appearance is
interesting, from a rough sketch in the Nuremberg Chronicle,
that purports to represent it; there is however no proof that
it is really contemporary; A.D. 760 June, very full vee
record, enabling Laugier to confidently identify the comet :
Halley’ 8; A.D. 837 F ebruary 25th, taken by Louis le Mabon
as a sign of his approaching death. A.D. 912 July, a return
which tili lately rested on computation only, no observation
being known. <A Japanese astronomer, Hirayama, has now
found a record of its visitility in Japan from July 19th to 28th.
A.D. 989 September 2nd ; A.D. 1066 March 25th ; this is the appari-
tion that is associated with the Norman Conquest. The terror
that it caused in England is illustrated by the manner in which it
was apostrophised by Elmer, a monk of Malmesbury ; “ Venisti,
multis matribus lugende ; dudum est quod te vidi, sed nune
multo terribiliorem te intueor, patriae hujus excidium
vibrantem.” It is perhaps permissible to note of this same
Elmer that he invented a flying machine, the wings being
operated by his hands and legs, and launching himself from a,
high tower, ‘flew for a furlong ; “but caught in a ‘sudden cust and
becoming panic-stricken, he fell headlong, and was lamed for
life, a disaster which he ascribed to his having omitted to give
his machine a tail.

On the other side of the Channel William of Normandy took
the comet as of good omen for himself, and one of his courtiers
wrote the following doggerel lines upon it :—

Caesariem, Caesar, tibi si natura negavit
Hane, W illel me, tibi stella comata dedit.

As is well known, the comet is portrayed on the Bayeux
tapestry, and this is the oldest representation of it that is certainly

authentic. Crude as it is, there are two features that are con-
o 2

26 A. C. D. CROMMELIN, ESQ., D.SC., F.R.A.S., ON

firmed by modern photographs—the tail streamers, radiating
like a fan from the nucleus, and the luminous masses which
have the aspect of moving rapidly outwards.

A group of Normans gazes at the comet in wonder “ Isti
mirantur stellam.” In the adjoining panel of the tapestry
Harold is represented quaking on his throne under the combined
terrors of the comet, the landing of the Norsemen, and the
threatened Norman invasion.

A.D. 1145, April 19th. This return is of special interest, since
the perihelion passage was on the same day as in the present
year, and consequently the motion and behaviour of the comet
are closely similar. Some interesting colloquial details are given
by Hirayama. It was first seen «bout April 20th as a morning
star ; by May 9th its tail was 5° long; about May 15th it passed
the sun, and became an evening star. The next day the
chronicler says, “The tail was 5° long, directed towards
the east ; the end was concealed by clouds; I went out of the
door and saw it.” On May 17th the tail was 20° long. On
June 4th the head was seen, but the tail had disappeared, to the
astonishment of Moronaga, a friend of the chronicler. The tail
reappeared on June 8th, and moonlight is stated to have been
the cause of its disappearance earlier. We have, however, in
modern times some undoubted cases of the disappearance of
tails for a time. It was followed in Japan till June 18th, and
in China till July 14th. It will scarcely be followed so long
with the unaided eye at the present return. I have myself no
doubt that the intrinsic lustre of the comet has greatly declined
since the middle ages, though it is right to say that Dr. Holets-
chek, a great authority on the subject, takes an opposite view.

The return of September, 1222, is one in which we (Mr.
Cowell and myself) may justifiably take some pride, as we were
the first to show that this grand object was Halley’s comet;
the much feebler object of July, 1225, had previously been taken
for it. - That of 1222 must have been a very striking sight ; the
Japanese say that the head was white, and as large as the half-
moon ; the tail was red, 17° in length. The European records
state that in August a star of the first magnitude appeared,
very red, with a Tong tail pointing to the zenith, Compared
with it the moon appeared as if dead. and seemed to have no
more light. The fact that both in Europe and Japan it was com-
pared to the moon shows what a splendid object it must have been.

Historians also give a glowing account of its splendour in
October, 1301, when it appeared in mid-September in Gemini,
and went through Ursa Major to Corona and Hercules, being

THE RETURN OF HALLEY’S COMET IN 1910. XE

visible for forty-six days. It was seen in all parts of the
known world, but, as in most of the ancient returns, the Chinese
records are much the most precise; indeed without their aid. it
would have been quite impossible tu carry back this long chain
ot identifications. Let us give them the credit they deserve for
their patient, long sustained vigils, which have added so greatly
to our knowledge of the history of this comet.

We have now an array of some twenty-nine observed returns,
many of them recorded as objects of great splendour. The first
reflection suggested by them is the close touch that we are
brought into with far-distant centuries, in being able to con-
template the very same body that has so often filled the world
with wonder and admiration; but besides the sentimental
aspect, there are, I think, some deductions of value with regard
to the constitution of this and other comets. Dr. Johnston
Stoney some years ago developed the theory of planetary
atmospheres from the standpoint of the kinetic theory of gases ;
the gaseous molecules are moving with speeds of miles per
second, hydrogen having the greatest speed, and the speeds of
the others diminishing as their density increases. Now each
planet has a certain speed which suffices to carry objects away
from its surface. In the case of the sun it is 385 miles per
second, for Jupiter 37, for the other giant planets upwards of 13,
for the Earth 7, Venus 6, Mars and Mercury 3, the Moon 1}
miles per second.

An explanation is found of the fact that hydrogen is found in
the sun and giant planets, but not in the smaller ones, its mole-
cular speed being too high. The earth can retain the denser
gases, but the moon cannot, and her airless condition is thus
explained. Now there is no doubt, from what we know of the
mass of comets, that their critical speed is much lower even
than that of the moon; hence it is clearly impossible that they
could permanently retain a gaseous envelope ; that which we
see surrounding them is not, therefore, of the nature of a
permanent atmosphere, but is perpetually escaping from the
head of the comet, and perpetually being renewed. The tail that
we may see in Halley’s comet to-day is a different one from what
was seen a monthago. At every return for two thousand years it
has been seen to eject a series of huge tails, which streamed away
into space, and could not be recovered by it. Now there must
be some storehouse to contain all this gas, and the storehouse
must be of a much denser nature than the gas, since it moves
as though under gravitation alone, while the tail does not.
And, seeing that we know that a close connection exists between

28 A. C. D. CROMMELIN, ESQ., D.SC., F.R.A.S., ON

the comets of 1862, 1866, and Biela’s comet with the Perseid,
Leonid and Andromedid meteor showers respectively, and further
that the meteors that have fallen to earth and have been chemi-
cally analysed have been found to contain much occluded gas,
especially hydrogen, which with its compounds is indicated in
cometary spectra, it seems to me a most natural and probable
deduction to draw that the reservoir containing the gas of comets’
tails is a dense form of meteors ; in fact, I should scarcely have
thought it a matter of dispute, had not several well-known
astronomers expressed doubts about the connection of comets
and meteors. There is the further argument for the presence of
a nucleus made of solid matter, that it appears to move exactly
as if under the force of gravitation alone.

The calculations of its motion are made on this assumption,
and the difference between theory and observation in the time
of its perihelion passage amounts to only three days in a period
of some 27,000 days, showing that the action of non-gravitational
forces on the head is barely sensible; but on the tail matter
these repulsive forces far exceed gravitation, showing that the
particles of the nucleus are much denser than those of the tail,
and no doubt solid. I even venture to assert that the solid
matter in the head of Halley’s comet is not mere dust, but is in
the form of pretty large lumps, at least several feet across,
since otherwise I should expect the supply of gas to have been
exhausted after a few returns. I think it is likely that the loss
of gas occurs only when the comet is near the sun, the occluded
gas being drawn out, either by the action of heat or some other
exciting cause. When in the cold of outer space it probably
sinks into a torpid condition and is devoid of envelopes.

An exceedingly rare event is about to happen this month,
which may throw some light on the constitution of the comet’s
head; [I make out that this event, the transit of the comet over
the dise of the sun, only happens if the perihelion passage falls
in one particular half day of the entire year; that is, that
one return in 700 or once in 50,000 years. Unfortunately
the sun will be below our horizon when the comet crosses it,
but astronomers in more favoured lands will be on the alert,
notably at the Kodaikanal Observatory in India, whence Mr.
Evershed writes to me that they are making preparations to
photograph the sun in ultra-violet light, and in other methods
that seem to give the best hope of success.

Let us however consider the conditions, and we shall see that
failure is quite likely; the comet will be 15,000,000 miles
distant, or sixty times as far away as the moon. At that

THE RETURN OF HALLEYS COMET IN 1910. 29

distance a lump of matter five miles in diameter would appear
only one-fifteenth of a second across; this would be the very
tiniest particle that would be separately visible ; smaller particles
might however be seen as a dusky patch, but only if they are
closely congregated. There is no chance of seeing any of the
gaseous envelopes of the comet against the brightness of the
solar background. Even failure to see anything of the transit
will teach us something, since we shall be able to fix superior
limits to the size and density of the particles forming the nucleus.
Since the tail of a comet points almost exactly away from the
sun, it was at once seen that there was a possibility of our going
through the tail at the time of the transit. The only element
of doubt is whether the length of the tail will be sufficient to
reach us; it will need to be 15,000,000 miles long, and Dr.
Holetschek’s researches show that it has only Just attained this
length at the more recent returns. Even if the tail does reach
us, 1t is of such ethereal tenuity that it is quite doubtful whether
we should be able to detect its presence when in the midst of
it ; there would be no contrast in this case, as when we see it
from without on the black background of the sky, it would fill
the whole heavens with a sort of diffused glare; something of
the kind was recorded when we went through the tail of a comet
in 1861 (it is instructive to see the apparent form of that
comet when it was very near the earth; owing to perspective it
appeared like a widely opened fan; we may look for a similar
appearance if the tail of Halley’s comet reaches us). Dr.
Birkeland makes the suggestion that if we pass through the tail
there may be a striking auroral display; this does not seem im-
possible, since the aurora is now thought to be due to the excite-
ment of certain gases in our upper air by electrons emitted by
the sun, of very similar nature to those supposed to form
comets’ tails. It is hardly likely that the presence of the tail
would be sensible in any other way; arrangements have how-
ever been made by which any abnormal manifestation would be
fairly sure to be detected.

So much has iately been written about the physics of comets’
tails that it is almost necessary to include some discussion of it.
There is no question that there is some agency driving the tail-
particles outwards from the sun much more potently than
gravitation can pull them in; but as regards the nature of this
action it is difficult to decide between three contending hypo-
theses. (i) That it is the pressure of light acting on the very tiny
particles emitted by the head; this action is quite insensible
compared with gravity in the case of large bodies, but when the

30 A. C. D. CROMMELIN, ESQ., D.SC., F.R.A.S., ON

diameter of the particle is of the same order as the wave length
of light it pees important, being equal to gravity when the
Pas IS sptoy Inch and twenty times gravity for a diameter
of =sgaa Inch, after which it appears to diminish again. There is
a difticulty about this theory for explaining all the facts in that
it would involve an almost constant acceleration of the tail
matter through the whole length of the tail. (ii) That it is
electrical repulsion from the sun acting on the charged particles
emitted by the head. Mr. Eddington has pointed out that we
might on this assumption explain the cessation of repulsion at
a certain distance by gradual neutralisation of the charge. (a1)
The third explanation, which has been put forward in a number
of slightly varying forms in recent years, suggests that the sun
and not the comet’s head is the originator of the greater part of
the tail matter; the function of the head being the repulsion of
this matter to form the envelopes and also rendering it Juminous ;
the theory involves the large assumption that the discharge of
these ions or electrons is unceasingly going on in all directions
round the sun, for comets emit tails whatever their direction
from the sun may be; in this they differ from the streams of
matter forming the corona or producing magnetic storms and
aurore on the earth; for these, as Mr. Maunder has shown, are
ejected along definite stream-lines, and could only produce some
momentary excitement in a comet’s tail, not the long-enduring
phenomena with which we are familiar.

To my mind both the telescopic and photographic, and I
may add the spectrographic, study of comets seems to show
that the head, coma, and tail form a single entity, and that the
tail belongs to the head and is emitted by it, not by the sun.
Halley’s comet itself may add to our knowledge of cometary
physics, for at the return of 1835 it was the scene of very
active changes; on October 10th Smyth noticed a curious
brush of light issuing from the nucleus, resembling the
luminous sector drawn by Hevelius in 1682. The next day it
had developed into a lucid sector, with two rays spreading on
either side of the nucleus across the direction of the tail. On
October 12th Struve saw it attended by two delicately-shaped
appendages of light, one preceding, the other following the
nucleus. At other times, he says, it was surrounded by a
semicircular veil, which extended back in a double train of
light to a vast distance. Bessel tried to explain some of the
changes of shape by supposing a rotation of the comet in five
days, and Professor W. H. Pickering adopted the same explana-
tion for the changes of shape of some recent comets. There

THE RETURN OF HALLEY’S comet In 1910. 31

are, however, difficulties in the way, for a volume of gas has
no rigidity, and cannot rotate as a whole; even if we admit a
controlling force, each molecule of the tail would rotate with
a different period, according to its distance from the axis. It
seems to me that a rotation of the head would produce a
semblance of rotation in the tail emitted by it. The structure
in this case would be spiral, a form suggested by some of the
photographs of Morehouse’s comet of 1908. On its emergence
from the sun’s rays in 1856, Halley’s comet was best placed
for southern observers, and Sir J. Herschel and Maclear at the
Cape made drawings of it. It seems to have lost its tail in
January, two months after perihelion, so we must be prepared
for a similar phenomenon in June next. Morehouse’s comet,
in like manner, went through a tailless phase several times
during its period of visibility. It appears that all predictions
as to the brilliance of a comet at any particular time are quite
uncertain; we can predict its distance from sun and earth,
but not these physical changes, to which some comets seem to
be much more subject than others.

We have the great advantage of photography during the
present apparition for giving a continuous and reliable record
of all the variations, as also for enabling the comet to be
detected eight months before perihelion passage, at which time
it was of the sixteenth magnitude, that is, it only gave zo¢o5
of the light of a sixth magnitude star, which itself is barely
visible to the unaided eye. For the first few months the
comet brightened up rapidly, and by mid-November it was an
easy object in telescopes of moderate size, being as bright as
the tenth magnitude. Then the increase seemed to be arrested,
and it only increased very slehtly in brightness up to the
middle of January; but by the end of that month there were
‘evident signs of a tail forming, and by mid-February the comet
was seen by the naked eye by Professor Wolf, who had also
been the first to detect its presence on the photographic plate.

A photograph taken at Juvisy showed quite a conspicuous
tail, and a drawing at the beginning of March showed a
remarkable double tail, not unlike some of the sketches made
in 1835. The comet was then lost in the sunlight, but
reappeared as a morning star about the middle of April. It
had greatly brightened during its absence, and was now of the
second magnitude. At 4.30 am.on April 20th it passed its
perihelion, and commenced another revolution, which will not
be completed till early in 1986. I have myself seen it early
in May. when it was quite conspicuous, in spite of its being

32 A: C. D. CROMMELIN, ESQ., D.SC., F.R.A.S., ON

very near the horizon, and the sky having begun to brighten.
We have thus every reason to look for a fairly good display as
an evening star during the last ten days of May, thouzh ae is
right to warn those who saw the great comet of 1882,
Donati’s comet in 1858, that there will be nothing to commen
with these from a spectacular point of view. It may not even
equal the bright object which formed a nine days’ wonder last
January. It is just because the old records speak of it as one
of the brightest comets of its time, that I think it must have
greatly declined since then.

A few words on the subject of computing the perturbations
may be of interest. The planets are pulling the comet all the
time, altering its speed and direction of motion and thus chang-
ing the ellipse in which it is moving round the sun. Whatever
inethod we employ, we have to calculate the distance and
direction of the comet from each of the larger planets at short
intervals of time during the whole revolution. The old method
assumed the comet to move for some time exactly in some
definite ellipse, and the disturbances were calculated and
added up; their combined effect applied to the ellipse gave a
new ellipse, and the comet was then assumed to follow this for
another space of time, and so on. This method was both cum-
brous and inexact; Mr. Cowell devised the better plan of not
making the assumption of elliptical motion at all, but
determining the curvature at each point of the path, from the
whole of the forces acting (solar and planetary) and then
building up the path, are by are, from these curvatures. It is
necessary when the comet is near the sun, and the curvature
great, to compute it with extreme accuracy; the unit of length
at this part of the orbit was taken as the eleventh decimal of
the distance from the earth to the sun, or about 5 feet. Need-
less to say, we do not know the actual place of the comet to —
anything like this degree of accuracy, in fact, not within some
20 miles. But unless the curvature were investigated with a
much higher degree of accuracy than the actual place is known,
errors would arise in the deduced path, which would be very
serious at the end of a revolution. Far the largest perturbations
are those that arise when the comet is passing near Jupiter, and
it is interesting to note that the perturbations arising at one of
these approaches do not make a very appreciable alteration in
the comet’s place for the next year or two, but show their full
effect when it comes back seventy-five years later. For the
perturbations are really small changes in the amount and
direction of the motion, and it takes time for these to develop
into appreciable alterations in the comet's place.

THE RETURN OF HALLEY’S coMET IN 1910. 33

The revolution just completed is much the shortest on
record, and this is due to the fact that both in 1834 and in
1836 Jupiter was placed exactly hehind the comet and reduced
its speed considerably on each occasion. ‘That a record passage
should be the result of reduced speed sounds rather paradoxical,
but the case is like that of a thrower’s arm being held when he
throws a stone into the air; it will not rise so high and comes
back to earth sooner. So the comet has not gone so far into
space as usual on the last revolution, and the sun’s attraction
has been able to bring it back more quickly. Our own earth
assisted in the shortening of the revolution to the extent of one
week, the comet having been near us in October, 1835. One of
the chief points of interest in the calculation is to see whether
there is any indication of unknown forces acting on the comet.
The actual return is three days later than the calculated one,
and from the precautions taken, it is inferred that at least two
of these days are due to some unknown cause, not to errors in
the calculation. The unknown cause may be a planet beyond
Neptune, or a resisting medium or the reaction produced on the
nucleus by the emission of the tail-matter.

Two quotations from Sir G. Airy’s address or presenting the
Astronomical Society’s medal to Professor Rosenberger in 1835
come in very appropriately here: “How are these wild bodies
to be disciplined to our service? They are to be sent forth as
spies; they are to go in directions in which no planets move ;
they are to explore spaces in which no other bodies are known
to’ exist; and they are to return bringing us an account, such
as the physical astronomer can read, of the forces to which they
have been subjected, and of the nature of the spaces through
which they have passed. Have the anomalous motions of
Uranus caused some astronomers to suspect the existence of a
large planet beyond him? Then may we hope that Halley’s
or Olbers’ comet will, in some revolution, feel its effect while
far beyond our sight, and wil 1eturn to our eyes still bearing in
its disturbed motions a trace of the perturbations which it has
undergone. Has it for ages past been conjectured that some
matter exists in the planetary space which in time may
sensibly affect the motions of the most dense bodies? Then
will the comparative insignificance of the comets be more likely
to feel its effects.”

“We have seen a comet whose last appearance it is probable
that no man living can distinctly recollect—whose period
exceeds the limit of ordinary life—whose path extends into
spaces far beyond any which in other parts of physical

34 A. C. D, CROMMELIN, ESQ., D.SC., F.R.A.S., ON HALLEY’S COMET.

astronomy we have need to consider—we have seen it return
within a day of its computed time, and have traced it through
the heavens, describing nearly the path which had been laid
down for it. I confess that the sight of this strange body and
the contemplation of the uniformity of the law which has
cuided its motions, and of the acquaintance with that law and
the power of tracing its effects, which man has acquired, have
been to me a source of intense pleasure. And I doubt not that
the same gratification has been experienced by every astronomer
who has been accustomed to regard his sublime science on the
one hand as the most severe exeicise of the intellect, and on
the other hand as the study which leads most certainly to a
knowledge of the general laws of the universe.”

I hope I have now said enough to show that Halley’s comet,
while it cannot in these modern days offer us a spectacle of
surpassing grandeur, ought nevertheless to awaken deep interest
in all thoughtful minds, from the long vista of history down
which it carries us, from its being the first comet in the world’s
history whose return was ever foretold, and perhaps most of all
from its association with the great Englishman whose name it
will bear for all time.

499TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 7ru, 1909.

Proressor E. Huut, LL.D., F.R.S. (VICE-PRESIDENT),
IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed.

The following elections were announced :—

Members: Cecil Broadbent, Esq.

Colonel F. B. P. White.

Colin MacLarty, Esq.

Professor F. Roget, of Geneva.

Rev. Prebendary Shelford, M.A.
Associates: F. P. Trench, Esq., M.B., F.R.C.S.Ed.

Rev. F. Cecil Lovely, B.A.

Rev. F. Webster Maunsell, M.A.

In the absence of the author the following paper was then read by the
Secretary :—

THE IVORY ISLANDS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN.
By the Rev. D. GaTH WHITLEY.

N many recent and valuable works of science, the distribution
| of the remains of the Mammoth in Siberia have been
described. We now understand fully that the bones and tusks
of Mammoths are found over the whole of Siberia, and that they
are particularly abundant in the northern portions of that
country. The remains of the Mammoth in fact increase in
numbers as we travel from southern to northern Siberia, until
we find them in their greatest abundance on the shores of the
Arctic Ocean. We also frequently find that many perfect bodies
of Mammoths and rhinoceroses are found in the frozen soil of
northern Siberia.* These carcases are, when discovered, quite
perfect, and have been preserved in this condition, by the
perpetually frozen soil in which they are buried. It is therefore
absolutely necessary to believe that the bodies were frozen up
immediately after the animals died, and were never once thawed,
until the day of their discovery. No other theory will explain
the perfect preservation of the bodies of these great elephants.

* Tsherski, J. D., Mem. Acad. Imp. St. Petersburg, vol. x!, 1892.

36 REY. D. GATH WHITLEY, ON THE

Strange as these facts aré we have now to examine some-
thing still more remarkable, and to consider the extraordinary
phenomenon of the occurrence of enormous masses of elephants’
bones in desolate islands of the Arctic Ocean. In the icy waters
of the Polar Sea to the north of Siberia, there lie islands which
are enclosed in ice for the greater portion of the year. Never-
theless the soil of these desolate islands is absolutely packed
full of the bones of elephants and rhinoceroses in such
astonishing numbers, that no places in the whole world contain
such quantities of elephants’ remains, as do these icy islands in
the Arctic Sea. The whole records of science contain no stranger
chapter than that which describes the discovery and position of
the remains of the Mammoth in the islands in the Arctic
Ocean.

It would be difficult to imagine a more dreary expanse of the
sea than that portion of the Arctic Ocean which lies directly to
the north of Siberia. For nine months in the year it is
continually frozen, and during the long winter it seems to be
abandoned to the spirit of the North Pole. What adds to its
loneliness also, is the fact that even in summer nearly the
whole extent of its coast is uninhabited by human beings.
Nordenskiéld says that, in his voyage along the northern coast
of Siberia in the Vega during the summer of 1878, he did not
see a single human being on the shore, in the whole stretch from
Yue or Schar (at the westernmost point of Siberia) to Cape
Chelagskoi. In fact it was only when the Vega reached the
land of the Chukches, in the extreme north-east of Siberia, that
human inhabitants were seen.* This loneliness of ‘the Siberian:
coast is in striking contrast to the constant signs of man which
are met with along the arctic shores of America, where the huts
of the Eskimo cover the coast, and their boats are constantly
passing to and fro over the waters. In sailing along the
Siberian coast neither boats nor houses are seen, and until the
Jhukche country is reached no signs of man are visible.

The navigation of the Arctic Ocean to the north of Siberia is,
in summer, both difficult and dangerous. At that season of the
year the enormous fields of ice which cover the ocean during
the winter are indeed broken up, but great masses of ice are
always drifting to and fro, and these are often of great size,
although the colossal icebergs which float over the Greenland
seas are not encountered. Fogs in summer are thick and
frequent, and render the progress of a vessel slow and difficult,

* Voyage of the “ Vega,” vol. i, pp. 429, 480.

IVORY ISLANDS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN. Si

as they conceal the icebergs, and hide all indications of shoals
and sandbanks. Animal life is, in summer, wonderfully abun-
dant and varied. Whales swim and spout in the sea. Seals:
abound on the beach, and sport amid the waves. The white
whale, and the beautiful narwhal with its spotted body and its
long horn, plunge and toss to and fro in the waters, and the
walrus in great numbers basks on the ice-fields or swims in the
waves. Birds of all kinds exist in countless numbers, either
soaring overhead, or perching in myriads on the ledges of the
cliffs, where they keep up a perfectly deafening screaming.

The ice on the Arctic Ocean to the North of Siberia breaks up
in the end of June or in the beginning of July, and the sea, in
this region, may freeze at any time from the middle of
September to the beginning of October. The Vega entered the
Kara Sea on August Ist, 1878, and was frozen in a short distance
to the north-west of Behring’s Straits on September 28th, and
the ice around the vessel did not break up until July 18th of
the following year. When frozen the surface of the sea is not
smooth, but is covered with ridges of ice which are often 70 or
80 feet high, and are most difficult to cross in the dog-sledges
in which the natives traverse the frozen sea. Even in winter
animal life is not entirely absent from the icy wilderness.
Bears prowl over the ice-fields, seals appear here and there,
stone-foxes wander about, following the tracks of the bear, to
pick any leavings from its feasts, and the ptarmigan and snowy-
owl winter amidst the icy wilderness.

The honour of discovering and of surveying the Siberian Arctic
Ocean belongs entirely to the Russians. Sir Hugh Willoughby,
with the English expedition of 1553, died before he could enter
the Kara Sea, and although the Swedish expedition under
Nordenskiold in the Veya, was the first that made a. continu-
ous voyage in a single vessel from Novaya Zemlya to Behring’s
Straits, the coasts along which the Vega sailed had been
surveyed and mapped by the Russians long before. In the
latter part of the sixteenth century the merchants of Archangel
carried on an extensive coast trade with northern Siberia.
They dragged their large boats across the Kanin peninsula on
the east of the White Sea, and having traversed the Kara Sea,
they reached the coast of the Yalmal Peninsula. Ascending a
river in this peninsula they dragged their ight boats across the
watershed, and descending another river they gained the Gulf
of Obi. Thence they voyaged to the Yenesei, and made their
way up that river to the town of Mangaseia, where they met
merchants and natives from the south and east, and after

38 REV. D.'GATH WHITLEY, ON THE

exchenging goods, the Russians returned to Archangel with
valuable cargoes of furs and other merchandise. This trade
was carried on for some time, until the conquest of Siberia by
the Russians diverted it into other channels. When the
conquests of the roving Cossacks had firmly established the
Russian authority over the greater portion of Siberia, bands of
traders searching for furs, began to explore the coasts of the
Arctic Ocean. “All through ‘the last half of the seventeenth
century these expeditions were carried on, and vague reports
of islands, situated amidst the ice-fields of the Polar Sea, from
time to time reached the Russian settlements. In the early
part of the eighteenth century more scientific voyages were
undertaken, and the coasts were more carefully examined,
Vessels were built at Tobolsk, and Irkutsk, and in these the
Obi and the Lena were descended to the icy sea, and the shores
were surveyed in all directions. In these voyages the Russians
often caught sight of islands far to the north, although they
were not able thorouglily toexamine them, In 1711 Permakoff,
a Cossack who lived near the mouth of the Yana, made a voyage
from the Lena to the Kolyma, and saw large islands off the
mouths of the Kolyma and the Yena, which were according to
his report, very mountainous. In 1712 a large expedition left
the mouth of the Yana for the north, and discovered a large
island, which was rugged and barren, and in 1760 a Yakut
calle Eterikan saw a large island to the north-east of the
mouth of the Lena. These reports raised the interest of
the fur-hunters, and before long a remarkable discovery was
made.

One of the most active and successful of the fur-hunters of
that time was named Liakoff, and he from time to time obtained
ereat quantities not only of valuable furs, but also of fossil
ivory from the tusks and teeth of the mammoths, which he
ce collected or received from the native Siberians. In

1750 Liakoff had been particularly successful, and had gathered
a vast quantity of mammoths’ tusks and remains on the desolate
plains between the rivers Anabar and Khatanga. From this
region he returned with his spoils, to the southern districts, and
in order to carry on his expeditions with greater celerity, he
built huts near the mouth of the Yana, ‘at a place called
Ust¥ansk, where he and his assistants could pass the winter.
In 1770 in the month of March, he left this winter settlement
accompanied by a friend named Protodiakonoff, and reached the
promontory of Svaiatoi Noss. This is a bold headland which
runs out into the Arctic Ocean, about 300 miles east of the mouth

IVORY ISLANDS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN. 39

of the Lena, and half-way between the mouths of the Yana and
the Indigirka. It derived its name the “ Holy Cape” from the
fear with which the Russians regarded it, for the ice was piled
against 1t in such masses, that it was most difficult to sail round
it. It had been thought impossible to pass it, and one gallant
voyager, Demetrius Laptieff, had declared that it could not be
doubled. But in 1734 he himself sailed past the dreaded cape
and voyaged in safety to the Kolyma. It was in the month of
April when Liakoff reached Svaiatoi Noss, and at that time the
sea was fast frozen. Standing on the promontory and looking
out over the icy expanse of the frozen ocean, nothing could be
seen save the dreary prospect of the icy waste, ridged into long
furrows, and still and motionless as death. As Liakoff looked
out over the vast frozen expanse, he saw a long line of black
objects approaching over the ice and drawing near to the shore.
and speedily perceived that the moving mass consisted of an
enormous herd of reindeer on the march. He concluded that
they had left some land far to the north, and were returning to
the southern regions. Such a supposition was not necessarily
correct, for it has constantly been observed by the fur-hunters,
that the reindeer will frequently go over the ice to a long
distance from the shore, in order that they may get at the salt,
which is left by the evaporation of the sea water, and ef which
they areextremely fond. Liakoff, however, felt certain that the
reindeer were coming from some northern land, and in the
beginning of April he started in his sledge drawn by dogs over
the ice, from Svaiatoi Noss, in search of the northern land. He
started early in the morning, and after sledging over the ice
nearly all day, in a northerly direction, came to an island, about
50 miles from the shore; where he spent the night. Next
morning he followed the traces of the reindeer still further to
the north, and having gone about 15 miles over the ice reached
a second island, much smaller than the first. The reindeer
track, which he still followed, continued to lead to the north,
and Liakoff drove his dogs forward in this direction. He had not
gone far from the second island, however, before he found that
the ice was so rugged, and was ridged up into such high mounds
and hummocks, that he was quite unable to proceed further as
his dogs could not advance over the high ridges of ice which
covered the frozen surface of the sea. No land could be seen
in any direction, and the dreary prospect of snow and ice
extended on all sides as far as the eye could reach. Liakoff
therefore was placed in a position of great peril, and had to
spend the night on the ice. He then returned, and after
D

40 REY. D. GATH WHITLEY, ON THE

passing through difficulties, owing to the want of provisions for
his dogs, he succeeded in regaining the coast at Svaiatoi Noss.
He next went to Yakutsk, and informed the Russian authorities
there of his discoveries, and they forwarded the account to
St. Petersburg. The Empress Catherine Il. ordered the islands
to be called by Liakofl’s name, and she also granted to him the
sole right of collecting mammoths’ tusks and of searching for
furs in the islands he had found, and in any others that he might
discover.

In the summer of 1773 Liakoff resumed his discoveries.
He was accompanied by Protodiakonoff and other companions,
and as the ice had at this time melted, they made the voyage
to the islands in a five-oared boat. They crossed the strait
between the mainland and the first island, and found the water
in the strait very salt, with the current setting strongly from
the west. From the first island they went to the second—
which was afterwards calied Maloi—and then steered boldly
towards the north, in search of still more distant lands. The
air was clear, and they soon discerned land to the north, and
before long the bold voyagers reached a third island, which was
of great size. The land was barren and mountainous, and
bore not the least vegetation, although the shore was covered
with driftwood. No trace of man could anywhere be seen, but
bears, wolves, and reindeer were wandering over the desolate
wastes, and whales were swimming and spouting amidst the
waves. Liakoff and his companions found tusks of mammoths
on this island, which they called Kotelnoi, as one of the party
left a copper kettle on it. Liakoff returned to his first island,
and built a hut of driftwood for his workmen on it, and all
were engaged in collecting mammoths’ tusks, which were also
found abundantly on the first island. Having passed the winter
on the latter, Liakoff returned in the spring to UstYansk, with
a rich supply of mammoths’ tusks and valuable furs.

The enormous quantities of mammoths’ bones and tusks
found by Liakoff in these islands raised the curiosity of the
Government, and the Russian officials at Yakutsk ordered a
surveyor named Chwoinoff to proceed to the islands, and to
survey them thoroughly. Chwoinoff left Yakutsk for this
purpose in the early part of 1775, and reached Liakoff’s station
on the mainland at Ustyansk in the end of March. He crossed
the bay to Svaiatoi Noss, and reached the first island discovered
by Liakoff, and which has always afterwards been called
Liakotf’s Island. He found that this island—which contained
the huts of the diggers for fossil ivory—was of considerable

IVORY ISLANDS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN. Al

size, but with the exception of some high mountains, it seemed
to be wholly composed of ice and sand. Such was the
enormous quantity of mammoths’ remains, that it seemed to
Chwoinoff that the island was actually composed of the bones
and tusks of elephants, cemented together by icy sand. The
horns of buffaloes (or rather of musk-oxen) and rhinoceroses
were also wonderfully abundant. The sandy shores and slopes
were full of mammoths’ tusks, and when the ice cementing
the cliffs was thawed by the heat of the sun, the sand fell down
in great quantities, bringing with it great numbers of elephants’
tusks, of which these cliffs seemed to be full.

About fifteen miles from Liakoff’s Island was the second
island discovered by him, and afterwards called Maloi, and here
also Liakoff’s people had collected a rich supply of the bones
and tusks of the mammoth. The surface of the island consisted
of a bed of thick moss on which many beautiful flowers were
erowing, but underneath were cliffs of pureice. It was possible
to strip off the moss like a carpet from a floor, and beneath was
pure ice which never thawed.

Chwoinoff now started northwards for the third island or
Kotelnoi, and found the straits beneath it and Maloi to be
about 75 miles in breadth. He travelled along the shore, and
having discovered a considerable river, he named it in honour
of the Empress, the Czarina River. All the shores were covered
with driftwood. He discovered three large rivers which were
full of fish, and the waters of which brought down large
quantities of driftwood from the interior of the island. This
last discovery shows that iérees once existed in this island
(Kotelnoi) in great abundance. Chwoinoff climbed to the top of
a lofty mountain, and as the weather was clear he obtained an
extensive view, which consisted of lofty mountains, which
stretched away to the east, west, and north, for a long distance.
He passed the summer on Kotelnoi, and returned in the autumn
to Svaiatoi Noss.*

For thirty years Liakoff enjoyed the sole right of carrying
away the vast stores of fossil ivory from these wonderful
islands. He built huts and formed settlements for his people
on them, and his agents went to them in sledges over the

* The account of these discoveries was given by Protodiakonoff to
Martin Saur when the latter was at Yakutsk in 1788. Saur wished to
hear of them from Liakoff himself, but Liakoff being old referred him to
Protodiakonoff, who related the narrative to him. The account may be
found in Saur’s Narrative of an Expedition to the Northern Part of Russia,
by Captain Joseph Billings, pp. 103-106.

4.2 REY. D. GATH WHITLEY, ON 'THE

ice in winter, and in boats in the summer. Every year great
quantities of ivory were taken from the islands and sold in the
markets at Yakutsk.

On the death of Liakoff, the Russian Government granted
the monopoly of trading in these islands, in 1805, to a
merchant of Yakutsk named Sirovatskoi, who sent his agent
Sannikoff to explore the islands, and, if possible, to discover
more islands in these wonderful regions. Discoveries now
commenced which were as remarkable as those of Liakoff, and
which amply repaid Sirovatskoi for his labour and outlay. In
1805, Sannikoff discovered to the east of Kotelnoi, a large
island which he called Fadeyeffskoi; and in 1806, the younger _
Sirovatskoi discovered another large island still further to the
east, which received the name of New Siberia.* Two smaller
islands—Stolbovoi and Belkowa—were at the same _ time
discovered. These islands were full of mammoth bones, and
the quantity of tusks and teeth of elephants and rhinoceroses,
found in the newly discovered island of New Siberia, were
perfectly amazing, and surpassed anything which had as yet
been discovered.

Before long—as was natural—disputes arose as to the
monopoly of collecting the fossil ivory in these wonderful
islands, and petitions were addressed to the Russian Govern-
ment on the subject. This induced Count Romanzoff, then
Chancellor of Russia, to order Hedenstrom, a Siberian exile, to
explore the islands, and Romanzoff fitted out the expedition at
his own expense. Hedenstrém started from Ustyansk, near the
mouth of the Yana, on March 19th, 1809, taking with him two
companions, and for three consecutive seasons they examined
the islands. Hedenstrém found that the quantity of fossil
ivory on the first island found by Liakoff (7.¢., Liakofi’s Island)
was so enormous, that, although the ivory diggers had been
engaged in collecting ivory from it for forty years, the supply
seemed to be quite undiminished. On an expanse of sand little
more than half a mile in extent Hedenstrom saw ten tusks of
mammoths sticking up, and as the ivory hunters had left these
tusks because there were other places where the remains of
mammoths were stil more abundant, the enormous quantity of
elephants’ tusks and bones in the island may be imagined.
Sannikoff—who accompanied Hedenstrom—was equally amazed
at the quantity of the remains of the mammoth in Liakoffs
Island, and—like Chwoinoff thirty years before—he declared

* Wrangell’s Stberia and the Polar Sea, pp. 481, 482.

IVORY ISLANDS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN. 43

that the whole soil of the island seemed to be formed of
elephants’ bones. Another of Hedenstrém’s discoveries was
equally wonderful. He found that on a sand-bank on the
western side of the island after a strong gale, mammoth bones
and tusks were always found to be washed up, so that it was
plain that there was an enormous accumulation of elephants’
remains wnder the sea in this region. The other islands further
to the north were also visited by these explorers. Sannikoff
explored Kotelnoi, and found that this large island was full of
the bones and teeth of elephants, rhinoceroses, and musk-oxen.
Having explored the coasts Sannikoff determined, as there was
nothing but barrenness along the shore, to cross the island. He
drove in reindeer sledges up the Czarina River, over the hills,
and down the Sannikoff River, and completed the circuit of the
island. All over the hills in the interior of the island Sannikoff
found the bones and tusks of elephants, rhinoceroses, buffaloes,
and horses in such vast numbers, that he concluded that these
animals must have lived in the island in enormous herds, when
the climate was milder. When on the island of Fadeyeffskoi,
which les immediately to the east of Kotelnoi, Sannikotf saw
far to the north a distant land with high mountains, and started
in sledges over the ice to explore it. He, however, could not
reach the unknown island, for when he had gone about thirty-
five miles over the ice, he came to a large expanse of open
water which extended on every side. This was in the beginning
of April, 1811, and another attempt to go northwards, made by
him shortly afterwards, was also stopped by open water.
Hedenstrom and Sannikoff thoroughly examined the large
island of New Siberia, which contained wonders as surprising as
Kotelnoi, and so enormous were the quantities of mammoths’
tusks on it, that in 1809 Sannikoff brought away 10,000 lbs. of
fossil ivory from New Siberia alone. It was on this dreary
and icy island that Hedenstrom made another remarkable
discovery. He found in this desolate wilderness, the shores of
which are blocked by ice for the greater part of the year, the
remains of enormous petrified forests. The trunks of the trees
in these ruins of ancient forests were partly standing upright
and partly lying horizontally buried in the frozen soil. Their
extent was very great, and he described them as follows :—
“On the southern coast of New Siberia are found the remarkable
wood hills (ve, the remains of the forests). They are 30
fathoms high, and consist of horizontal strata of sandstone,
alternating with strata of bituminous beams or trunks of trees.
On ascending these hills fossilized charcoal is everywhere met,

44, REV. D. GATH WHITLEY, ON THE

covered apparently with ashes, but on closer examination this
ash is also found to be a petrifaction and so hard that it can
scarcely be scraped off with a knife. On the summit another
curiosity is found, namely, a long row of beams, resembling the
former, but fixed perpendicularly in the sandstone. The ends,
which project from 7 to 10 inches, are for the greater part
broken. The whole has the appearance of a ruinous dyke.”’*
These “ wood hills” rise to such a height that they were visible
from a distance of nearly 80 miles: similar buried forests are
found in the island of Kotelnoi. By these expeditions the
islands were thoroughly surveyed.f

These discoveries were truly wonderful. These islands had
never before been visited, and a most lucrative trade in fossil
ivory was speedily opened up from them. So enormous was
the quantity of tusks of elephants and rhinoceroses discovered
in New Siberia that in 1821 one trader brought away 20,000 lbs.
of fossil ivory from New Siberia alone.

In 1821-23 the Russian Government sent Admiral Wrangell
to the Northern coast of Siberia, in order that he might survey
the regions around the mouth of the Kolyma, and Lieutenant
Anjou, who accompanied Wrancell, was directed to examine
the New Siberian Islands. Anjou was instructed to survey the
islands, and to endeavour to reach the unknown land which
Sannikoff had seen from the northern coasts of Kotelnoi and
Fadeyeffskoi. The instructions of the government were ably
carried out by Anjou, but he was unable to advance far over the
ice to the north of the New Siberian Islands, because lhe was
always stopped by open water. He was consequently quite
unable to discover Sannikoff’s mysterious island. ‘The “ Wood
Hills” in New Siberia, discovered by Hedenstrém, were visited
by Anjou who thus describes them—“ They are merely a steep
declivity, 20 fathoms high, extending about 5 versts (3 miles)
along the coast. In this bank, which is exposed to the sea, beams
or trunks of trees are found, generally in a horizontal position,
but with great irregularity, fifty or more of them together, the
largest being about ten inches in diameter. The wood is not
very hard, is friable, has a black colour, anda slight gloss. When
laid on the fire it does not burn with a flame, but glimmers, and

emits a resinous odour.”}

* Wrangell, zdem, p. 486 (note).
+ The account of Hedenstriém’s journey is given by Wrangell in his
book, pp. 482-500.
t Wrangell, p- 486 (note). An account of Anjou’s expedition i is given
in Wrangell’s book above quoted,

IVORY ISLANDS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN. 45

In 1829 the scientific German traveller Erman visited
Yakutsk, and obtained some valuable information about the
wonderful stores of fossil ivory in the Liakoff and New
Siberian Islands. The monopoly of trading in the islands had
been abolished, and the traders from Yakutsk and UstyYansk
journeyed to the islands in dog-sledges every year. The soil of
the islands was described to Erman as being full of the bones of
elephants, rhinoceroses, and buffaloes, and the tusks of elephants
could be seen sticking up out of the frozen sand. In order to
find good deposits of mammoths’ bones in the islands, the traders
were in the habit of ascending the hills and marking the places
where they saw the tusks projecting above the ground, and
deposits of ivory in the desolate plains, were often discovered
by the sight of a single tusk sticking up from the ground.*
From information furnished him by the ivory traders, Erman
thus describes the “ Wood Hills” in the island of New Siberia :
“In New Siberia, on the declivities facing the south, lie hills 250
or 300 feet high, formed of driftwood ; the ancient origin of
which, as well as of the fossil wood in the tundras, anterior to
the history of the Earth in its present state, strikes at once
even the most uneducated hunters. They call both sorts of
Adamovchina, or Adamitic things. Other hills on the same
island, and on Kotelnoi, which lies further to the west, are heaped
up to an equal height with skeletons of pachyderms, bisons, etc.
which are cemented together by frozen sand as well as by strata
and veins of ice. It is only in the lower strata of the New
Siberian wood-hills that the trunks have that position which
they would assume in swimming or sinking undisturbed. On
the summit of the hills they lie flung upon another in the wildest
disorder, forced upright in spite of gravitation, and with their
tops broken off or crushed, asif they had been thrown with
ereat violence from the south on a bank, and there heaped up.”

In 1878 the Vega traversed the Arctic Ocean north of
Siberia, and Nordenskidld was anxious to land on the wonderful
islands, which contained such masses of the remains of mammoths,
rhinoceroses, aud musk oxen. Before the Vega started, M.
Sibiriakoff (who defrayed a portion of the expenses of the
expedition) collected much information from the ivory hunters
about the “islands of bones” in the Polar Sea. They informed
him that the trade in fossil ivory still continued, and that many

* Travels in Siberia, vol. ii, pp. 376, 383.
+ Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 379-380.

46 REV. D. GATH WHITLEY, ON THE

traders made their living by collecting mammoths’ tusks on the
New Siberian Islands, and the ivory hunters declared that in
summer the sea between these islands and the mainland is
generally free from floating ice.*

On August 28th, 1878, ‘the Vega sighted the most western of
the Liakoff Islands, 2.., Semenoffskoi aml Stolbovoi, but the sea
was so shallow and was so encumbered with rotten ice that
navigation was slow and difficult. Nordenskiold thus describes
his further experiences amongst the islands :—

“It was not until August 30th that we were off the west side
of Liakoff’s Island, on which I intended to land. The north
coast and, as it appeared the day after, the east coast was clear
of ice, but the winds recently prevailing, had heaped a mass of
rotten ice on the west coast. The sea besides was so shallow
here, that, already at a distance of 15 feet from land, we had
a depth of only 8 metres. The ice heaped against the west
coast of the island did not indeed form any very serious obstacle
to the advance of the Vega, but in case we had attempted to
land there it might have been inconvenient enough, when the
considerable distance between the vessel and the land was to be
traversed in a boat or the steam launch. The prospect of
wandering about for some days on the island did not appear to
me to outweigh the danger of the possible failure of the main
object of the expedition. I therefore gave up for a time my
intention of landing. The course was shaped southwards
towards the sound, of so bad repute in the history of the
Siberian Polar Sea, which separates Liakoffs Island from the
mainland.

“So far as we could judge at a distance from the appearance
of the rocks, Stolbovoi consisted of stratified rocks, Liakoff's
Island, on the contrary, like the mainland opposite, of high
hills, much shattered, probably formed of Plutonic stone-
masses. Between these there are extensive plains, which,
according to a statement by the land surveyor, Chwoinoff, who
by order of the Czarina visited the island in 1775, are formed
of ice and sand, in which lie embedded enormous masses of the
bones and tusks of the mammoth, mixed with the horns and
skulls of some kind of ox and with rhinoceros’ horns. Bones
of the whale and walrus are not mentioned as occurring there,
but ‘long small screw-formed bones,’ by which are probably
meant the tusks of the narwhal. 5 |

* Voyage of the “ fey vol. i, pp. 24, 27.
+ Ibid., pp. 415-418

IVORY ISLANDS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN. AZ

A few months afterwards the unfortunate American vessel
Jeannette entered the Siberian Polar Sea. She left San
Francisco on July 8th, 1879, and in September of the same
year she was frozen into the ice, from which she was never
extricated, as she sank on June 13th, i881. Captain De Long
(her commander) and the crew escaped over the ice, partly in
boats, and partly in sledges. Just before the Jeannette was
enclosed in the ice, she discovered two islands which were
named Jeannette and Henrietta Islands, and which lie in
longitude 160° E. After having threaded their way for some
time amidst masses of floating ice, and being carried along by
drifting ice-fields, the crew of the Jeannette discovered a very
large island which had hitherto been quite unknown. ‘This
they named Bennett Island, and took possession of it on behalf
of America.* This island contained high mountains which
rose to a height of 2,500 feet above the sea, and were covered
with snow, while glaciers descended from their snowy sides,
and flowed down to the sea. Towering cliffs rose above the
beach, and the precipices were alive with sea birds, which kept
up a deafening screaming. The lower hills were quite bare of
trees or bushes, but were covered with green moss, which made
them look quite refreshing to the weary voyagers, who had
been so long shut up in the ice-fields. The island is, in
the main, volcanic, being chiefly composed of trap rocks.
Bituminous coal also was found, which burnt readily. This
occurred in a vein extending down the mountain side.t
According to Baron Toll, who in 1902 visited Bennett Island,
sedimentary rocks of Cambrian age occur in it, whilst in the
brown coal he discovered the remains of conifers.{ Further to
the eastwards, and close to the shore the water deepens, and
the islands are fewer and smaller.

Leaving Bennett Island on August 6th, the Jeannette’s crew
shortly afterwards left the ice, and in three boats began their
voyave to the south. The north shore of the island of New
Siberia, which is perhaps the richest of all the islands of the
Arctic Ocean in mammoth remains, was seen on the 20th, but
the ice around the island-prevented a landing. Much beset in
the ice the boats slowly drifted down the strait between the
two islands of Fadeyeffskoi and New Siberia, until on the
lst of August, the wearied voyavers landed on the island of

* See Gilder’s Ice Pack and Tundra, chap. xxi.
+ The Voyage of the “ Jeannette,” by Emma de Long, vol. ii, p. 283.
t Geographical Journal, June, 1904, p. 770.

48 REV. D. GATH WHITLEY, ON THE

Fadeyeffskoi. This island was discovered by Sannikoff in 1803,
and large quantities of the tusks and teeth of elephants
(z.c., maminoths) and rhinoceroses have been carried away from
it. The Jcannette’s crew, however, did not find it a very
attractive spot, for, as far as they could observe, the island was
mainly composed of mud hills, which were fast wearing away
and forming shoals off the land. Beyond the low hills ‘inland
the island seemed to consist of mossy swamps. The searchers
for ivory had been there not long before, as an empty hut stood
not far from the shore The Jeannette’s crew found on
Fadeyeffskoi an elephant’s tusk and a bone of the same
animal.* Much troubled by floating ice and snow storms, and
buffeted by winds and waves, the voyagers after leaving
Fadeyeffskoi, landed on September Ond on the S.E. coast of the
island of Kotelnoi. The land was moderately high, with small
beaches here and there, and flocks of snowy owls were sitting
on the ledyes in the cliffs. The searchers for mammoths’ tusks
had been at work in this island, for in some earth hills
excavations were found. <A hut was also seen, as well as some
Russian relics. Two elephants’ tusks and other fragments of
fossil ivory were found in this island by different members of
the Jeannette's party.t

Captain de Long and his companions left Kotelnoi in their
three boats for the Siberian coast on September 7th, and,
steering southwards amidst rough gales and snow storms, and
encountering much trouble from the masses of floating ice,
they reached on the 10th the island of Semenoffskoi. They
landed, and found teeth of elephants, as well as horns and
traces of reindeer. The earthy deposits on this island
evidently contain mammoths’ remains.

A terrible disaster now overtook the voyagers. A storm
burst upon them on the 14th of September when they were
near the coast of Siberia, and the three boats were separated.
One sank, no traces of her being ever discovered. Captain de
Long and the party in his boat reached the shore, and landed
at the northern inouth of the Lena. They made their way
southwards for a short time, but, overcome by famine and
exhaustion, all died with the exception of two sailors. The
party in the third boat, under Lieutenant Melville, reached the
Russian settlements in safety. Thus we find, that although the

* Our lost Explorers, p. 314.
t+ The Voyage of the “ Jeannette,” vol. ii, pp. 740, 741

IVORY ISLANDS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN. 49

Jeannette’s crew did not meet any searchers for fossil ivory in
the New Siberian [slands, they found the tusks of mammoths
in all the islands on which they landed.

Dr. Henry Lansdell, who has given such a valuable account
of Southern and Central Siberia, refers to the ivory trade from
the New Siberian Islands.* He describes the trade as it
existed in 1882, and refers to the vast quantity of fossil ivory
brought to Yakutsk from the islands in the Arctic Ocean.
That there is even now no falling off in the trade in elephants’
tusks is shown by the fact that in 1898, some 80,000 lbs. of
fossil ivory were offered for sale at the fair at Yakutsk. This
is greatly in excess of the average annual sale of fossil ivory
at Yakutsk, which, according to M. Stadling, is 40,000 lbs.

A valuable addition to our knowledge of the Mammoth
Islands in the Arctic Ocean geologically, was made by Baron
Toll and Professor Bunge, who thoroughly examined both the
Liakoff and the New Siberian Islands. In 1886, Dr. Bunge
visited Kotelnoi, but the bad weather and want of fuel
prevented his expedition from being a success Dr. Bunge then
proceeded to Liakoff’s Island (ie., his first island) which he
thoroughly explored. Granite peaks rose here and there on the
island, but its greater portion was composed of alluvial soil.
The sand and oravel was found to rest on blocks of ice, and the
alluvial beds were full of the bones of mammoths, rhinoceroses,
and musk oxen. Along with these animals there were also
found the bones of oxen, horses, and deer; in fact, the island
was full of the bones of animals, which must formerly have
lived in this desolate island in enormous numbers. When we
reflect that for a hundred years the ivory hunters Lave been
every year taking away tusks and teeth from this island, and
yet the supply continues, we may form some idea of the
countless and incalculable masses of animal remains which it
must have contained when discovered. Baron Toll in the same
year visited both the islands of Fadeyeffskoi and New Siberia.
He examined the “Wood Hills” on New Siberia, and found
them to consist of carbonised trunks of trees, with impressions
of leaves and fruits, and he considered that they resembled the
fossil fora of the Tertiary Period of Greenland and Spitzbergen.
Baron Toll made a complete circuit of the island of Kotelnoi in
forty days. From the northern point of this island he was
fortunate enough to obtain a view of the island which Sannikoff
declared that he saw in 1806, and the existence of which had,

* Through Siberia, pp. 288-293.

50 REV. D. GATH WHITLEY, ON THE

up to that time, been doubted. This island has received the
name of Sannikoff Land, and les, according to Von Toll, 100
miles to the north of Kotelnoi and New Siberia. Baron Toll
found the summer on Kotelnoi to be cold and cheerless. Snow
showers fell nearly every day, and in most of the valleys the
snow lay throuzhout the whole of the summer, while the shores
were always blocked by ice; what the winter may be can be
easily imagined. Neither trees, shrubs, or bushes exist on the
island, and yet the bones of elephants, rhinoceroses, buffaloes,
and horses are found in this icy wilderness in numbers which
defy all calculation.

In May, 1893, Baron Toll again visited these remarkable
islands in company with Lieutenant Shileiko. They first went
to Maloi, which is one of the Liakoff Islands, and the second
island that Liakoff discovered. In this island they discovered
the bones of mammoths and other anitnals, and they also found
the trunks of fossil trees, with leaves and cones. This striking
discovery proves that in the days when the mammoth and
rhinoceros lived in Northern Siberia, these desolate islands were
covered with great forests, and bore a luxuriant vegetation.
From Maloi, Baron Toll and Lieutenant Shileiko went on to
Kotelnoi, the winter inhabitants of which seem only to be
mice, although white bears were frequently met with on the
ice near the islands, The return journey of the explorers over
the ice to the mainland was difficult, because the ice was
melting, and loose snow and open water were encountered.
Nevertheless, the return journey from Kotelnoi was safely
accomplished, and the expedition regained the Siberian coast.*

From these, and from the former explorations, it is clear that
enormous deposits formed of the remains of fossil forests exist
on the islands of Maloi, Kotelnoi, and New Siberia. The
“Wood Hills” of New Siberia have been frequently described,
and similar buried forests have been found in Kotelnoi in numbers
perhaps even greater than in New Siberia. All this shows,
that in times geologically speaking very recent, a vigorous

vegetation reached far up into the regions of the North Pole,
where at present neither trees, shrubs, or bushes are found.
The remains of these great Tertiary or Post Tertiary forests,
are constantly being discovered far up in the Arctic Regions.
The relies of great forests of the Miocene Era have been found

* A notice of the journeys of Baron Toll and Professor Bunge will be
found in the ‘owrnals of the Royal Geographical Society for September,
1887, and May, 1894.

IVORY ISLANDS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN. Bw

in Alanekerdluk, near Disco Island, on the coast of Western
Greenland, in N. Lat. 70° 2’, and have been well described by
the late Professor Heer.* In Spitzbergen, as late as the
Miocene Period, there was a vigorous vegetation, of poplars,
limes, beeches, and alders, and it is with this mid-Tertiary
vegetation, that Baron Toll would connect the fossil forests in
Kotelnoi and New Siberia. Captain McClure found many fossil
trees in Banks’ Land (Lat. 70° 48’), and fossil forests have also
been discovered in Prince Patrick’s Island, in Lat. 76° 12’ N.
A most interesting discovery was made by Sir Edward Belcher,
on the shores of Wellington Channel, in the very heart of the
Arctic Regions. At this place he found the dead trunk of a
giant tree, standing upright in the place in which it grew when
the climate was in former ages more genial, and he thus speaks
of this tree of past days :—‘“I at once perceived that it (ze., the
dead trunk) was no spar, and not placed there by human
agency; it was the trunk and root of a tree which had
apparently grown there and flourished, but at what date who
will venture to say? It is indeed one of the questions evolved
in this change of climate. As the men proceeded with the
removal of the frozen clay surrounding the roots, which were
completely cemented as it were into the frozen mass, breaking
off short, like earthenware, they gradually developed the roots,
as well as what appeared to be the portions of leaves and other
parts of the tree, which had become embedded where they
fell.”’+

While the facts are very remarkable which prove the
existence of the remains of great forests in the New Siberian
and Liakoff Islands, it is equally wonderful that the bed of the
sea around the New Siberian Islands, seems to be covered with
the tusks and teeth of elephants, which are being constantly
washed up by the waves on the sandbanks round the shores of
these islands. Nordenskiold says that the making of new
collections of mammoths’ tusks year by year in Liakoff’s
Island, depends on their being washed out of the sand-
banks, so that after an east wind, which has lasted some
time, they may be collected at low water on the sandbanks,
then laid dry.t He also tells us, that when the Vega was
sailing past Liakoff’s Island, the trawl-net brought up from the

* See Nordenskidld in the Geological Magazine, 1872, pp. 520-522, also
Sir J. W. Dawson’s Geological History of Plants, pp. 242, 245.

+ The Last of the Arctic Voyayes, vol. i, p. 380.

t Voyage of the‘ Vega,” vol. i, p. 412.

D2 REV. D. GATH WHITLEY, ON THE

bottom some fragments of mammoths’ tusks, which confirmed
the statements of the ivory hunters, and showed that there must
be immense deposits of elephants’ bones, under the sea, at this
place.* It has also been remarked that the land of the North
Siberian coast is rapidly rising, and that fresh sandbanks are
being constantly laid bare. Between the New Siberian Islands
and the mainland the sea is very shallow, averaging only from
10 to 15 fathoms in depth, and the bottom is composed of green
mud. As this is the case, we may expect that fresh deposits of
mammoths’ tusks, will, from time to time, be exposed, and the
supply of fossil ivory from the islands in the Siberian Arctic
Ocean will continue for a long time.

It is a curious fact, that the tusks of the mammoths which
are found in the New Siberia Islands are much whiter and
much better preserved, than those found on the mainland. It
has also been observed that the tusks from the islands are
much smaller than those discovered on the mainland.t Nor-
denskidld explains this smallness in size of the tusks from the
islands, by supposing that these tusks belonged to younger
mammoths, which being more agile, and more troubled with
flies, went farther north than those which were older.t This is
very improbable, for very large mammoths’ tusks have been
found on the mainland of Siberia, nearly as far north as Cape
Chelyuskiu, and this promontory is farther to the north than
the Liakoff and New Siberian Islands.

East of the Liakoff Islands, and close off the mouth of the
Kolyma, near to the shore, lie the Bear Islands. They are six
or seven in number, and are of insignificant size. They were
often seen by the fur-hunters and voyagers in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries; and they were thoroughly surveyed,
by Wrangell in 1821-22. He has described them in detail,
and says that in one of them numbers of mammoths’ bones are
found in the earthy soil.§ On one of these islands he discovered
four great pillars of granite, naturally formed, the highest of
which was 48 feet in height. He called the island Four-Pillar
Island ; according to N ordenskidld it is also called Lighthouse
Island.

The easternmost of the Mammoth Islands is Wrangell
Land, which has had a singular history. In 1763 Andrejew

Voyage of the “Vega,” vol. i, p. 420.

Wrangell’s Siberia and the Polar Sea, pp. 499, 500.
Voyage of the “ Vega,” vol. i, pp. 412, 413.
Wrangell, p. 154.

Gir + + *

IVORY ISLANDS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN. es

sledged in dog-sledges over the ice of the Polar Sea from Nijnei
Kolymsk, towards the north-east. He came to a large island
of considerable extent, and saw other islands in the distance.
Wrangell was very sceptical as to the truth of these discoveries,
and in his fourth journey over the ice, made special inquiries of
the Chukches as to whether any land existed in the Arctic
Ocean north of the Chukehe peninsula. He was informed that
ona clear day the mountains of a distant land in the Polar
Sea might be discerned from Cape Jakan, but when Wrangell
reached this headland he could see no land to the north, and
did not believe that any large island existed in that direction.
In 1849, however, Captain Kellett sailed into the Arctic Ocean
to the north of Behring’s Straits in the Herald, and dis-
eovered Herald Island, and to the westward of this island he
saw an extensive country traversed by a long range of snowy
mountains ;* to this new land the name of Wrangell Land was
given. Dallman in 1867 conducted a trading expedition in the
Arctic Ocean, and declared that he had landed on Wrangell
Land, and that he found vegetation growing on it, and
discovered there the tracks of reindeer and musk oxen. But
all these doubts were set at rest, when the American steamer
ftodgers, ander Captain Berry, reached Wrangell Land in 1881.
The island which lies in Long. 180° E., was found to be quite
barren, as only moss and lichens formed its vegetation. The
shores were blocked by masses of floating ice, and the beach
was covered with driftwood. The island was about 150 miles
in circumference, and contained lofty mountains, one of which
was 2,500 feet above the sea; but it was an utter desolation,
and its plains and hill-sides were perfectly barren. The only
animals found on it by the officers of the Lodges were bears,
foxes and mice. Mammoths’ tusks, however, were discovered.
Some of these lay on the beach, and had probably fallen from
the icy clitts, or had been washed up by the waves. In the
inland districts of the inland also, far from the shore, the
explorers found many tusks of mammoths, one of which was
of great size. It thus appears that Wrangell Land is full of
elephants’ remains, for the visit of the Lodgers to the island
was of very short duration.

In 1900 Baron Toll started on a third expedition to the New
Siberian Islands. He left Tromsoé in the Zarya on July 21st,

* Voyage of the “ Herald,” vol. ii, pp. 114-116.
+ For an account of the exploration of Wrangell Land see Gilder’s
Ice Pack and Tundra, chaps. vi and vii.

54: REY. D. GATH WHITLEY, ON THE

but had a troublesome passage through the ice in the Kara Sea.
He was frozen up on the coast of Taimyr Peninsula, where he was
compelled to winter. The Zarya was not released from the ice
until August 25th, 1901, when she sailed for Bennett Island,
which she reached on September 11th. Baron Toll had a fine
view of the high snowy mountains and glaciers of Bennett Island,
but the ice prevented approaching the shore closely, and the
Zarya Was, about a fortnight later, frozen up on the western side
of the island of Kotelnoi. In this cruise Toll passed over the
site of Sannikoff Land, the existence of which is therefore very
doubtful ; either it is a myth, or lies farther to the north. In
the spring of 1902 Baron Toll left the Zarya for Bennett Land
whither the ship tried to follow, but was prevented by the ice.
Nothing more has been seen of the gallant explorer, although it
is known that he reached Bennett Land in salety. In 1903 a
relief expedition under M. Brusneff searched the New Siberian
Islands fruitlessly for Toll, and then landed on Bennett Island.
Here they found documents left by Baron Toll, but nothing
more was found concerning him. It is now certain that he and
his companions perished in attempting to force a passage through
the frozen sea from Bennett Island to New Siberia. Thus
died one of the most heroic and indefatigable of Arctic explorers.

The documents left by Baron Toll, and recovered by M.
Brusneff, are most important. Bennett Island is formed of
Palwozoic rocks, and masses of basalt. _Mammoths’ bones, and
the remains of other Quaternary animals, are found in the
valleys. It will thus be seen that Bennett Island is the farthest
point north in which the remains of the mammoth have, up to
the present time, been discovered.

One of the most remarkable features of these islands are the
great masses of rock-ice, which are found both on the coasts
and inland. These are best seen on the great Liakoff Island,
where, with the exception of some granite peaks, they form
the chief solid substance in the island. Baron Toll calls these
wonderful masses of rock-ice “ Fossil Glaciers,” and he gives
some striking photographs of them. They form part of the
great ice formation of north-eastern Siberia, and they were
noticed long ago by the Russian explorers. Baron Toll
maintains that they originated during the Glacial Period, and
that they represent the remains of the old ice-cap. In support
of this theory he declares that he discovered a true moraine,
with scratched and polished boulders in the bay of Anabar.*

* Geographical Journal, May, 1894, pp. 412, 413.

IVORY ISLANDS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN. 5D

There are serious objects to this conclusion. The islands off the
coast of north-eastern Siberia, are full of delicate granite spires
and pinnacles, which would have been destroyed had an ice-
sheet passed over them. Nordenskidld declares that along the
whole of the northern coast of Siberia he could discover no
erratics or glacial traces, and uses these emphatic words, “to
judge by the appearance of the hills there have not been any
glaciers in former times, and this is certainly the case on the
mainland. The northernmost part of Asia in that case has
never been covered by such an ice-sheet as is assumed by the
supporters of a general ice-age embracing the whole globe.’*
And again he remarks, dealing with the same question: “ It
may perhaps be uncertain whether a true inland-ice covered the
whole country; it is certain that the ice-cap did not extend
over the plains of Siberia, where it can be proved that no ice-
age in a Scandinavian sense ever existed.” f

Summing up all the results of exploration of the remarkable
islands in the Arctic Ocean to the north of Siberia, which
contain such numerous remains of the mammoth, we are
compelled to conclude, that formerly, and speaking geologically
in recent times, the regions north of Siberia enjoyed a milder
climate than they possess now. In those days, which were
since the appearance of man on the earth, although probably
before man had forced his way into northern Siberia, the
country had a different aspect and outline from that which
now characterises it. At that time a great tract of country
must have extended from the mouth of the Lena to the New
Siberian Islands, and it stood at a considerable level above the
sea, while the islands which now exist in the ocean in that
region formed upland districts and mountain ranges. This
ancient land was covered with forests, and was traversed by the
great Siberian rivers. Vast herds of elephants, rhinoceroses,
musk-oxen, aud buffaloes roamed over the grassy plains and
wandered amidst the forests, and for long they enjoyed a
peaceful and secure home. A great catastrophe at last overtook
them. The land in the extreme north of Siberia, sank beneath
the waters of the Polar Sea. As the waters rose higher and
higher, the animals crowded to the uplands for safety, and
congregated in enormous uumbers on the mountain tops. The
land, however, continued to sink, and the waters rose higher

* Voyage of the “ Vega,” vol. i, p. 418.
+ Lbid., vol. ii, p. 246.

56 REV. D. GATH WHITLEY, ON THE

and higher. The tops of the highest bills were at last sub-
merged, and the destruction was complete. After a time the
land began to rise slowly, and the New Siberian and Liakoff
islands, which had formed mountains in the land, rose above the
waters. As they had formed a last refuge of the animals when
the land was submerged, they were naturally covered with the
bones, teeth, and tusks of the animals which had been drowned
upon them. Currents also, in the waters, swept the bones into
various places, accumulating them here and there in large
deposits. The climate also at this time underwent a great
change, and altered from one of a mild and genial character to
one of intense cold and Arctic severity.

Sir Henry Howortu stated that many of the facts in Mr. Whitley’s
paper were to be found in his book The Mammoth and the Flood, and
proceeded to mention the historical references to ground ivory as
far back as the days of Herodotus. There was proof of a con-
siderable trade in this article in A.D. 1000. In China it was used as
a medicine. It is generally supposed that most of it is the remains
of the mammoth, or Behemoth of Job, which means “a great, big
beast.” Cuvier refers to this ground ivory in some of his geological
arguments, and to the flesh when thawed being good enough for
wild animals to eat, even the eye in some cases had been found in
good preservation, Sir Henry had himself corresponded with
Darwin on this subject, who considered the problem insoluble. He
further stated that the contents of the stomachs had been carefully
examined ; they showed the undigested food, leaves of trees now
found in Southern Siberia, but a long way from the existing deposits
of ivory. Microscopic examination of the skin showed the red
blood: corpuscles, which was a proof not only of sudden death, but
that the death was due to suffocation either by gases or water,
evidently the latter in this case. But the puzzle remained to
account for the sudden freezing up of this large mass of flesh so as
to preserve it for future ages.

These notes of Sir Henry’s speech are felt to be very inadequate,
but owing to his subsequent prolonged illness they have not had the
benefit of his personal revision.

The Meeting adjourned at 6.15 p.m.

IVORY ISLANDS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN. o7

Note By Proressor Hutt, F.RS.

Having read with interest Mr. Whitley’s Essay, I wish to add a
few remarks thereon. I think the facts he relates regarding the
observations of the navigators who have visited the region north of
the coast of Siberia justify the author in the conclusion that at the
time when the mammoth inhabited this region the climate must have
been much milder than at the present time—in order to admit of
the growth of trees and vegetation for the sustenance of these huge
pachyderms and ruminants. It is also shown that the sea-bed
surrounding the Siberian Islands was in the condition of land over
which these animals roamed, and is only covered by shallow water
at the present time ; the submerged land around the islands forms a
portion of the “ great continental platform ”—determined by Dr. F.
Nansen (Bathymetrical Features of the North Polar Sea, 1904)—which
extends outward from the coast of Europe and Asia, and breaks off
at a depth of about 100 fathoms, at which depth the land descends
rapidly to depths of 1,000 fathoms or more, a depth which may be
presumed to extend under the pole, forming a deep polar basin
covered by ice. The conditions described by the author lead us to
infer a great upheaval of the sea-bed during the ‘mammoth
period,” followed by subsidence resulting in the destruction of the
mammoth and rhinoceros, and here a difficulty presents itself, for
elevation might have been supposed to result in a climate of increased
cold, rather than one which appears to have been almost temperate,
and this difficulty is increased when we suppose that the elevation of
the sea-level would have produced a barrier between Iceland and
Norway sufficient to prevent the entrance of the Gulf Stream and
cause it to be diverted southwards. The conditions of the Arctic
Ocean, as determined by Nansen, are described in a paper read
before the Institute (Jowrnal of Transactions, vol. xxxvii, p. 214,
with map) to which the reader is referred.*

* For further discussion of the interesting questions raised in this
paper see The Mammoth and the Flood, by Sir Henry Howorth, K.C.I1.E.,
F.R.S., now unfortunately out of print.

500Trh ORDINARY GENERAL MERTING.
MONDAY, JANUARY 10rn, 1910.

HELD IN THE LECTURE THEATRE OF THE ROYAL
UNITED SERVICES INSTITUTION, BY PERMISSION
OF THE COUNCIL, R.U.S.I.

LiEuT.-CoL. MACKINLAY, CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL,
IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed.
The following elections were announced :—
Associates: Miss A. Habershon.
Miss M. Spokes.
H. Wilson, Esq.
The Chairman congratulated the Institute on its having reached the
500th Ordinary General Meeting, an occasion which, besides being
marked by the very valuable paper about to be read, would, he hoped,

be made celebrated by increased efforts on behalf of the Institute by all
its supporters.

The following paper was then read by the Author :—
MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSE.

By G. F. C. Szarte, M.A., F.RS., University Lecturer in
Experimental Physics, Cambridge.

§ 1. Introduction. § 9. The Origin of the Universe.
§ 2. Purpose of the Paper. § 10. Law and Order in the Uni-
§ 3. The Universe and Human verse.

Thought. § 11. The Beginning and End of
§ 4. The Complexity of the Uni- the Universe.

verse. § 12. Life and Matter.
§ 5. Nature of Matter. § 13. Origin of Life.
§ 6. Radio-active Substances. § 14. The History of Species.
§ 7. Abrupt Changes. § 15. The Fate of Living Organisms.
§ 8. The Universe as a Single | § 16. Man and the Universe.

System.

§ 1. Zntroduction—In our discussion this afternoon, I purpose
to follow the line of thought adopted in a paper on “The
Modern Conception of the Universe,” which I read before the
Pan-Anglican Congress in 1908. I do so for several reasons.
Many people who are anxious to know something of the relation
between religion and science are so little acquainted with
science that the common-places of physics come as a surprise to
them. They are further astonished to find that these common-
places of physics do bear a very distinct and definite testimony

MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSE. 59

which is of great significance in religious thought. Many of
my audience at the Pan-Anglican Congress were probably in
this position. They had probably heard much of the supposed
defeat of religion by science but comparatively little of the facts
of science itself, and hence they were genuinely astonished at
the profusion of the testimony which some of the simplest facts
of science bear to the fundamental article of religious belief.

This astonishment is only what might have been expected,
for during the last century the popular mind was more and
more influenced by the impression that science had settled
these questions, and had decided that there was little, if any,
place left for a Creator of the Universe. This impression was
largely due to the opinions held by some biologists, and to this
cause we may, I think, attribute the fact that the supposed
conflict between science and religion was generally regarded
very much more as a conflict between biology and religion than
as a conflict between physics and religion. But as physics was
not supposed to be antagonistic to religion, the facts of physics
were, quite naturally, less pressed upon the attention of non-
scientific persons than the opinions of some biologists, and
thus it is not surprising that such persons should have come to
believe that physics has nothing to contribute either con-
structively or destructively to religious thought.

I felt that, in these circumstances, it might be profitable this
afternoon to go over once more the ground covered by my Pan-
Anglican paper, even at the risk of wearying those members of
the Victoria Institute who may be familiar with the facts of
science. I have, however, made some additions to that paper in
the hope of making the argument clearer.

I trust that I may be able to make it plain that the progress
of science has made it very much more difficult than it was in
the last century for men to profess materialistic views as to the
world and its meaning. The change which has come about can
hardly be described more vividly than in the following words
used by Mr. Sidney Low.* He was writing with reference to
psychical research, but the words apply almost without change
to our subject. He says :—

“Tt is a curious sign of the times, the absorption of one
eminent man of science after another in the problems of psychical
research. It points, I suppose, to that feeling of the unsatis-
factoriness of mere physical science when brought into relations
with ethical, spiritual, and ontological questions. We are in the

* The Standard, December, 1909.

60 G. F. C. SEARLE, M.A., F.R.S., ON THE

rebound against the mechanical theory of the universe, which
held imperious sway during the thirty years that followed
Darwin’s first great attempt at systematisation. The influence
of Darwin, and Spencer, and perhaps even more, of Huxley and
Tyndall, of Haeckel and Weismann, had led to a belief that
physics and physiology between them solved everything. Now
a good many people go to the other extreme, and assert that
they have solved nothing. And the scientists themselves,
though they have not abandoned the nineteenth century
conceptions of force, matter, and development, are anxious
to supplement them by pushing their enquiries into the
psychie region. Science itself cannot deal with the facts it has
discovered without travellmg beyond force and matter and
development. It has to postulate something else, something in
the nature of mind, and something beyond that ; something
which is not matter nor force, and yet can act upon both. So
it begins to join hands with religion, and reluctantly suggests
that there may be such a thing as a spiritual power, operating
outside the limits of space and time.”

Before we proceed, let us pause to do honour to those men
and women who, though ignorant of the facts of science, had
heard what science was supposed to have proved and yet held
steadfastly to their faith through years of storm. They were
not dismayed at the supposed results of scientific progress
because they had faith, and faith is so far above intellect that,
unlike the latter, it never suffers confusion. We are not,
however, now concerned to discover what information can be
gained from the lives of saintly people; our business is to
discuss what may be learned from scientific investigation.

§ 2. Purpose of the Paper—In discussing the modern con-
ception of the universe, I shall endeavour to examine how far
that conception leads to or is consistent with the idea of an
almighty Creator having a just claim to the obedience and
worship of men. We must not expect that the testimony of
science, unaided by spiritual insight, can lead to anything more
than the simplest ‘form of religion, but if it does go so far the
testimony is of immense value. If men grasped no more than
the idea of the existence of an almighty Creator and allowed its
significance to have a place in their lives, the gain would be
very great.

But this paper is not intended to be in any way an apology
for religion. I shall merely endeavour to set down, as simply
as possible, some of the conclusions to which modern scientific
investigation unhesitatingly points. The survey will, however,

MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSE. 61

be incomplete, for it will be necessary to omit all but a bare
mention of the moral and spiritual feelings and experiences of
men, though these are phenomena of the universe, just as much
as any physical or chemical actions, and generally lead to actual
events in the world of matter, as, for instance, when a call to
the mission field leads to the transport of a human body, with
clothes and books, across the ocean.

One of the greatest needs at the present day is, I believe, an
insistence on the idea of God as the Creator of the universe.
If this idea were more forcibly brought home to the minds and
consciences of men, they would perhaps pay more attention
to religion generally. If the influence of religion has appeared
to sufier at the hands of science, it has been mainly because
many have been led to an attitude of doubting through the
suggestion that scientific investigation has left no place for a
God as the Creator of the world. With this doubt in their
hearts, it is easy for men to profess the opinion that there are
no such things as God’s laws to be obeyed or to be broken.

But it is becoming more and more plain that so far from
science leading to any such conclusion, the facts all point in
the opposite direction, and thus science is more and more
bearing testimony to the fundamental article of religion. We
may here quote Lord Kelvin’s statement* that “if you think
strongly enough, you will be forced by science to believe in
God, which is the foundation of all religion.”

§ 3. Lhe Universe and Human Thought—It should be noted,
before we go further, that the essential character of the universe
does not depend in the least upon our intellectual conceptions,
for the universe remains the same whatever may be our indi-
vidual views concerning it. It is important to bear this in
mind, because some persons, who have not grasped the distine-
tion between an hypothesis and a fact, are in danger of imagining
that these great questions are settled by the pronouncements
of the popular speaker who is fashionable at the time. The
distinction between fact and hypothesis must be continually
remembered in discussing scientific discoveries, for, apart from
the inevitable errors of observation, the simplest experiment is
in reality so complex an affair that we can do no more than
frame an hypothesis which will account for its main features.
Yet, if the hypothesis is verified when the experiment is
repeated under a variety of conditions, it acquires a high degree
of credibility. That is all that we can say.

* Nineteenth Century, June, 1903, p. 1068.

62 G. F. C. SEARLE, M.A., F.R.S., ON THE

Those who are much occupied with literary work are exposed
to the danger of treating realities as if they were merely
subjects for academic discussion. In physics, however, there is
so constant an appeal to experiment, either directly or through
mathematical reasoning, that students of physics are to a
considerable extent freed from this danger, and in biology
experiment is now rescuing that science from the thraldom
of opinion. But in regard to theological studies, it is perhaps
true to say that mere opinion has in some cases been allowed a
position which does not belong to it. Thus many assert that
miracles never happened, the on!y ground for the assertion being
their opinion that they are impossible. Much would be gained
if it were realised that what occurred in the past is not in the
least affected by the opinions of persons, however exalted, who
live in the twentieth century.

There is a popular notion that some strange impersonal thing
called Modern Science has examined the universe in the cold
light of experiment and has arrived at infallible conclusions.
But this is not a true picture. for there is no one of the con-
clusions of modern science which can be said to be absolutely
established, and the utmost that can be said of any conclusion
is that the experiments are in approximate ayreement with it.
It is true that some conclusions become more and more firmly
established as the accuracy of the experiments is increased, but,
on the other hand, an increase of accuracy sometimes requires
us to modify a conclusion. A striking example is furnished by
the discovery of the gas argon in the atmosphere. In spite of
an old experiment of Henry Cavendish, it was believed that
atmospheric air was a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen, carbonic
acid gas and water vapour, with very small additions of other
known gases. But the accurate work of Lord Rayleigh and
Sir W. Ramsay showed that more than one per ceut. of what
was supposed to be nitrogen was the previously unknown gas
argon, and this has led to the detection of other gases,

$4. The Complexity of the Universe—In the earlier stages of
scientific progress it was to some extent possible to divide
science into branches and to confine attention to one branch at
a time; it was possible to attend to the phenomena exhibited
in one or more bodies without much regard to the relations
between those bodies and the rest of the universe. But modern
investigation makes it logically impossible to work any longer
in water-tight compartments, and is gradually leading us to
appreciate the fact that the number of actions to which every
particle in the universe is continually subject is very great.

MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSE. 63

One instance will show how the progress of discovery compels
a wider outlook. Newton accounted for the motions of the
planets and their satellites by the law of gravitation, and the
work of subsequent mathematicians and astronomers has
abundantly verified his formula in the case of bodies of con-
siderable mass. But recent investigation has verified the
theoretical prediction of Maxwell that, when one of the bodies
is intensely heated, as the sun is, the stream of radiant energy
which falls upon the second body exerts a force upon it. As
the second body becomes smaller, this force rises in importance
relative to the force due to gravitation till at leneth it rivals
and surpasses it, and it follows that the motions of those
particles of cosmical dust, which are scattered through space,
depend not only upon the action of gravitation, as was formerly
supposed, but also upon the pressure of radiation,

Modern discoveries have led us to a point of view from which
we are compelled to regard every particle in the universe as
continually subject to a great variety of actions, though of
course at any given instant some actions may be more strongly
in evidence than others, and thus we realize that the history of
even a single molecule, considered as a whole, is one of great
complexity.

The evidence of the spectroscope indicates that each molecule
has a very complex structure. Thus, each line in the spectrum
of a substance corresponds to one mode of vibration of the
molecules, and in the spectra of some substances, such as iron,
hundreds of these lines may be counted. But the molecules are
not merely complex in themselves; they have very complex
connexions with their surroundings. Thus oxygen can combine
with nearly all the other chemical elements either singly, as in
the case of hydrogen in the formation of water, or in groups, as
in the case of hydrogen and sulphur in the formation of
sulphuric acid. The total number of such combinations is
enormous. Thus we may say that each element is so
constructed as to respond to the influence of each of the great
majority of the other elements, and to a great number of their
compounds. Of recent years the discovery of radio-active
substances has greatly raised our estimate of the complexity
of molecules.

When we combine the complexity of each molecule with the
vastness of the number of molecules in the world of stones and
trees and men and sun and stars, and consider that each mole-
cule acts on every other one, the complexity of the conception
is enough to make us despair of further progress. But science

64 G. F. C. SEARLE, M.A., F.R.S., ON THE

has not stopped here, and has not left us without some sign-posts
to guide us in our perplexity. I shall now endeavour to
indicate some results obtained from experimental work which
lead to conceptions shedding a little light upon the nature and
character of the universe.

§ 5. Nature of Matter—In the bodies around us, on the earth
or in the sky, whether they be inanimate or whether they be
living organisms of any kind, we see a bewildering variety of
substances. But the labours of chemists have led to the belief
that all bodies are built up of a comparatively small number of
elements, such as oxygen, carbon, or iron, and have shown that,
if the elements be arranged in a series according to a certain
law, there are very remarkable relations between the properties
of an element and its place in this series. The existence of

gaps in this series was thought to indicate that some elements
remained to be discovered, and the theory of the series enabled
the general character of the missing elements to be clearly
deseribed. The predictions have been confirmed by the actual
discovery of some of the missing elements. These results of
chemical science at once simplify our ideas about the material
bodies around us, for instead of thinking of countless millions
of different substances we need only think of about one hundred.
That the elements found on the earth occur in the sun and stars
is shown by the spectroscope and by chemical analysis, which
proves that many meteorites which have fallen on the earth are
almost identical in composition with the most deep-seated
terrestrial rocks.

In the case of helium, the existence of the gas was first
revealed by spectroscopic examination of the sun, in whose
spectrum a line was found which did not correspond to any
terrestrial element then known; the name of helium was
given to the element causing the line. Helium has now
been found in terrestrial minerals, and has been liquefied by
Kammerlingh Onnes at Leiden, the temperature of the liquid
being only three or four degrees above the absolute zero of
temperature. This extremely low temperature, the lowest
reached, so far, in any experiments affords a strange contrast to
the temperature of 5000° Centigrade or more which prevails
in the sun, where helium was first discovered.

The numerical relations between the elements suggest that
they are all built up of some primordial substance. The most
promising speculation is that which regards a molecule as
consisting of a larger or smaller number of minute parts,
separated by relatively large distances, these parts being

MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSE. 65

associated with electrical charges or, possibly, being nothing
else but electrical charges. The variety of the elements can
then be accounted for by variations in the number and
arrangement of these component parts. Even if the component
parts were merely electrical charges, the inertia and momentum
of matter could be explained by the principles of electro-
magnetism.

§ 6. Radio-active Substances—It used to be thought that the
molecules of all substances were absolutely incapable of any
change, but now it has been found that some substances such
as uranium, radium and thorium, which according to most
tests behave as elements, suffer transformations into other
forms which again appear to be elements. ‘This, of course,
only strengthens the belief that all matter is only a single
substance under a great variety of forms. The theory
that molecules are built up of minute parts associated with
electrical charges promises to account for these transformations
and for the remarkable effects which are found to accompany
them.

Of the radio-active substances, radium is perhaps the most
amazing. .As radium is being transformed into its child, the
radio-active gas known as radium emanation, it emits vast
numbers of positively electrified particles. In a single second
one milligramme of radium emits about thirty millions of these
particles, that is, one particle for each inhabitant of England.
The activity of the radium decays because some of the radium
ceases to be radium and becomes emanation, which in its turn
suffers further transformations, but 1,800 years would pass
before half the radium would be transformed. In spite of the
excessive smallness of the emitted particles, Rutherford has
found a way of observing an effect due to a single one.

To say that these particles are emitted gives a very faint
notion of the stupendous velocity with which they are shot out,
for their velocity is about one-fifteenth of the speed of light or
about ten thousand miles per second. Some of the other
radio-active substances shoot out negatively charged particles
whose speed rises, in some cases, to nearly the speed of light.
The impact of these projectiles upon the surrounding matter
produces heat and thus a radio-active substance, such as radium,
maintains itself by self-bombardment at a temperature above
that of its surroundings. In a single hour one gramme of
radium produces enough heat to raise one gramme of water
from the freezing to the boiling point.

These experimental facts of radio-activity have given us

66 G. F. C. SEARLE, M.A., F.R.S., ON THE

almost entirely new ideas as to the character of matter, and
hence demand consideration in any account of what is known
about the universe. Their bearing on our subject will be
considered presently.

§ 7. Abrupt Changes—The elements differ one from another
by abrupt steps just as polygons of 3, 4,5 . . . sides
differ. We cannot pass from one element to another by an
infinite series of infinitely small steps. If we could, there
would be no science of chemistry. The idea has been held that
living organisms have been derived from earher forms by a
continuous process of evolution, but nothing like this occurs
among the elements, for there the steps are abrupt. The
transformations of the radio-active substances appear to be due
to abrupt changes in the number of electrified particles in the
molecule. ‘These abrupt steps and others we shall meet in our
survey are of great interest. Thus the abrupt changes of the
molecules of radio-active elements warn us that deductions
based upon observed uniformity may be unsound, even though
the period of observation may have extended over hundreds of
years. If we start to-day with a gramme of radium, there
will still be half a gramme left after 1,800 years, and if we
were to observe for this period one of the molecules forming part
of the remaining half gramme, we should naturally conclude that
this molecule would continue for all time “unbroken and
unworn.” But, if we maintained our watch for another
century, we might witness the catastrophe which results in the
expulsion of a positively charged particle and our earlier
conclusion would then be proved to be false.

§ 8. The Universe as a single System—The view that all
matter is built up of a single primordial substance is a great
step in advance, but it does not at once replace complexity by
simplicity, for the fact remains that the number of molecules in
the universe is inconceivably great. You will not think the
word inconceivable to be inappropriate in view of the estimate
that a drop of water no larger than a grain of mustard seed
contains enough molecules to supply each inhabitant of the
earth with one molecule every second for many thousands of
years. Who then shall grasp the number of molecules in the
whole universe ?

But the results of scientific investigation lead us to regard
all these molecules in their vast array ‘less as 80 many separate
entities than as forming one great and indivisible whole. One
instance will make this clear. We believe that if there were
only two molecules in the whole universe the force of gravita-

MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSE. 67

tion would still draw each towards the other. There is therefore
some connexion or relation between the two molecules, and to
speak of them as two separate systems is only a convenient
mode of speech which does not express the whole of the
conditions. If they were two entirely independent systems,
the motion of one molecule away from the other would have no
effect upon the latter. But the law of gravitation assures us
that the second molecule would experience a distinct effect, for
the attractive force acting on it would gradually diminish as the
distance increased. An extension of this idea leads us to realise
that all the molecules in the universe are so linked together by
gravitation as to form but a single system. Yet gravitation is
not the only link, for electric and magnetic actions between
molecules produce their effects, whatever the distance between
the molecules. In addition, there are other actions which are
sometimes practically in abeyance, as when two molecules, one
of oxygen and one of hydrogen, are too far apart for chemical
combination to take place. Nevertheless, the power of com-
bination remains ever ready to do its work, when the distance
between the molecules is sufficiently reduced and certain other
conditions are fulfilled.

We could, of course, suppose that these actions between
molecules arise from something inherent in the molecules
themselves, and that the intervening space has nothing to do
with the affair. But the facts of optics and of electro-
magnetism compel us to recognise the existence of an
all-pervading medium to which the name of ether has been
given. This medium is conceived to extend through all space,
and there are good reasons for the belief that the forces between
electrified bodies are in reality due to stresses in it. The ether
enables radiant energy to be transmitted from one body to
another, as when the earth receives heat from the sun, or
telegrams are sent, with or withous the aid of wires, from one
station to another. There is thus a most intimate connexion
between molecules and the ether, and hence the ether may be

regarded as the substance, if it can be called substance, which
binds the whole universe tovether,

The rate at which energy is supplied to the earth by radiation
from the sun is very great. On each square yard of illuminated
surface, energy 1S supplied at the rate of about one-fifth of a
horse-power. For the whole of the illuminated hemisphere,
this amounts to something like twenty million horse-power.

Thus we come to recognise that the whole tribe of molecules
is linked together by the ether in such a way that they and the

68 G. F. C. SEARLE, M.A., F.R.S., ON THE

ether form a single indivisible system. The word atom was
originally coined to express the belief that certain minute
particles are incapable of a physical division into smaller parts.
But in the light of modern science the whole universe is to be
regarded as an atom, or in other words, as something which
cannot be divided.

The conception of the unity of the universe, to which modern
science leads us, must of necessity have a most important place
in oor speculation concerning the origin of the universe.

§ 9. The Origin of the Universe,—All the evidence is against
the idea that the existence of the constituent parts of molecules
is due to any physical or chemical actions occurring in the
present state of the universe : we are thus compelled to believe
that they have been created, unless indeed, we suppose that
they are self-existent or in other words, that there never was a
time when they did not exist in their present forms—a supposi-
tion which has no place in the conception of the universe in the
minds of modern physicists.

The fact that all the molecules of any given element have
absolutely identical properties makes it clear that matter has
been made on some plan, and the certainty that there is no
molecule which is not associated with energy indicates that both
plan and energy come from the same Source.

The uniformity of the molecules of any given element is the
basis of chemistry. The spectroscope also bears witness to this
uniformity, for the lines in the spectrum would be broad and
not narrow if among the molecules of the substance under
examination there were appreciable difference of the periodic
time of the particular vibration corresponding to each line of
the spectrum. Schuster has illustrated in a very forcible
manner the conclusion that if there are inequalities in the
periodic time of thallium, corresponding to the green line in its
spectrum, these inequalities must be exceedingly small. He
states that the want of uniformity is greatly over-estimated, if
we say that twelve per cent. of the molecules differ from the
average by one part in two millions in periodic time, and he
brings out the meaning of this statement in the following
way :—“If you had a great many clocks and found that, taking
their average rate to be correct, not more than one in eight
would be wrong by a second in twenty-three days, that would
represent the maximum amount of variation which our inter-
pretation of the experiment allows us to admit in the case of
molecular vibrations. But would any maker undertake to
supply you with a number of clocks satisfying that test . . .

MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSE. 69

Though Sir John Herschel’s saying that atoms possess the
essential character of manufactured articles is still correct,
yet no manufactured article approaches in accuracy of
execution the exactitude of atomic construction. We may
conclude with Maxwell that “each molecule throughout the
universe bears impressed upon it the stamp of a metric
system as distinctly as does the Metre of the Archives at
Paris,”

This exactitude of atomic construction is not merely of
academic interest, but is of real importance in the very
practical work of maintaining definite standards of length.
The metre of the Archives has been measured in terms of the
wave-length corresponding to a particular line in the spectrum
of cadmium, and it is to the constancy of this wave-length
that we now trust rather than to the constancy of the length
of the metal bar known as the metre of the Archives.

In thinking about the creation of the universe, we shall
perhaps be helped if we first consider what would be involved
in the creation of a single new molecule at the present day.
This event would not only require the creation of new matter
but would also involve the establishment of relations between
the new molecule and the countless millions already in existence,
and this would change all those molecules to the extent of
enabling each of them to act upon the new moiecule. If we
speak in terms of the ether, we may say that such a connexion
must be established between the new molecule and the ether
that the molecule is able to cause disturbances in it which
produce effects throughout the whole of space.

The phenomena of tadio-activ ity have disclosed far more of the
skill of the great Architect and Electrician than was even
suspected a few years ago. For the formation of a molecule of
uranium involves not only the construction of the minute
electrified particles which it contains, but the assembling of them
together and the supply of that vast store of energy which will
enable the molecule at the right moment. perhaps a thousand
million years after the formation of the molecule, to shoot out an
electrified particle at a terrific speed. But this is not all, for
the design of the uranium molecule is such that the modified
molecule, which remains after the expulsion of the particle, will
after a few days in its turn shoot out a particle and so on for
several stages, the time of halting in each stage being some-
times large, as with the 1,800 years of radium, and sometimes
small, as with the four days of radium emanation.

The Power which is capable of creating a single molecule is

70 G. F. C. SEARLE, M.A., F.R.S., ON THE

able to originate effects extending through all space, and to this
degree may therefore be described as bearing rule over the
whole universe. We could, of course, suppose “that the ether
was created by one such Power and that each molecule had its
own Creator, but the evidence of the unity of the universe
leads to the conviction that the whole universe, the ether
included, is the work of a single Creator, and that the energy
in the universe is His gift.

§ 10. Law and Order in the Universe-—What has been said
about the unity of the universe and its creation is surely
enough to justify the expectation that the universe will be
found to be the scene of the operations of laws of such a
character as to appeal to the intellect as rational laws, or laws
which have good reasons behind them. So far from modern
science having any doubts on this point, one of the chief aims of
scientific investigators is to discover laws. In fact, many of the
greater advances have sprung from speculations and experiments
inspired by the belief that the actions occurring iu the universe
take place according to some intelligible plan, while many of
the laws which have been discovered are capable of being
expressed by very simple mathematical formule.

One of the most conspicuous instances of belief in such a
plan is furnished by the doctrine of the conservation of energy.
According to this doctrine, the total energy in the universe is
fixed in amount, and any chemical or physical change involves
merely a redistribution of energy or a change from one form of
energy to another. Such a law is obviously of the utmost
significance, and it is not surprising that many of the modern
advances in science are due to its recognition. Men would
have been dull indeed if they had not seen in the law, as
revealed by experimental investigations, an ordinance of an
intelligent Power bearing rule over the whole universe. But
to some extent the process took place in the reverse direction,
and, instead of experiments leading to the doctrine of the
conservation of energy, it was the expectation that the plans
ordained by the Creator would be found to be intelligible to
human minds which led the way to the establishment of the
law as an article of scientific belief, for it was his faith in a
Creator and his belief that the Creator had made energy
subject to the law of conservation which led Joule to make the
series of experiments which went far to secure the acceptance
of the doctrine. His own words deserve to be quoted. “ I shall
lose no time,” he says, “in repeating and extending these

MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSE. fil

experiments, being satisfied that the grand agents of nature are,
by the Creator’s fiat, indestructible.”*

§ 11. The Beginning and End of the Universe—The modern
conception of the universe sets before us a wonderful system
working in a manner so regular and so orderly that we are
almost tempted to believe that this regular working has con-
tinued not merely for many centuries or for many millions of
millions of years, but that there never was a time when the
universe was not guided by the same laws, neither more nor
less, aS are in operation to-day. This temptation must,
however, be resisted, for if we yield to it we abandon the
conclusion that the universe was created, since to assert that
there never was a time when matter did not exist is equivalent
to saying that it is self-existent.

If the universe consisted merely of the ether and of a single
sphere of matter without any motion either of its centre or of
the parts of its molecules, we could set no limit to its age,
because no changes could occur in it. But the universe is not
of this character; on the contrary, it contains matter in very
vigorous motion—both in bulk, as seen in the earth’s motion
round the sun, and in detail, as seen in the molecular vibrations
which give rise to light. Hence the state of the universe to-day
differs from its state yesterday, and so on. We might, of course,
conceive that all these motions are periodic, and that any
particular state of the universe recurs continually, though
perhaps at long intervals, and, apart from the ditticulty of
accounting for them, we might suppose that these periodic
changes had occurred regularly for an infinite time, and that
they would continue for an infinite time. But modern
investigations prove such a view to be untenable. For they
have shown that, while the total amount of energy remains
unchanged, there is at present a progressive diminution in its
availability, and they point remorselessly to a time when the
energy will be so distributed that further redistribution will be
impossible. The meaning of availability may be illustrated by
reference to water in a reservoir on a mountain near the sea.
‘The water in the reservoir represents available gravitational
energy, and in its descent to the sea-level may be made to drive
machinery and to produce electrical or other energy, but as
soon as the water reaches the sea-level it ceases to be available
for doing work.

When the further redistribution of energy ceases to be

* Joule’s Sctentific Papers, vol. i, p. 157.

72 G. F. C. SEARLE, M.A., F.B.S., ON THE

possible, the universe will be physically and chemically inert
in simple words we may say that it will be dead.

The power of chemical combination of the carbon of coal with
the oxygen of the air is a great reserve of energy, but in a few
generations this source of wealth for England will be practically
exhausted, and then the humblest households will learn by the
experience of hardships something of the meaning of the loss of
availability of energy.

When the operations of the physical laws are traced back-
wards into past time, they lead to greater and greater availability
of energy. But there is a limit to ‘this process, for the total sum
of energy is limited. Speaking generally, the rate at which
redistributions of energy occur increases with the availability of
the energy, but even if the rate of loss of availability had never
been greater than at present we should, in going back, arrive in
a finite time at a state in which all the energy was, so tc speak,
in one basket. We thus conclude that only a finite number
of years has elapsed since the creation of the universe.

The existence of radio-active substances points to the same
eenclusion. For since uranium is continually being transformed
into other substances, and since an appreciable quantity of
uranium is still left, only a finite number of years has elapsed:
since uranium was first formed.

§ 12. Life and Matter—So far we have considered matter
apart from life. But on the earth there are living organisms.
ranging from lowly bacteria to stately trees and splendid
animais and man himself. The bodies of these organisms are
composed of some of those elements of which inanimate objects.
are formed, and to that extent living organisms are identical in
nature with the inanimate world around them. But itis evident.
that there is a profound difference between life and matter, in
that hfe involves individuality. Life is capable of employing’
the molecules of various elements to form the organism and
to maintain it as the abode of life for a longer or shorter time,.
but the organism does not always consist of the same molecules,
for it is continually taking in some molecules, and rejecting
others. Thus, for instance, “after the carbon which an animal
takes in as a constituent of its food has been assimilated, it
is combined in the body with the oxygen taken in from the
air and the resulting carbonic acid gas is breathed out. Both
the carbon and the oxygen form parts of the body for a time,.
but only fora time. Yet the life of the individual preserves
its identity, though the body which it controls is never, for two-
minutes together, composed of exactly the same molecules.

MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSE. 73

At the death of an organism, no immediate change occurs
in the materials composing the body, but it is evident that
in the corpse something is missing which the living organism
possessed.

Matter, such as oxygen or carbon, is often spoken of as
“dead” matter, but this description is inadequate. Many of
the chemical elements are capable of being absorbed into the
bodies of living organisms, and though only a small part of the
total sum of any one element, such as carbon, is associated with
life at any given time, yet every molecule of that element is so
far under the spell of life that, under proper conditions, it will
be compelled to take its place as part of a living body. It thus
appears that there is a very real relation between life and a
great part of matter, and the statement may be extended to all
matter if the elements are merely various forms of a single
substance. We are led to the conclusion that the capability of
most, if not all, matter to enter into association with life was
provided for in the design and original formation of the
molecules, and further, that life and matter have proceeded from
the same source.

§ 13. Origin of Life—Experinents have led to the conviction
that in the present order of things the lnking of hfe with
matter can only arise from the action of living organisms, and
thus we arrive at the conception that living organisms did not
appear on the earth as the unaided result of actions between
mere molecules. We therefore conclude that the first living
organisms were created.

The question at once arises whether the creation of the first.
living things took place at the same time as the creation of
inanimate matter, or whether inanimate matter was in existence
before the creation of living organisms. The only guide with
which science provides us is the existing order of things, and if
we follow this in tracing back the history of the earth, we come
to a time when the earth’s surface was red-hot. Lord Kelvin
made this conception more precise by estimating how many
millions of years have elapsed since that time. The discovery
that radium gives off vast quantities of heat in the course of
its transformations makes it necessary to revise Lord Kelvin’s
numerical estimate, but it does not invalidate the conclusion
that only a finite number of years has elapsed since the earth’s.
surface was red-hot.

In addition to Lord Kelvin’s method a number of quite
independent methods of solving the problem have been devised,
aud they all indicate that, at the most, not more than a few

F 2

74 G. F. C. SEARLE, M.A., F.R.S., ON THE

hundred million years have elapsed since the red-hot stage.
In one of these methods the mass of sodium in the sea is
estimated as well as the mass of sodium carried to the sea in
one year by the rivers. These data give us the time which has
elapsed since rivers first began to flow.

Now the connection between matter and animal or vegetable
life is destroyed when the organism is exposed to a red heat,
and thus, if the existing order of things had prevailed without
interruption from the time when the earth’s surface was
red-hot, there would be no living organisms on the earth at the
present day. Hence we conclude that the creation of the first
living things on the earth has occurred since the time when the
earth’s surface was red-hot.

It has been suggested that life first appeared on the earth
in elementary forms carried hither on meteorites, but this
is no explanation, for it merely pushes the difficulty one stage
further back.

§ 14. The History of Species.’ *The history, as far as it can
be ascertained, of the various species of creatures now inhabiting
the earth, is of very great interest on account of the light which
it may shed upon the nature of those most complex parts of the
universe. This history demands consideration in the present
paper because some of the speculations which were current in
the last century, regarding this history, were used as arguments
against religion. It is still widely believed that those specula-
tions are fully accepted by all intelligent persons, and it
therefore becomes necessary to give a brief account of the
results reached in recent years.

The idea was at one time held, that each living species had
been separately created, and that apart from small variations,
such as occur in the height of men or in the colour of their hair,
each species, whether living or extinct, is incapable of change.
This idea involved acts of creation taking place at different points
of time, and hence it was natural that some should suppose that
all the creatures now living are descended in an unbroken
succession,from those which first existed, and that there has been
but one solitary act of creation of life. This idea, of course,
requires the supposition that the present species are descended
from those which are, in some cases, now extinct, and therefore
required the further supposition that the descendants of living
forms may differ greatly from their ancestors.

* In this section I have been greatly helped by Mr. R. H. Lock’s book
on Lecent Progress in the Study of Variation, Heredity, and Evolution.

MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSE. 7.

Darwin endeavoured to account for the observed differences
between forms which were supposed to be related as descendants
and ancestors by the action of a kind of selection, operating upon
the small variations to which each species is liable. He supposed
that “ there will be a strong tendency for those individuals which
show slight modifications in the direction of a better adaptation
to their environment to survive at the expense of those of their
brethren which do not exhibit similar modifications. This was
the principle called “Natural Selection” by Darwin, and by
Herbert Spencer the “Survival of the Fittest.” It was further
supposed that under the influence of natural selection the small
differences might in a sufficient time be accumulated and
increased to almost any extent. Darwin* did not deny that
many and serious objections might be advanced against his
theory, out he thought that he had given them their full force.
Of his theory he says, “nothing at first can appear more
difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and
instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior
to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumula-
tion of innumerable slight variations, each good for the
individual possessor.” In spite of this difficulty, “ this suggestion
of a natural means of modification had, within a few years, the
effect of convincing practically the whole thinking world of the
truth of the theory of organic evolution.”

Darwin himself endeavoured to consider how far biological
facts were in accordance with his theory, but “the more popular
accounts since his time have dealt almost exclusively with theo-
retical considerations and with matters of opinion.” Mr. R. H.
Lock remarks that “if the truth must be told, the experimental
method was given up for a long time by the majority of
specialists themselves in favour of the controversial.”

Of recent years there has been a return to experiment. The
phenomena of variation and inheritance have been studied, and
the result has emerged that improved features are not evolved
by gradual selection. The theory of modification by selection
has, when put to the test of experiment, very largely if not
completely, failed.

The place of selection has been taken by an alternative
process. “The evidence in favour of an alternative process has
multiplied even faster than the evidence against the continuous
accumulation of minute differences.” “‘The new view is that
the evolution of new species has taken place principally by the

* Origin of Species, chapter xiv.

76 G. F. C. SEARLE, M.A., F.R.S.. ON THE

help of variations of the discontinuous kind. By this process
there can arise at a single step new forms which have already
the complete and definite character usually associated with a
species specially adapted to particular conditions.” There is
nothing speculative about these abrupt variations or mutations,
for they have been frequently observed and are more common
than was formerly supposed. An exainple is furnished by the
Shirley poppy. “In 1880 the Rev. W. Wilks, Vicar of Shirley,
near Croydon, noticed among a patch of common wild field
poppies growing in a waste corner of his garden a solitary
flower with petals showing a very narrow border of white,”
and from the seeds of this flower the strain of Shirley poppies
originated.

These mutations of living forms bring us back again to the
idea of abrupt steps which we discussed earlier in the paper.
No way, apparently, is known of causing these mutations to
appear; all that can be done, and what is done by practical
breeders, is to watch for them and to give them every chance
when they do appear.

It was thought at one time that the value of an individual
was as nothing compared with that of the race. But the facts
of mutation show that this estimate needs revision. For any
living creature may have an offspring which may exhibit
mutation and so may be the progenitor of an entirely new race.

One of the most remarkable results of recent experimental
work is the recognition of the fact that each living organism is
no longer to be regarded as a unit but as a composite being
made up of a great number of unit characters, each capable of
separate description and all inherited independently of one
another.

The manner in which these unit characters are inherited was
discovered about 1865 by Mendel, first a member and then the
Abbot of Brunn. The change which the recognition of unit
characters and the discovery of Mendel have “brought about
has been described by Mr. Lock as follows :—* On the mind of
a biologist familiar with what was known of heredity only ten
years since, these facts must fall with a sense of complete
novelty. The ideas current even so short a time ago are not
so much extended, or even altered, as replaced by an entirely
new set of ideas. And it may be remarked in passing that the
biologist of fifty years ago and more was much nearer to our
present line of inquiry

$15. The Fate of Living Organisms.—From the creation of
living organisms we may pass to their fate. Though they die

MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSE. 77

one by one, life is handed on from parent to offspring in such a
way that we might expect it to continue in an unbroken
succession for all future eternity, provided the prevailing
physical conditions are not destructive to it. But the present
order of things, which is the only guide of science, points, as we
have seen, to a future time when the energy of the universe
will be no longer capable of further transformations, and
without such transformations living organisms cannot continue
to exist. Thus a time will come when there will be no longer
any living organisms on the earth. The present order of things
does not, however, suggest that the universe will not continue as
a mass of inanimate matter after the death of the last organism.

What happens to its life when an organism dies, is a question
to which physical or chemical science has so far given no
answer, for the sufficient reason that life evades the measurement
and analysis of those sciences.

§ 16. Man and the Universe—A survey of the universe
would be incomplete without an examination of the surveying
instrument itself. That instrument is the human race, which
has been so created and developed that it is able to make
scientific observations and from them to discover laws obeyed
by the universe. It is worth while to notice how those laws
have been recognized. They have been established by experi-
ment, and modern science, flushed with success, is steadily
pressing its claims for more money and better opportunities for
research in the hope of establishing further laws. But if we
were to inquire why some man had made certain experiments
or made certain calculations, the answer would often be that he
had had an inspiration. The man is, however, conscious that
it is the opening of his eyes which is the new thing, and not
the fact or principle which he has perceived. The inspiration
comes suddenly, like a flash of light, and makes an abrupt
change in his inteliectual conceptions. But no conclusions
could be drawn from experiments unless it be admitted that
some of the conditions can be varied in an arbitrary manner,
and this amounts to a declaration of the power of free-will on
our part. Thus, if we stroke a steel needle with a magnet, the
needle becomes magnetized, but if the act of stroking was
inevitable we could not decide whether the magnetism of the
needle was directly due to the action of the magnet or whether
other causes were involved. The power of free-will is of great
significance, for the effects of a single act of free-will extend
through the whole of space, and will last as long as the present
order continues. Thus the voluntary motion of a man’s hand

78 G. F. C. SEARLE, M.A., F.B.S., ON THE

not only affects the motion of the earth by a calculable amount,
but also the motions of the sun and of the remotest stars, and
the motions of all these bodies will differ for the rest of time
from the motions they would have had if the man had not
moved his hand.

But there are many other impressions received by man’s
consciousness, and all of them are undoubtedly phenomena
occurring in the universe. Among them are the demands of
conscience, the sense of temptation and the knowledge of
yielding to it, the power of prayer and the consciousness of
answers to it, and the other spiritual experiences of men. Our
knowledge of these things did not arise from the recent work
of a few scientific men; the whole human race, for many
centuries, has been conscious of their reality. The universe is
so clearly the domain of order that it would be strange indeed
if spiritual things were not subject to laws, though it is to be
expected that these laws will differ from those obeyed by
inanimate matter, just as free-will differs from gravitation or
chemical affinity. The unity of the universe makes it
impossible to suppose that we can ever cut ourselves off from
the operations of those laws. Did we but realize this, we
should covet earnestly the spirit of holy fear. When men
have this spirit they not only pay reverent attention to
spiritual things, but also think and speak reverently of all the
things of the material world, as, for example, of the weather.
They are conscious that they are dwelling in the Temple of
God and it is the joy of their lives to give Him their worship
and their obedience.

The unity of the universe proclaims that there is absolute
harmony between what is true in science and what is true in
religion, and the fact that many of the greatest men of science
have publicly acknowledged God in their scientific work shows
the fallacy of the supposition that there is any antagonism
between science and religion. Among these pioneers was
Newton, who concluded his great Principia, or Mathematical
Principles of Natural Philosophy, with a wonderful passage on
the nature of God, “to discourse of whom,” he wrote, “from
the appearances of things does certainly belong to Natural
Philosophy.” Another pioneer has lately passed away from us
in the person of Lord Kelvin, who for fifty-three years began
the first lecture of each day by reciting a collect from the
Prayer Book. In such lives as these there was wisdom and
there was holy fear. May it not be that, after all, the fear of
the Lord is the beginning of wisdom ?

MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSE. 79

At the conclusion of the paper the thanks of the audience were
unanimously voted to the lecturer on the motion of Professor
ORCHARD.

Mr. SEARLE then dealt with a number of questions which were
put to him, and the meeting adjourned at 6.15.

501st ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.

HELD IN THE HOUSE OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS
ON MONDAY, JANUARY 24ru, 1910, AT 4.30 p.n.

Proressor E. Huu, LLD., F.R.S. (VICE-PRESIDENT),
IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed, and
the following announcements made on behalf of the Council : —

The Rev. Canon R. B. Girdlestone, M.A., late Chairman of Council,
had been appointed a Vice-President in the place of the late
W. H. Hudleston, Esq., F.R.S.

The Rev. Griffith Thomas, D.D., Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford,
had been appointed to a seat on the Council in the place of
Colonel T. H. Hendley, C.I.E., resigned.

Dr. W. A. Shann, of Woking, had been elected an Associate of the
Victoria Institute.

The CHAIRMAN then introduced Professor H. Langhorne Orchard,
the author of the subsequent paper and winner of the Gunning
Prize 1909. He was certain that all those present would derive
the greatest pleasure and assistance from the paper, which he might
mention had been placed first in their independent reports by all
three of the arbiters appointed to consider the essays submitted for
the Gunning Prize, so that at their subsequent meetings the task
of recommending the award had not proved a difficult one, though
none of them had agreed as to the order of the other excellent
essays submitted.

Professor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, who was received with great
applause, then proceeded to read the following paper :—

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES.
By Professor H. LaNGHoRNE OrcHARD, M.A., B.Sc.
(Being the Gunning Prize Essay, 1909.)

I. Preliminary.—Definitions ; Relations between Science and Miracles ;
Nature of Scientific Evidence.
Il. Miracles in General.—Are they possible? Are they probable ?
Have miracles actually occurred ?
IIL. The Bible Miracles.
Appendix on miraculous occurrences and “ Miracles,” other than those
recorded in Holy Writ.

I. Preliminary.—The aim of the following Essay is to arrive
at a conclusion, as definite as possible, with regard to the
attitude of Science towards Miracles. It is premised that the
attitude of Science may, or may not, be coincident with that
of Scientists.

We begin by defining our terms. What is Science? What
isa Miracle? Science, says Whitney,* is “knowledge gained
by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning; know-
ledge co-ordinated, arranged, and systematized.” In the
Encyclopedic Dictionary we vead that Science is “co-ordinated,
arranged, and systematized” knowledge, and, again, “ Science
is a systematic species of knowledge which consists of rule and
order”; the verb “know” meaning “having experience of,”
“perceive with certainty.” ‘‘ Science,” says Chambers’ Encyclo-
pedia, “in its widest significance, is the correlation of all
knowledge. To know a truth in its relation to other truths is
to know it scientifically.” Bouillet+ enounces that “on appelle
Science soit une connaissance certaine (par opposition & opinion,
qui n’est que probable), soit un ensemble de connaissances
contréllées et systematisées par l’application d’une méthode.”
By Huxleyft Science is regarded as “the knowledge of fact.”

* The Century Dictionary. + Dictionnaire Universel.
t Essay on Universities.

82 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

These definitions seem to justify the following :—Stcience ds the
investigation and study of things and phenomena in nature, with
a view to their explanation and correlation in the great order of
the universe. In doing this, she seeks to arrange and classify
them, for the two-fold purpose of retaining knowledge gained
and of employing it as a progressive means to further
knowledge.

What is a Miracle? Thomas Aquinas* answers :—‘“ Things
that are done occasionally by Divine power outside of the usual
established order of events are commonly called Miracles. We
wonder when we see an effect and do not know the cause. The
absolutely wonderful is that which has a cause absolutely
hidden. Now the cause absolutely hidden to every man is
God.” Hume says, “ Nothing is esteemed a miracle if it ever
happen in the common course of nature”; and, in his affirma-
tion that miracles are “violations” of the laws of nature, has
the intellectual sympathy of Spinoza.

A better definition is that given by Lockef—<A miracle
I take to be a sensible operation, which, being above the
comprehension of the spectator, and in his opinion contrary
to the established course of nature, is taken by men to be Divine.”

According to the Encyclopedic Dictionary, a miracle is
etymologically “anything which excites wonder, surprise, or
astonishment,’ and it 1s “a supernatural event or act.”

Butlert considers that “A Miracle in its very notion, is
relative to a course of nature, and implies something different
from it, considered as being so.” Isaac Taylor calls a miracle
“a fragmentary instance of the eternal order of an upper
world.” Smythe Palmer would define a miracle “as a new
effect introduced by a new cause, and that cause the will of
God.” Other interesting definitions are the following :—“ The
best idea which we can form of a miracle is that of an event
or phenomenon which is fitted to suggest to us the action of a
personal spiritual power ” (Westcott). Miracles may be defined,
“ provisionally,” as “ Physical phenomena which are unaccount-
able by the known laws and processes of nature ” (Girdlestone).§
A miracle is “An exception to the observed order of nature
brought about by God in order to reveal His will or purpose”

* Summa contra Gentiles. t+ Discourse of Miracles.

t Analogy, Part ii.

§ “The Scriptural Idea of Miracles.” Transactions of the Victoria
Institute, vol. xxxix.

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 835

{Lias).* “ By a miracle (using the word in its strictest sense),
we mean a phenomenon which, either in itself or from the
circumstances under which it is presented, suggests the
immediate working of a personal power producing results not
explicable by what we observe in the ordinary course of
nature” (Westcott).f

On careful consideration of what is suggested, or implied, by
the term “miracle,” it is possible that none of the preceding
definitions may be held to be adequate or satisfactory. In
seeking one that is so, we note that it includes (1) something
marvellous, (2) something exceptional, (3) something taking
place in nature, (4) something not explicable by natural (or,
human) causes, (5) something directly referable to supernatural
action.

(1) That the thing is marvellous is affirmed by the name
“miracle” (miraculum). (2) It must also be exceptional.
The phenomena of the seasons and of day and night, are
indeed very wonderful, yet they are not miracles. It has been
pointed out that a sudden stoppage of the earth’s rotation on
her axis would be called a miracle, but we do not apply the term
to the rotation, though the rotation is quite as wonderful.
{3) A miracle is further thought of as taking place in nature.
(4) It is not explicable by natural (or, human) causes. Though
it fulfils the previous conditions, yet, if explicable by natural
(or, human) causes, it ig not a miracle. An eclipse, or the
appearance of a new comet is not accounted a miracle; the
telephone, the latest Dreadnought, an aeroplane, wireless tele-
graphy, or anything that man can do, or that any part of
“nature” can do, however marvellous, we do not consider
classifiable as “ miracle.” (5) It follows that, since every event
must be referable to some cause, and the cause in this case is
not a natural (or, human) one, it is supernatural.

Hence the following definition, put forward not without
diffidence :—A miracle is an exceptional marvel in nature, not
explicable by natural causes, and therefore directly attributable to
a supernaturalt cause.

* Are Miracles Credible ?

t+ The Gospel of the Resurrection, 4th Edition, p. 35.

t Better thus—A Miracle is an exceptional marvel in nature which, not
being explicable by any human or any natural cause, is attributable to some
supernatural cause. (See the Author’s further reply.)

A miracle is a connecting link between the natural and the super-
natural. Speaking of Bible miracles, Trench says that a miracle “is a
kind of finger-post of God.”

84+ PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON’

Relations between science and miracles: Are there in fact
any relations? According to the late Archbishop Temple*
science can deal only with such materials as are “ reducible to
invariable laws. If any observation made by the senses is not
capable of being brought under the laws which are found to
govern all other observations, it is not yet brought under the
dominion of science.” The investigation of any newly observed
fact “proceeds on the assumption that nature will be found
uniform, and on no other assumption can science proceed at
all” He points out that “this assumption of something
permanent in things around us comes from the consciousness of
something permanent within us. We know our own per-
manence, whatever else we know or do not know about our-
selves, we are sure of our own personal identity through succes-
sive periods of life. And as our explanation of things outside
begins by classing them with things inside we still continue
to ascribe permanence to whatever underlies phenomena even
when we have long ceased to ascribe individual wills to any
except beings like ourselves. And without this assumption of
permanence our whole science would come to the ground.” He
then goes on to say that experience shows the uniformity of the
separate laws of nature, and that “the evidence for the
uniformity of nature is the accumulated evidence for all the
separate uniformities.” With regard to the occurrence of
miracle, his conclusion is—“ science has shown that the vast
majority of events are due to derivative action regulated by
laws. Here is an event which cannot be so explained any
more than the action of our own free will can be so explained.”
“Science may fairly claim to have shown that miracles, if they
happen at all, are exceedingly rare. To demonstrate that they
never happen at all is impossible, from the very nature of the
evidence on which science rests. But for the same reason
science can never in its character of science admit that a
miracle has happened. Science can only admit that, so far as
the evidence goes, an event has happened which les outside its
province.”+ From this it might be inferred that the present
inquiry need proceed no further,—that science and miracle are
like two travellers, ignorant of and incapable of learning each
other’s language, who pass each other upon different sides of a

* “Relations between Religion and Science” (Bampton Lectures for
1884).
+ Lbid,

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 85

great common highway. They bow, salute, and may smile,—
and that is all! But, is science in such bondage to uniformity
as the Archbishop seems to suppose? Is she the impotent
vassal of the natural formule which she justly glories in having
discovered ? Was there no science during the patient investiga-
tions preceding these discoveries, when as yet the rounds of the
ladder were unshaped? Was science unborn when walks and
talks with nature were leading on to the acquisition of her
secrets ? Though not mature, science was certainly not then
unborn; she was beginning to know nature, and thus to carry
out her great mission of subduing the earth; she was laying
the foundations without which the future edifice had been
impossible.

fo...Dr: Temple “Science” appears to have stood for
“Natural Science” only, and to a narrow concept of science he
added a narrow concept of scientific procedure. Yet even were
science so “cribbed, cabined, and confined,” she still might
be permitted to investigate into extraordinary phenomena such
as earthquakes, eclipses, and miracles; for there could be no
certainty a priori that these events might not be included in a
uniformity greater and vaster than is that presented to us by
«the laws of nature.” Science is constantly telling us that lesser
uniformities are included in higher—eg., the law of weight,
the law of tides, the law of the earth’s centripetal force, are
included in the wider law of gravitation. Dr. Temple himself
endorses this thought when, alluding to “the uniformity of
nature,’ he remarks that “this regularity is seen to be more
and more widely pervading all phenomena of every class, until
the mind is forced to conceive the possibility that it may be
absolutely universal* “

If so, it may include miracles, even upon his own definition
that a miracle is “an event which we cannot assign to that
derivative action to which we have been led to assign the
great body of events; we cannot explain it except by referring it
to direct and spontaneous action, to a will like our own will.”

Since Miracles are phenomena—exceptional phenomena—in
nature, Science properly concerns herself with them. For
(1) Science takes note of individual facts, otherwise she could
not classify ; (2) Science is busy with the ordinary and common,
and therefore must also recognize the extraordinary and un-
common, as differing; (3) Science seeks material for classifi-

* “Relations between Religion and Science” (Bampton Lectures for
1884).

&6 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

cation, and miracles are classifiable*; (4) Science aims at
explanation, and miracles may explain what nothing else can
explain; science sets herself to take account not of some facts
only, but of all; she shirks no part of this task, be the subject
radium, hypnotism, miracles, or aught else. She oecupies her-
self not with the usual only, but also with the unusual.

The aversion from miracles which is cherished by some
scientists does not rest upon a scientific basis. It is accounted
for by two considerations—the one negative in character, the
other positive—(1) Unwillingness to admit that something can
take place in nature which is not subject to the laws of nature,
and is refractory from scientific formule; (2) Desire to test
every article of faith by experimental methods.

The first objection is a natural prejudice, but, when opposed
to truth, is unworthy of a scientific mind; the second, when
applied to miracles, is absurd, since excluded by the nature of
the case. That belief in the fact of miracles is thoroughly
compatible with the true scientific temper may be now stated as
a truism. It is illustrated in such leaders as Newton, Faraday,
Murchison, Sedgwick, Dawson, Carruthers, Turner, Stokes,
Kelvin. The mission of Science is investigation, her perpetual
watchword :—Examine and Report.

How is this to be done? is a question which leads us to look
at the nature of scientific evidence. Briefly, scientific evidence
may be described as—(1) Evidence of observation; (2) Evidence
of testimony: (5) Evidence of inference. Examples of these
three kinds of evidence are continually coming before us.
Practical instances of mechanical principles, of chemical re-
actions and combinations, of biological processes, and of the
behaviour of strange bodies such as radium, are believed by
many of us from the evidence of our personal observation, by
many more from the evidence of testimony ; we may not have
seen the phenomenon, but some one else has, and we believe
that he has, and we substitute his observation for our owa,
regarding it as equally valid. A great many things are

* Aquinas (Summa contra Gentiles) arranges thus :—“ Miracles of the
highest rank are those in which something is done by God that nature
can never do. Miracles of the second rank are those in which God does
something that nature can do, but not in that sequence and connection.
A miracle of the third rank is something done by God which is usually
done by the operation of nature, but is done in this case without the
working of natural principles.” See also a classification (under seven
heads) of miraculous phenomena connected with the Mission of Christ,
by Canon Girdlestone (“The Scriptural Idea of Miracles”).

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 87

believed upon grounds of inference. Solutions of mathematical
and physical problems, and logical deductions—more or less
logical—are of this kind. No human being (so far as I am
aware) has ever seen the orbit of our earth, or followed with his
eye the path of a comet, or has had ocular demonstration of the
strange properties of that ether the existence of which ranks
high among scientific certainties.

In her investigation into the subject of the miraculous, it
behoves science to take account of the three kinds of evidence.
To a person who has witnessed (or believes he has witnessed) a
miracle, the first kind of evidence—that given by his own
observation—will probably be the strongest, being first-hand,
and appealing directly to consciousness ; yet it may be greatly
reinforced through the testimony of others who have either
observed the phenomenon themselves or are acquainted with
people who have done so, or through a logical affirmation that
it was probable or even necessary.

Those who have not personally witnessed the miracle are of
course without direct consciousness of the first kind of evidence,
and must rely on testimony and reasoning; though here also
the testimony is based on observation. It does not follow
that the whole evidence in this case is weaker than in
the first, for that supplied through testimony and inference
may be of sufficiently greater strength, We may remind
ourselves of this when we come to consider the Scripture
miracles.

It is to be noted that each kind of evidence has its danger,
against which science in her investigation has to guard.
Observation may be rendered worthless by hallucination, or by
inattention. As Mill remarks, some people see more, and some
see less, than there is. Testimony may be rendered worthless
by excessive credulity or incredulity, by prejudice, by a habit of
lying, by a desire to make a sensation, or by other causes,
Inference may be vitiated by bias, by insufficient evidence, by
mis-estimation of due weight and proportion in the evidence,
by mistake as to its character, by illusions. In considering a
miracle, or any other extraordinary and exceptional event,
precaution on these points is more urgent than it is with regard
to ordinary events. An exceptional occurrence cannot lay
claim to scientific belief unless the testimony to it is also
exceptional. Whether certain testimony is, or is not, excep-
tional, is a matter for investigation. Science is as much within
her right in inquiring into the character of an alleged
miraculous phenomenon as she is in inquiring as to whether iron

88 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

is a metal, or soda is an alkali, or mesmerism is a species of
(animal) magnetism.

Should it be objected that miracles imply the supernatural,
the answer is that the existence of the supernatural is among the
strongest affirmations of science. Though daily occupied with
matters cognizable by the senses, science is ever endeavouring
to penetrate the veil of the unseen. Unsatistied with her tiny
heritage of the known, she presses through all limitations
toward the vast stretches of the unknown, and in a great
solitude lifts up her hands unto God. “The desert,” says the
Arab, “is the garden of Allah.” To science “an atheist in the
desert is unimaginable.” That science testifies to the existence
of the supernatural is recognized by leading scientists and
others. Lord Kelvin tells us that “science, if you think truly,
forces to a belief in God.” Stewart and Tait* say that “the
existence of the Creator of all things is absolutely self-evident.”
Newtont declares that “The First Cause certainly is not
mechanical.” H. Spencer speaks of “the one absolute certainty
that we are ever in the presence of an Infinite and Eternal
Energy from which all things proceed.” It is also evident that
God is a Person; for, being the First Cause, He cannot be
limited, but He would be limited were He without consciousness,
will, or any other attribute of personality. Another thing
worth our notice in this connection, as has been recently
pointed out by A. T. Schofield, M.D.t is that science, in its
inquiries into nature, always proceeds on the supposition that
she is intelligible to us, and therefore that she is the work of
Mind infinitely greater than, but not infinitely dissimilar
from, our own minds. Since it is the function of science to
examine into every phenomenon which takes place in nature,
and since she bears witness to the existence of a Supernatural
Person, it follows that miracles are proper objects of her
attention.

Il. Miracles in General.—(a) Ave miracles possible? (6) Are
miracles probable ? (¢) Have miracles actually occurred ? =

(a) The first thing to be determined in a scientific investi-
gation of miracles is—‘ Are they possible?” They are
occurrences which, by hypothesis, are exceptional and strange,
apparently interrupting the continuity of nature. There are,

* The Unseen Universe.

+ Optics, 384. f ;

t “Science and the Unseen World,” a paper read before the Victoria
Institute, January 18th, 1909.

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 89

however, many such occurrences which are recognized by
science as established facts. Earthquakes, the Noachian
Deluge, the burning up of stars, the odd behaviour of radium,
etc., come under this category. So far, then, there is no
impossibility in the occurrence of a miracle. But is any
existent cause adequate to its production ? Our definition finds
the adequate cause in the supernatural, and there only. If the
supernatural exist, miracles are possible; if the supernatural
do not exist, miracles are impossible. Occurrences may take
place which look like miracles, but they are not really miracles.
They are either impostures, or merely natural marvels. To
atheism Divine miracles are, in the nature of the case, impos-
sible ; the atheist must necessarily reject them, for every effect,
and therefore every miraculous effect, requires for its pr oduction
an adequate cause, and the adequate cause in this case the atheist
denies. But atheism and science are two very different things.
Science (as we have seen) affirms the existence of the
supernatural, and therefore of a cause adequate to the produc-
tion of miracles. She tells us that such occurrences are
(intrinsically) possible. “If,” says our late President, Sir
George Stokes,* “ we think of the laws of nature as self-existent
and uncaused, then we cannot admit any deviation from them.
But if we think of them as designed by a Supreme Will,
then we must allow the possibility of their being on some
particular occasion suspended.”

And he goes on to say that it is not necessary, “in order that
some result out of the ordinary course of nature should be
brought about, that they should even be suspended ; it may be
that some different law is brought into action whereby the
result in question is brought about without any suspension
whatsoever of the laws by which the ordinary course of nature
isregulated.” According to J. S. Mill,t “« An impossibility is that,
the truth of which would conflict with a complete induction,
that is, with the most conclusive evidence which we possess of
universal truth.” But a “complete” induction must obviously
take account of and include the alleged miraculous occurrence
itself. Mull points out} that in the case of an alleged miracle,
the usual effect of a natural law is defeated “in consequence of
a counteracting cause, namely, a direct interposition of an act

* Gifford Lectures, 1891, pp. 23, 24.
+ System of Logie, vols ui, 7th Edition, p. 169.
{ Lbed., p. 164.

G 2

90 PROF. H, LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

of the will of some being who has power over nature ; and in
particular of a Being, whose will being assumed to have
endowed all the causes with the powers by which they produce
their effects, may well be supposed able to counteract them.”
In this connection, he quotes Brown’s* remark that a miracle
is no contradiction to the law of cause and effect; it is a new
effect, supposed to be produced by the introduction of a new
cause.

The law of causation proves the existence of the super-
natural :—Consideration of any natural phenomenon shows us
that a series of phenomena follow it, and another series precede it.
It is a link in a “causation chain” or chain of effects, with a
multitude of sequences and a multitude of antecedents. Now
this multitude of effects must be either infinite or not infinite.
If infinite, then the power producing this infinite effect is
infinite, and is therefore the attribute of a Supernatural Being.
If, however, the chain have a beginning, a great First Cause
exists which, by the supposition, is supernatural.t In any
case, then, the supernatural exists. An adequate cause for
miracles exists.

But the possibility of miracles has been contested on two
grounds—(1) That they are violations of the laws of nature,
therefore contrary to experience; (2) That they are dissonant
from the character of God, and their occurrence would imply
that He is inconsistent with Himself.

The first argument has been made famous by Hume, and
contains a petitio principit. There is need to define this definition:
What is “violation”? What is a law of nature? What is
contrariety to “experience”? A change in the usual order of
natural phenomena does not connote a violation of any law.
The natural force which was working before continues to work
still, but a new force having come to work with it, these two
forces are (in accordance with the principles of physics),
equivalent to a third force—their resultant, of which the
phenomenal expression is of course different from that of the
original single force. There is no “violation” in the phenome-
non being altered; there would have been violation, if to a
new and different force there did not correspond a new and
different effect. A cricket ball, falling right upon the wicket, is
stopped by the bat, and sent high up in the air presently to end

* Inquiry, Notes (A) and (F) in the Appendix.
+ This latter is, as we have seen, the case affirmed by science. The
“causation chain would fall, were there no Hand that held it up.”

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 91

its journey in the palm stretched out to catch it. But there
has been no violation of the law of gravitation, the force of
gravity has been acting on the ball at each stage of its
adventures. An eagle beating the air with its wings and
soaring toward the sun, is not violating the law of gravitation;

on the contrary, the force of gravity “itself assists the rising.
What in truth do we mean by a “law of nature”? Mill*
defines it as a uniformity, «eit is a uniform mode of force-
action. When a natural force acts in a uniform manner, this
uniform way of action is its law and is called a ‘law of
nature”; eg., “the law of gravitation” expresses a force called
gravity which acts uniformly with an intensity varying as the
product of the attracting masses divided by the square of the
centre-gravity distance. In general, “natural laws” and phe-
nomena represent several natural forces in combination with
each other; and natural phenomena are, as we have seen,
continually being modified by will, whether of man or of some
other creature. Obviously then they may be modified, altered
entirely, or created, by the Will of the Creator.

Not only does science affirm this will-modification of nature,
but without it, science cannot move hand or foot. For the
processes whereby she works are voluntary processes. She
cannot stand or walk, write down hypotheses, prepare experi-
ments, adjust the apparatus, or make her notes of the results,
unless she modify the force of gravity by new forces introduced
by will. Lotze has remarked that there is in nature a real
determinism without which we could not adjust means to ends
with any certainty. But this determinism is not more necessary
to science than is the power of modifying it and varying its
phenomena through the introduction of new forces by the will
of the scientist.

If the scientist can produce natural modifications, so also can
nature herself. Man is a break in its continuity. ‘Sir Charles
Lyellf tells us that “atavism” “is an instance of discon-
tinuity.” Referring to “the dissipation of energy,” Clerk
Maxwellf tells us that “the duration of the universe according
to the present order of things is . . . essentially finite
both @ parte ante and a parte post.’ Speaking of Fourier’s
famous theory of the conduction of heat, where the formule
indicate a possible solution of all positive values of the time
which continually tends to a uniform diffusion of heat,

* Logic, Book iii, c. xiv. + Geology. t Nature, ix, p. 200.

92 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

Maxwell* points out that “if we attempt to ascend the stream
of time by giving to its symbol continually diminishing values,
we are led up to a state of things in which the formula has
what is called a critical value ; and if we inquire into the state
of things the instant before. we find that the formula becomes
absurd.f We thus arrive at the conception of a state of things
which cannot be conceived as the physical result of a previous
state of things, and we find that this critical condition actually
existed at an epoch not in the utmost depths of a past eternity,
but separated from the present time by a finite interval.”

If scientists and nature herself are producers of modifications
in phenomena, a supernatural being may be soalso. Therefore,
Hume’s assertion that “a firm and unalterable experience” has
established the laws of nature, that a miracle is a “ violation ”
of these laws, and that consequently “the proof against a
miracle from the very nature of the fact is as entire as any
argument from experience can possibly be imagined,” must be
regarded as no more tenable than some other confident assertions
to which we have had to listen. An endeavour to prove that an
alleged occurrence is contrary to experience, by the shallow
device of excluding that part of experience which is alleged to
embrace it, 1s a pretty conspicuous instance of bad logic.
“ All,” says Mill,t “ which Hume has made out is that (at least
in the imperfect state of our knowledge of natural agencies,
which leaves it always possible that some of the physical
antecedents may have been hidden from us) no evidence can
prove a miracle to anyone who did not previously believe the
existence of a being or beings with supernatural power, or
who believes himself to have full proof that the character of
the Being whom he recognizes, is inconsistent with His having
seen fit to interfere on the occasion in question.” Lord
Grimthorpe observes that Hume’s “experience” “is only the
one-sided experience of all the non-miraculous events in the
world. ‘A man who propounded a new scientific theory on the
ground that it explains all the known phenomena except one
obstinate set of them which he cannot get rid of, would be
laughed at—or rather ought to be, and would be if so-called
science had not become so depraved by prejudice and timidity.”

An argument against the possibility of miracles which is
more plausible than Hume’s, though not so well known, was

* Bradford Lecture, see Vature, viii, p. 441.

+ This is in agreement with Mill’s remark that a uniformity may cease
to be a uniformity, as when a white blackbird was discovered.

t Logic, 7th Edition, p. 165.

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 93

put forward by Spinoza* as a consequence of his pantheistic
system. He says—“ But if you will have a miracle to be such
a rare effect, which is absolutely above or (which really is all
one) contrary to the laws of nature, or which cannot possibly
follow from her fixed immutable order, then I dare not believe
that any such miracle hath ever happened in nature. lest I
oppose God to God, that is, admit that God changes His own
decrees, which from the perfection of the divine nature, I know
to be impossible.” This curious argument asserts that if at any
time it has pleased God to work in nature in some particular
manner, the perfection of His nature (or character) for ever
precludes Him from working in any other manner, however
different the conditions or circumstances. Such an assumption
is absurd. Nature herself refutes it by pointing to catastrophes.
Man’s free will is continually altering natural phenomena,
removing old phenomena and producing new, changing physical
configuration and the character of soils and climates. Shall we
recognize freedom in the creature, and deny it to the Creator ?
The “fixed immutable order” in nature, spoken of by Spinoza,
may be fixed and immutable for a time only, then to be
followed by “a new thing,” after which the order may, or may
not, go on as before; or the old order may not have been
intermitted, but merely modified by a new force. Also the old
order and the new force and the miraculous event may each be
included in and form part of a wider higherf order. There is
nothing “impossible” in any of these suppositions. In his
Gifford lecturest already referred to, Sir George Stokes gives,
as illustrating the effect produced by a new force, the case of
a clock with an iron pendulum, the rate of which, determined
by the laws of motion and gravitation, was well known.
“Suppose,” he says, “that on one occasion it went much faster
for an hour or two, and then resumed its usual rate. It may
have been that someone designedly put a powerful magnet
under it, which after a time was taken away again. The
acceleration of rate was here produced, not by any suspension
of the laws of motion or of gravitation, but by bringing into
play for a time a special force which left the laws of motion
and of gravitation perfectly intact, and yet brought about the
result that we have supposed to have been observed.” Different

* Miracles, Premonition.

t Babbage reminds us that “ A miracle, instead of being a violation of
a law, is in fact the most eminent fulfilment of a vast law.” (Passages
Jrom the Life of a Philosopher, 1864, p. 394.) t p. 24.

94 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

phenomena may even appear to be quite contrary to each other,
when in reality they work in harmony and are in fact mutually
promotive; for example, the motion of any part of a carriage
wheel is continually taking opposite directions, yet these
opposite motions assist each other, and harmoniously work to
set forward the motion of the carriage in a straight line.

It is interesting to notice, as illustrating the cogency of his
argument, that Hume himself admits that (according to his
principles) “the Indian who refused to believe that water
could freeze reasoned justly.” His error lay, Hume thinks,
in bis not taking account of the new* conditions, conditions
different from those of Siam ; and Hume’s own error lies in the
same direction.

Spinoza also answers himself when he declares that by
an impossible thing he means anything supposed to happen
‘in nature at large” repugnant to its laws, for the laws of
nature being the laws of God, such an event would be “ equally
repugnant to the decrees and intelligence of God”; and tells
us that by “nature at large” he means not matter merely but
“an infinity of other things as well.”’f

Another argument, besides those which have been considered,
is sometimes adduced against the possibility of miracles, namely,
that they are inconceivable. Although H. Spencer sought to
erect conceivability into the decisive test of truth, Mill has
shown shat it is not anything of the sort, and therefore there is
nothing in the argument based upon it. He points out that
our conceivability varies with our knowledge. Things now
familiar, ¢g., antipodes, and talking by lightning, once seemed
inconceivable.

There remains yet an objection—it cannot be termed an
argument—against the possibility of miracles, which is
cherished by a certain type of mind. It consists in simple
denial. “Miracles do not happen.” By a sweeping statement
devoid of all proof the question is settled. Even M. Arnold
was not ashamed to resort to alogism of this description.
Another alogist, R. W. Macan (in his essay on The Resurrection
of Christ, 1877, p. 116, note) asserts that “If miracles are
possible, history is impossible,’—an assumption which begs
the question. Westcott (in his Gospel of the Resurrection, 4th

* See Lnquiry, Sec. X.

t “Me hic per Naturam non intelligere solam materiam, ejusque
affectiones, sed preter materiam, alia infinita” (Zractatus . . De Miraculis,
Cc. Vi).

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 95

edition, p. 278) remarks that the alogist bars his own progress
into truth, being self-committed to a foregone conclusion which
he ought first to have established.

Nothing is impossible with science that does not contradict
some truth.* Huxley says “denying the possibility of miracles
seems to me quite as unjustifiable as speculative atheism.”
Stupid incredulity may disfigure some scientists who refuse to
recognize truth outside their own little specialized fields of
study, but this narrowness is in no sense an attribute of science.
It is not the fault of the world if the villager has never
travelled. We conclude, from fair and careful examination,
that science affirms the possibility of miracles.

(6) Are miracles probable? What does science tell us on
this point? Certainly a phenomenon may be very rare or
unusual, eg., an eclipse or a comet, and yet its occurrence may
be probable. A miracle, however, is more than an unusual
occurrence—it is produced by the action of the supernatural ;
and it is contended that science does not reach to such action.
It may be replied that, in the case contemplated, the action is
expressed by some phenomenon in nature, and that science is
competent to take note of and report upon the phenomenon.

That miracles are improbable has been strongly urged by
Hume, whom we have already seen denying their possibility.
Hume argues that it is more probable that the evidence for the -
occurrence of a miracle is false than that there has been any
deviation from the course of nature, and that testimony to
the miraculous should not be accepted unless it were more
miraculous that the testimony be false than that the miraculous
event be true. And he says that “even in that case there is a
mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives
us an assurance suitable to that degree of force which remains
after deducting the inferior.” In another place, however, he
gives a hypothetical case in which he allows that an event of
very great improbability ought, if supported by very strong
testimony, to be believed. Mill points out} that “many events
are altogether improbable to us, before they have happened, or
before we are informed of their happening, which are not in the
least incredible when we are informed of them, because not
contrary to any, even approximate, induction. In the cast of a
perfectly fair die, the chances are five to one against throwing

* Science does not reject anything simply because it is new. She
investigates.
t+ Logie, vol. ii, pp. 170-1.

96 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

ace, that is, ace will be thrown on an average only once in six
throws. But this is no reason against believing that ace was
thrown on a given occasion, if any credible witness asserts
it.” And he reminds* us that “In the instances on record in
which a great number of witnesses, of good reputation and
scientific acquiremenis, have testified to the truth of something
which has turned out untrue, there have almost always been
circumstances which, to a keen observer who had taken due
pains to sift the matter, would have rendered the testimony
untrustworthy.” We may also notice that Hume’s way of
putting the matter, since it regards testimony as the sole
evidence for miracle, is not just ; since this evidence may not
be restricted to testimony, but may include the conditions and
circumstances of the case, the relation of the event to other
events before or after, and also its power of explaining what
may otherwise be inexplicable.

Spinoza’sf objection to miracles as probable is based upon his
conception of the Divine character. We must beware, he says,
of “running into the dangerous error of the Multitude that
God hath created Nature so impotent, and given Laws and
Rules so barren, as that he is compelled sometimes to help her
by new ordinances and supplies of Vertue, in order to her
Support and conservation, and that things may succeed
according to his Intention and Design. An Error than which
nothing is more alien from Reason, nothing more unworthy the
Majesty of the divine Nature.” “The power of God and the
power of Nature are,” he says, “one and the same.” From this.
postulate, he draws the conclusion that whatever takes place in
nature, since it takes place by the power of God, takes place by
the power of nature. “ Nature,” in his pantheistic theory, is a
form of God; therefore, if a miracle were to occur in nature,
it must be explicable by natural causes,—in other words, it
could not really be a miracle. “ For,” he says,t “if we under-
stind the natural causes of the fact, however rare it be; or if
we have often seen the like done before, though we do not
conceive the natural cause thereof, we no longer adimire it, nor
call it a miracle.” That God should change His own decrees,
“from the perfection of the Divine nature” Spinoza holds to
be absurd.

* Logic, vol. ii, p. 169. + Miracles no Violations, pp. 7, 8.

+ Miracles. Similarly, Hobbs (in Leviathan, Part iii) regards a miracle
as “a work of God which men admire or wonder at,” and again, in the
same chapter, as “a work of God beside His operation by the way of
Nature ordained in the Creation.”

THE ATYITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 97

This reasoning evidently rests on a petitio principii. It is
assumed that, because God works in nature, He is limited by
nature, so that it would be contrary to His perfection to work
in any other way. This is as absurd as to say that because a
scientist works in some particular field of activity, therefore he
cannot, without loss to some extent of character, work in any
other,—that a mechanician may not be also an astronomer,
that a biologist may not be a chemist. In fact, the limitation
in working which Spinoza seeks to attribute to God is even
more absurd, since God is almighty and His attributes are infinite.

Another argument made use of by Spinoza against any
occurrence of miracles is that this would imply an after-thought
on His part. {t would imply that He found He had made
some mistake which He desired to correct. It would not imply
anything of the kind. The assertion has no scintilla of evidence.

The reasoning is far from convincing. A belief in the
immutability of “natural laws” requires to be corrected and
modified. Science instructs us that there are such things as
earthquakes and other catastrophes, that discontinuity is a
factor in nature—that all things do not continue as they were
“from the beginning of the creation.” Inattention to the
teaching of nature with regard to God does not unfrequently
accompany familarity with her laws. And nature worship is
not among very rare occurrences, nor has idolatry been found
to be at all dependent upon miracles. Obviously, men’s spiritual
and moral condition might be such that it might be more
important that they be reminded of God’s existence than of His
immutability. There might be urgent need to call their
attention to the presence and power of the supernatural—to
impress deeply the forgotten truth that God is the Living God
and interests Himself in His creatures. It is worth remarking
that Spinoza, in arguing from miracles wrought by false
prophets, does tacitly admit that miracles may after all take
place, and that he has no justification for the assumption that,
since these miracles are injurious, all miracles are so.

An argument for the improbability of miracles, that has had
attraction for some minds, is stated by Wegscheider as follows:
—Miracles are “irreconcilable with the idea of an eternal God
consistent with Himself.” Undoubtedly God is consistent with
Himself. The words of Hooker* are true—“Let no man
doubt but that everything is well done, because the world
is ruled by so good a Guide, as transgresseth not His own

* Heelesiastical Polity, book i, c. 2 sub fin.

98 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

laws.” But, as is acutely remarked by McCosh*, the objection
“assumes that because nature is an expression of God’s will,
there can be no other expression.” What is the meaning of
consistency ? The objection finds it in natural laws, but not in
miracles. Yet, as is pointed out by Liast, “not only is the
principle of the counteraction of force by force a principle of
nature, but the same forces sometimes act in the most opposite
way.” Heat, for instance, usually expands, but it contracts
iodile of silver and some other bodies. A charge of electricity
sometimes attracts, sometimes repels. Virgil told us long ago
that “This wax softens, and that clay hardens, through one and
the self-same fire.” Itis not that heat acts inconsistently ; it is
that it acts consistently. The force acts consistently, the differ-
ence (or contrast) in the resulting phenomena is produced through
the difference of the conditions in which the action takes place.

Water when being cooled down to 0° C. becomes denser and
denser until it reaches 4° C., and then becomes rarer. The
change is not in the force, it is in the conditions. If, the
essential conditions remaining the same, the effect was a
ditferent phenomenon, this would argue inconsistency in the
acting force; but inconsistency would be no less indicated if,
the essential conditions being changed, the resulting phenomenon
were not changed also. If from the sphere of matter, we rise
to that of psycholoey and ethics, and consider human conduct,
we recognize that the man whose outward actions are always
the same toward the same persons, irrespective of any change
in them and taking no account of altered relations and conditions,
is not a consistent man but an inconsistent fool. The really
consistent man is he whose outward action embodies consistent
principle, who regulates conduct by consistent character. If
this be true of man and by parity of reasoning, of any rational
and spiritual creature, may we not reverently believe that it is
true with regard to God that His actions are not cast in a rigid
monotony, but are ever accordant with His character, and
therefore take account of the varying circumstances and special
needs of His creatures? If, then, the special circuinstances
arose, God, in working a miracle, would be perfectly consistent
with Himself.

We may look briefly at yet another argument adduced to
prove the improbability of miracles.

From time to time in human history “ miraculous ” occurrences

* The Supernatural in Relation to the Natural, p. 128.
t Are Miracles Credible? p. 23.

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 99

have been alleged which have turned out to be no miracles at
all. Examination has shown them—so far as “ miraculous ”—
to be the progeny of ignorance, or superstition, or fraud. Svience
has discovered that in some cases the “miracle” is a natural
marvel explicable by natural causes, that in others the extra-
ordinary effect is referable to psychic forces stimulated by
credulity, and in others the explanation lurks ina network of
lies. This has been insisted on as a proof that all miracles are
shams, or at all events the occurrence of a genuine miracle is a
matter of great improbability. The conclusion is however more
than the premises will bear. Indeed, it may be said that the
wide-spread belief in the miraculous is itself an argument that
the miraculous exists or has existed.

It may also be said that it were not very convincing to
contend that, because science discovers that there are untrust-
worthy banknotes and bad shillings, therefore all banknotes and
shillings are of this character.

The existence of the counterfeit does not disprove, but proves,
that of the thing counterfeited—there would be no counterfeits.
were there no realities. The objection thus retorts upon itself.

Thus, each one of the various arguments which have been
held to show that miracles are a priori improbable is seen to
fail, and we are warranted in affirming that science does not say
that miracles are a priori improbable.*

Does science say that they are probable? In pronouncing
upon the probability or the occurrence of any phenomenon,
miraculous or non-miraculous, science takes account of (1) the
nature of the phenomenon; (2) the conditions under which it is
alleged to have occurred; (3) the character of the testimony to
its occurrence.

(1) In the case of a miracle, the nature of the phenomenon
involves the marvellous and the supernatural. (2) The con-
ditions include the character of the worker and the characters
of the persons for whom the miracle is worked, and the
relations mutually subsisting between worker and witnesses.
(3) The character of the testimony is dependent upon the
trustworthiness—moral and intellectual—of the witnesses. A
scientific investigation will examine and report upon each and
all of these matters, and it is obvious that any particular

* Mill remarks that “the only antecedent improbability which can be
ascribed to a miracle is the improbability of the existence of a New
Cause,” namely, ‘a direct interposition of an act of will of some Being
who has power over nature.” (Logic, 8th Edition, vol. ii, 167-8.)

100 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

“miracle” or set of “ miracles” must be investigated separately,
and stand or fall on its own merits according as it does, or does
not, satisfy the tests.

In connection with the value of testimony, it may be pointed
out that it varies with the probability that what the witness
states is fact, which probability will have two factors—the
antecedent probability of the event, and the probalility that
the witness is truthful and competent, 7.e., that he is neither a
deceiver nor Ceceived.

If a person relates that he has just seen a brown dog running
alone the road we believe it as a matter of conrse, unless we
have grounds for thinking him to be a liar: if he says that he
has seen a white blackbird we may think that he is mistaken
or false, and if he told us that without any visible means he
had been communicating in converse with people more than a
thousand miles away (and we did not know anything of wire-
less telegraphy) then, on account of the antecedent improbability
—as we suppose—of this event, we should probably attach no
value to his testimony, unless upon other grounds we knew
that it must be trustworthy. Yet, granted the narrator’s
truthfulness, our reluctance to believe would be attributable
to our ignorance. Thus, what is probable (or improbable) to
us is dependent upon our knowledge of the matter. What
seems to us to disagree from known truth (or, from what is
believed to be so) is to us improbable; what neither disagrees
nor agrees is neither improbable nor probable; what agrees is
probable, and if the measure of agreement is, on the whole,
very great, then the probability is very great. As regards the
event itself, its occurrence or non-occurrence is certain, and
entirely independent of our ideas; but our view of its proba-
bility (or otherwise) is necessarily conditioned by the quality
and the quantity of knowledge, with regard to this or to some
similar event, already in our possession.

We see then that, since what is to us improbability or
probability is dependent upon our actual knowledge of the
matter, the judgment of science concerning miracles in general,
i.e., miracles considered simply as miracles, is that they are not
a priori improbable, and may or may not be probable. And,
concerning any particular case, science enjoins that it be con-
sidered specially and on its own merits, with the application of
the three tests already mentioned.

(c) Let us now ask science whether miracles have actually
occurred. Science answers in the affirmative. She tells us
that events have undoubtedly taken place which come within

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 101

the definition of miracles given early in this Essay. Among
these events are creation ot this world of matter, creation of
living organisms, and the character of the Lord Jesus Christ.
That these things are miracles (according to our definition) will
be admitted by all scientists, even by evolutionists, except
those who assert that matter is eternal, and even they must
perforce admit the last two examples. It is, however, pretty
evident that if the material atom is, as has been pointed out
by Herschel and Clerk Maxwell, “a manufactured article,’ and
if matter’s changes and its modifications are not self-originated,
science is certain that it has been created. Science also asserts
that the great doctrine of biogenesis put forward by Redi “is
victorious all along the line,”* and that life upon this earth
must have had a beginning. And, with regard to the character
of Christ, science recognizes that (to quote the words of Renan’s
famous admission) “it would require a Jesus to invent a Jesus.”

Adopting the definitions at which we arrived on pp. 3 and 4
of science and miracle respectively as “the investigation and
study of things and phenomena in nature, with a view to their
explanation and correlation in the great order of the universe,”
and “an exceptional marvel in nature, not explicable by natural
causes, and therefore directly attributable to a supernatural
cause, *t we have been led, by a scientific investigation into
Miracles in general, to give the following answers to the
questions with which we set out, namely :—(a) Are miracles
possible? Yes, they are. (b) Are miracles probable? They are
not improbable, and may or may not be probable. Any
particular case of alleged miracle should be examined specially
on its own merits, as tot (1) the nature of the phenomenon,
(2) the conditions under which it is alleged to have occurred,
(3) the character of the testimony to its occurrence. (¢) Have
miracles actually occurred ? Yes, they have.

Hl. Lhe bible miracles—That science affirms their possi-
bility we have seen already, since she aftirms that of miracles
generally. Our investigation will therefore concern itself with
their probability @ priori, and their actual occurrence.

(a) Were the Bible miracles probable? (1) Might they be
expected from what we know of their nature? They were not
purposeless manifestations of mere power, but were always
ancillary to Divine teaching, helping men to recover that
knowledge of God which through sin they had lost, the

* Huxley. + See, however, footnote to p, 83. t See p. 99.

102 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

knowledge of God as Spirit, Light and Love. Though miracles
mivht not themselves directly teach these truths—truths of the
highest importance for man to know, they would certainly
enforce them. A miracle would have no little value as a
credential of the prophet’s authority, and as a “summons* to
attention ” to the revelation of which he was the bearer. It is,
therefore, probable that if a Divine revelation were given to
beings who did not love God and were inattentive to His Will,
this revelation would be accompanied by miracle, in order to
render it effective. This appears to be recognized even by so
stubborn an opponent of the miraculous as Matthew Arnold.
He allowsf that “ Popular religion rests” (the belief in God’s
existence) “altogether on revelation and miracle,” and “That
miracles, when fully believed, are felt by men in general to be
a source of authority, itis absurd to deny... It is almost
impossible to exaggerate the proneness of the human mind to
take miracles as evidence, and to seek for miracles as evidence.”
They are, then, to be looked for in connection with a Divine
revelation. In other words, the Bible miracles are probable
from the nature of the phenomenon.

(2) If we consider the conditions and circumstances under
which these miracles are said to have been wrought, we must
take account of the characters both of the Worker and those
on whose behalf the work was wrought, and also of the relations
between them and Him. We see God’s character known as
holy and good, and man’s as sinful and disobedient. The
relation of God to man being one of love, and that of man to
God being one of alienation, God is seeking to bring His lapsed
creature back unto Himself; that, in renewal of the broken
Communion, the spiritual law—law of the spiritual nature—
violated at the Fall, may be re-established, and the true
spiritual order be restored. Lias remarks{ that the purpose of
the Divine revelation would be “ to discipline the mind to that
seriousness, earnestness, humility, teachableness, self-restraint,
industry, perseverance, which are necessary elements of all true
goodness.” It would also tend to develop the not less important
qualities of “awe and reverence, which are connected with the
best part of man’s nature.” “A revelation made by§ miracles
is likely to produce such results,” 2.¢., to produce this moral

* Smythe Palmer, in the introduction to Trench’s Votes.

+ Literature and Dogma, pp. 56, 57.

t Are Miracles Credible? p. 111.

§ The words “ by,” as used here, evidently means “accompanied witb,

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 103

training and development. For “the occurrence or reported
occurrence of miracles compels our attention, and sets us upon
inquiring from what source such marvels proceed. When
joined to the moral and spiritual force of what is thus revealed
it convinces the inquirer that this strange interposition of an
external power into the world could only have been for his
good, and that a doctrine so supported, and so intrinsically
ennobling in itself, must surely have come from God.”

Therefore, the Bible miracles are @ priort probable from the
nature of the phenomenon, and also from the conditions under
which they are said to have taken place.

(6) Let us now apply our three tests (p. 99) to answering the
question—Did the Bible miracles actually occur? (1) In
connection with the nature of the phenomenon, we note that
the character of these miracles is such that, though they be
themselves not necessarily didactic, they always are ancillary
to some teaching concerning God, and of a nature to render
this teaching effective.* If the need of man and the goodness
of God insured the certainty of revelation, it is also certain that
the theophany would be given in the way best fitted to render
it effective, and (as it is pointed out by Aquinas) this way is
the way of miracle. Science also selects the instruments that
are best adapted to the purpose in view. Compared with Bible
miracles, the spurious miracles which have from time to time
attempted to delude mankind exhibit a difference of character
so ereat as to be best described as contrast, and are all
explicable by causes non-supernatural. It is further to be
noted that the Bible miracles are not mere accompaniments of
the revelation, but are inseparably bound up with it. A very
important feature in them is that they explain} what is
otherwise inexplicable. The Exodus of the Israelites becomes
unintelligible if the iniracles said to have attended it did not
really take place, and no explanation is (in such case) possible
of the memorial feast of the Passover. The faith of Christians
is bound up with the miracles of the Incarnation, the
Resurrection, and the character of Christ. Take away these
miracles and you take away Christianity. They explaint
Christianity and nothing else does. They give the key to its

* “Signs,” says Sir Robert Anderson, “are essentially evidential.”
7 On the principles of Mill’s inductive methods of Agreement and
Ditference. (Logic.)
{ 1t is not sae that the miracles fit into the facts as a key into a lock,
but that the lock is fitted by no other key.
H

104 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

doctrines; they account for its wonderful rise and spread and
the divine vitality of its continuous history. If Christianity is
true, they are true also. It was well remarked by Bishop
Douglas* that the more thoroughly Christianity is examined
the stronger appear the proofs of its truth “ . . . the
closest scrutiny and most: impartial examination of the
evidences which support those miracles on the credibility of
which the truth of the Revelation in the New Testament is
built, have served only to satisfy me that Christianity is
founded upon a rock, and that every attempt to sap its
foundations tendeth to discover their strength the more.”
As Dr. Salmon expresses it, “a non-miraculous Christianity is
as much a contradiction in terms as a quadrangular circle;
when you have taken away the supernatural what is left behind
is not Christianity.” ‘‘ Miracles,” says Smythe Palmer, “are of
the essence of Christianity. No one who reads the Bible with
a candid and impartial mind can be of another opinion.”
Archbishop Templef remarks—“It is not possible to get rid
of miracles from the history of the Apostles. They testify to
our Lord’s Resurrection as an accepted fact, and then make it
the basis of all their preaching. They testify to our Lord’s
miracles as a part of the character of His life.” And the truth
of Christianity is bound up with the perfection of the Divine
character. To quote the words of M. Arnold,t “ Christianity is
immortal ; it has eternal truth, inexhaustible value, a boundless
future,” and “certainty and grandeur are really and truly
characters of Christianity.” “ . . Sine vid non itur, and
Christianity can be shown to be mankind’s indispensable way.”§

Of Christ’s Resurrection it has been said that “In one form
or other pre-Christian history is a prophecy of it, and post-
Christian history an embodiment of it.” “ It may indeed be said
that the Church was founded upon the belief in the Resurrection,
and not upon the Resurrection itself . . . But belief
expressed in action is for the most part the strongest evidence
which we can have of any historic event.’|| The existence of
a Christian society is explained by the fact of Christ's Resur-
rection, and by that only. Westcott also notices that this

In The Criterion, a work of great ability.
7th Bampton Lecture.
Literature and Dogma, p. 8.
Ibid., p. 7. Similar is the testimony of the Government Report on
S. African Affairs :—“ Hope for the elevation of the native races must
depend mainly on their acceptance of Christian faith and morals.”

|| Westcott : The Gospel of the Resurrection, p. 107.

LRA +

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 105

Resurrection meets and satisfies man’s aspirations after God and.
a future life, and responds to the religious intuition.

An objector has propounded the curious argument that “One
or other alternative must be adupted:—If Jesus possessed His
own body after His resurrection, and could eat and be handled,
He could not vanish; if He vanished, He could not have been
thus corporeal” (Supernatural Religion, i, 462). The
argument is an interesting instance of the logical fallacy petitio
principit. As Westcott points out, “the very point of the
revelation lies in the reconciliation of these two aspects,” and
it should be borne in mind that a permanent memorial of the
event was established from the very first—a memorial so
striking as to involve the commemoration of the Death upon
the day of the commemoration of the Resurrection.

Not less miraculous than His Resurrection is the Redeemer’s
Character—a Character unique, and impossible to human inven-
tion, the impress of God upon humanity. If the existence of
the Christian Church finds its explanation in the Lord’s
Resurrection,* so in His character lies the explanation of the
Christian character produced by the Spirit of Christ in every
disciple. The Resurrection and the Character both pre-suppose
the Incarnation—“ God manifest in the flesh,’ and these miracles
explain what is otherwise inexplicable. Therefore, science
affirms their occurrence. The perturbations of Uranus were
explained by the existence of the unknown planet Neptune,
and nothing else explained them; therefore science aftirmed
that existence. The phenomena of light are explained by the
existence of a luminiferous ether, and by nothing else; there-
fore science affirms the existence of this ether. On the same
principles, science affirms the existence of the Bible miracles
which we have been considering; she tells us that they have
actually occurred.

The character of Bible miracles is always in accordance with
their origin and purpose, they are evidential, being credentials
of the truth of the teaching and the authority of the teacher.
Christ’s miracles were not tentative. “They bear the impress
of His own holiness, and He ever uses them as the means of
winning to the cause of goodness and truth those who witnessed
them.”

Christ’s mission is verified in the experience of Christianity,

* Ebrard has pointed out that such an ordinance as the Lord’s Supper
could not have grown up accidentally and gradually.
t Origen’s reply to Celsus.
H 2

106 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

and miracles are an integral part of that mission. Jesus of
Nazareth was “a man approved of God . . . by mighty
works and wonders and signs which God did through Him.”*
It is evident that these three terms convey the character of a
Bible miracle as impressing the mind with the presence and
power of God (a “mighty work”)—as arousing and fixing
attention (a “wonder”)—as accrediting the teaching and
authority of His messenger (a “ sign”). Trench has a remarkt
that miracles are very properly credentials, for “ Credulity is as
real, if not so great, a sin as unbelief”; and, in the case of
3ible miracles, the miracle is an important part of the
revelation.

(2) We have seen that a scientific investigation into their
character leads to the conclusion that the Bible miracles did
actually take place. Let us next investigate the conditions
under which they are alleged to have occurred. What was the
character of man? What the character of God? What the
relations between God and man? ‘The character of man was
that of a being who had not only fallen but was still falling,
whose heart had departed from the Living God, so that he
“worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.’t
Man’s understanding had become darkened as, blinded by a
foolish heart, he sought satisfaction in vicious indulgences.
Wise men and philosophers from time to time arose and sighed
for the lost knowledge of “ The Good,” and shook the torch of
truth that so their fellows might see the better way. But
human nature could in no wise lift up itself. The torch went
out, the darkness grew thicker than before, and the result
was the failure of the philosophy and the lamentation of the
philosopher. Horace (Carm. iii, 6) draws a terrible picture—
“ /Ktas parentum, pejor avis, tulit Nos nequiores, mox daturos
Progeniem vitiosiorem.”§ Such was man’s moral and spiritual
condition, such the bluntness of any spiritual perception he
still retained that (as is remarked by Lias) it may be doubted
whether any revelation from God, if unaccompanied by miracles,
would have had power to command his attention. If, then, a
revelation were made to him it would be accompanied by
miracle, probably in order to insure its reception, in any case to
increase its effectiveness. If the revelation was certain, the

* Acts ii, 22.

+ Notes, p. 21. C7. The Lord’s words in John v, 36 ; xv, 24.
{ Romans i, 25.

§ Cf Juvenal, Satires.

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 107

miracles were certain. Was the revelation certain? There
could be no doubt about the need of man. The character of
God was that of the Almighty, and was that of the Good—
the Good after whom Plato had longed, the Good who was,
from the very moment of the Fall, continually working to
bring man back to Himself. God’s character being such, and
the matter of such supreme importance to man, can there be
any question that an effective revelation, i.e, a revelation
accompanied by miracle, was actually given ?

The facts that, in’ the interests of his higher nature, the
material universe is continually being modified by human will,
and that man’s spiritual well-being is vastly more important
than uniformity among natural phenomena, may fairly be held
to remove any difficulty that may be felt with regard to Divine
alteration of any of them. There is no violation of law,
but the introduction of a new force under new circumstances,
so that in these new circumstances, “the laws of nature ”
may be in harmony with a higher law. It has been pointed
out (by Trench)* that the miracles performed by our Lord,
as credentials of His mission, were the very opposite of
violations of nature; for they all tended to bring man back
to Godf and restore that original harmony between man
and nature which had been violated by sin, eg., when the
Lord caused the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak, and
healed the paralytic, He to that extent undid the violation
caused by sin, and brought the physical state of the sufferer
into harmony with nature.

Having revard to God’s known character, it were impossible
to believe that, when circumstances had arisen in which man’s
highest interests required a manifestation of God’s will enforced
by miracles, such miracles did not take place.

The ordinary uniformities of nature have been arranged by
infinite Love as best for him in ordinary circumstances ; the
extraordinary exceptional occurrences called miracles were
similarly arranged as lest for him in those extraordinary
circumstances in which they took place. These two classes of
phenomena are no more opposed to each other than is the huge
Nasmyth steam hammer to the humble tool which serves to
illustrate a schoolroom lecture on elementary mechanics. They

* Notes.

+ “Atheism . .. deadened the understanding, while it disgusted the
heart.” Frederick Harrison, in (1902) New Year’s Day address to the
Positivist Society.

108 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

both work together as different notes forming one harmony ;
for both are equally manifestations of one and the same law—
that highest law which governs the universe, the law of Love.
And if we take note of the resu/ts—results as blessed as they
are wonderful—which have flowed to man as a consequence of
accepting Christianity, and reflect that apart from miracles,
Christianity had been impossible, Science leads us to say that
if their existence were not known, it would have to be assumed,
since for every effect there must be an adequate cause.

That the Bible miracles are genuine is also apparent from
consideration of the other facts connected with the alleged
circumstances of their occurrence. They were not idle
exhibitions of power,—there were, so to speak, no “ unneces-
sary” miracles. They were done publicly,—“ this thing was
not done in a corner.” Frequently they were performed before
hostile audiences, ¢.g., before Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and
before Jews “filled with madness.” They were opposed by the
authorities, and courted inquiry from an incredulous people.
They were believed at the times and in the places when and
where they were said to have taken place, and are afterwards
often alluded to as accepted facts ; their adversaries, numerous
and powerful and aided by the authorities, were unable to prove
even one of them to be false,—they might try to ascribe them
to magic, but they did not deny their existence. Sometimes, as
in the cases of the Exodus and Christ’s Resurrection, they are
commemorated by public memorials instituted at the time and
continued ever since. Also, they took place under conditions
such that “men’s senses were well qualified to judge of them.”
Another circumstance to be noticed is their comparative rarity,—
they are grouped around special epochs* or crises in human
history, eg., the miracles of Moses relate to the Exodus, those
of Elijah to the idolatrous degeneracy of Ahab and the people,
those of the New Testament to the mission of God’s incarnate
Son. Now these various facts of circumstance are not such as
accompany spurious miracles, but they do accompany Bible
miracles, therefore these are not spurious but real.

Therefore, the result of investigation into the conditions and
circumstances under which they are alleged to have occurred is
that science tells us the Bible miracles did actually take
place.

(3) In applying to the Bible miracles our third test—the
character of the testimony to their occurrence—our investigation

* See Lias, Are Miracles Credible ?

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 109

specially directs itself to two points, namely, were the witnesses
deceivers ? and were they deceived? Firstly, were the witnesses
to the alleged events deceivers? This is negatived by then
character. Some of them were learned, others were “ unlearned
and ignorant men”; but their religion had imbued them all with
that strong love of truth which they taught. Babbage has
shown that the improbability of the witness of five hundred*
persons being false is enormous, even though the truthfulness
of each was but moderate.t It is, besides, preposterous to
suppose that a band of liars joined together to narrate a tissue
of falsehoods most opposed to the feelings and prejudices of
both rulers and people, that they should persist in teaching
theset falsehoods at the cost of their own shame and disgrace
and suffering and death, and that none of their many determined
and able enemies should succeed in exposing any of their
statements. ‘The idea appears too absurd for refutation, and (so
far as Iam aware) the theory of imposture is not maintained,
as a serious proposition by any objector in our time.

Secondly, were the witnesses deceived? Were they the
victims of enthusiasm and hallucination? This is negatived by
the facts that they themselves were in many cases incredulous
and slow to believe, that their conduct was marked by great
sobriety, that the mention of the miracle in the course of the
narrative comes in quite simply just like any other known fact,—
there is no touch of sensationalism, there is not a trace of
over-colouring, there is an entire absence of exaggeration. And
it should be borne in mind that the testimony appealed to for
the truth of the miracle connects itself with more than one of
the senses —not with sight only, but also with hearing and
with touch; and very sober and careful details are given in
regard to place, time, and circumstance. These facts do not
tally with the theory of hallucination. Nor would hallucination
have continued unimpaired through many years of persecution
and suffering—the faney would have worn away,—nor would
relentless enemies, of whom there was no lack, have failed to
expose the folly. The Lord’s Resurrection was believed, on the
day of Pentecost, by three thousand Jews, within a very short
time after the event occurred, and in the very place where it
occurred. Peter’s hearers “could visit the sepulchre, cross-

uw 1 (Oop aaaiae

+ z.e., if each told the truth in ten statements out of eleven.

t Certainly, they would not have mentioned the Lord’s prophecy of
His Resurrection, had that Resurrection not taken place.

110 PRUE, H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

examine the guard; in fact they had unrivalled opportunities
of sifting the whole matter on the spot, and no doubt they did
so. The result was that they not only believed, but were ready
to ‘die for their belief. They became the most devoted of
missionaries. These men were Jews, the most bigoted and
obstinately conservative people the world has ever known.”*
Nor would hallucination tally, under the circumstances, with
the extraordinary spread of the new religion as recorded by
Tacitus and other writers, this new religion not only giving to
men the highest morality, but also wonderfully affecting their
intellectual and spiritual perceptions.t The theory of hallucina-
tion cannot be accepted by science, for it is not adequate to the
supposed effect.

Nor can the belief in the Christian miracles be accounted for
by what has been termed the Mythopoetic theory. It has been
pointed out that myths and accretions require for their success
several conditions: they require a considerable lapse of years,
a people in a very rudimentary state of intelligence and train-
ing, and a very great dearth of historical information concerning
the age in which the myth was supposed to originate. But an
the case we are considering not one of these was fulfilled. The
narrative of Christ’s hfe and death and resurrection has been
told and quoted from the beginning just as it is to-day. The
times were those of a high civilization and literary culture, in
which the Roman province of Judea shared. The age was
specially that of history, of Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, Philo,
Livy. The mythic theory is negatived by the facts.

Science declares that every effect presupposes an adequate
cause. The spread of Christianity presupposes an adequate
cause. The truth of the testimony is an adequate cause, and
no other can be found! A geologist, looking at a rock, observes
certain markings. He knows that these strize might be pro-
duced by ice, and in the absence of ice is unaware of any
competent cause, and he therefore decides that ice is actually
the cause. Similarly, in view of the spread of Christianity,
science decides that the testimony to the Christian miracles
(of which this was an effect) was true, and therefore that these
miracles were true.

We here complete our scientific investigation of Bible

* Drawbridge.

tT B.g:, the Hebrews and the philosophical Greeks both denoted “ wind ”
and “spirit” by one and the same word ; similarly there was but one word
for ‘‘ breath” and “soul.” They had not the distinctive words, because
they had not the distinctive ideas ; Christianity has given them to us,

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. eh

Miracles. It has embraced* (1) the nature of the phenomenon ;
(2) the conditions under which it is alleged to have occurred ;
(3) the character of the testimony to its occurrence. To the
inquiry—Were the Bible miracles probable ? science answers in
the atfirmative. To the further inquiry—Did they actually
occur ? the answer of science is again, and very emphatically, in
the affirmative. If we liken them to gold, she has made her
assay and says the gold is pure. Or the Bible miracles may be
compared to a string of pearls. If science seeks to know
whether the pearls are genuine, she may apply chemical and
other tests to the examination of their character; she may
search into the conditions and circumstances in which the alleged
pearls were found. Were they first found in an oyster, or in
some manufacturing laboratory ? And she may investigate the
testimony of experts. Should the result of any one of these
examinations affirm the genuineness of the pearls, science will
be slow to believe that they are “paste”; if all the results
declare their genuineness, science will not hesitate to say that
they are true pearls. This, as we have seen, is the case of
the Bible miracles. Science, therefore, affirms their actual
occurrence.

With regard to other “miracles,” science is ready to
investigate them and apply her tests. She welcomes every
new fact, bidding her disciples not to neglect it, not to permit
prejudice to block the way of truth. Her exhortation, to-day
not less than in the past, is "Epyeoe cal ”[dere.

APPENDIX.

On Miraculous Occurrences and “ Miracles” other than those
Recorded in Holy Writ.

From time to time events have taken place in human history
which have been called “miracles,” but when scientifically
investigated have been discovered to be no miracles at all. Of
such were the supposed marvels in connection with the Punic
War related by Livy, the prodigies described by Virgil,f the
“miracles” wrought in the ages most appropriately termed
“dark,” “miracles” by Apollonius, and those performed at the
tomb ot the Abbé Paris, etc.—the ete. including various modern

* See p. 99. To the actual witnesses the class of evidence (3) would be
even stronger than it is to us. But on the other hand, the class of
evidence (1) is stronger to us than to them.

t Georgics, Line 461 in Book i.

112 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

impostures. False miracles are frequently counterfeits or
absurdities, or ascribable to collusion, and performed in the
interest of some powerful class. Commonly they are published
in times and places far distant from those when and where
they are alleged to have occurred. They shun investigation.
They never require the supernatural for their explanation. If
not impudent impostures they are accounted for by natural
- causes (including psychic and mental forces). They are well
discussed by Lias,* and also by Bishop Douglas in The
Criterion.f| They fail to satisfy the tests of science.

Among really miraculous occurrences are some prayer-answers,
fulfilments of prophecy going on before our eyes, and special
providences. Of a false, or at any rate doubtful, character are
second-sight and clairvoyance, as also what are known as
spiritualistic phenomena. See, on these subjects, an interesting
paper by Dr. Schofield on “Science and the Unseen World.”
None of them is to be rejected without examination, none
is to be condemned without a fair trial. Science is ready with
her tests; her attitude towards Miracles—true, or false—is
always that of investiyation. “EpyeoOe xat “léere. ‘

DISCUSSION.

The Rev. A. Irvine, D.Sc., B.A., thought that, having had no
share in the competition for “the Gunning Prize,” he could the
more readily propose a vote of thanks to the author of the essay
just read, and congratulate the Victoria Institute upon the
considerable value, the wide range of thought which it covered,
and the catholic fairness of its tone in arriving at general
conclusions. As the result of many years of study of such questions
as were dealt with—his interest in them having been stimulated
many years ago by the personal influence of Archbishop Benson of
Canterbury, and continually refreshed and invigorated by his own
scientific work at Wellington College—he had arrived at, and for
years advocated, views similar to those of the author of the essay.
He had, in years gone by, observed with much satisfaction a

* Are Miracles Credible ?
+ Printed in the Strand, in 1754.
{ Read before the Victoria Institute, January 18th, 1909.

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. jis:

tendency in the young keen minds of some, who had been serious
students of science at the Universities, to turn away from the
narrow materialism of the last generation towards a more reverent
hesitancy in asserting anything like dogmatic certainty or finality
in conclusions, which seemed for the time to be warranted with the
advance of scientific discovery and thought, and yet seemed to
present insuperable difficulties to the acceptance of the great
Christian verities, because these rested upon evidence which
appealed to a preterscientific range of consciousness. He would
remind those present that within the range of the human
consciousness there are many things which appeal to what
transcends those generalisations and conceptions at which the
student of nature and of natural laws arrived from the study of
material things ; laws of the universe of being, which in fact appeal
to the powers of spiritual perception in man, which constitute the
region of a reasoned faith.

The speaker went on to say that he could not accept the
reasoning of Spinoza, which had been quoted, because a jpetitio
principit underlies it in common with the general dictum of Herbert
Spencer as to “the unknowable,” in the assumption that we know
enough of the Author of the Universe to be able to postulate what
He can or cannot do—the fallacy of measuring the Infinite by the
finite. It savoured of the intrusion of ideas of human legislation
into the region of the Divine. It may fairly be contended that in
nature there is no place for “ Divine decrees ” (hwmano sensu) ; that
on fuller thought and reflection the notion of a Divine “decree” or
fiat resolves itself into the working of Dive thought realising itself in
life and form; and (with Mosley) that the idea of Divine creative
thought ceasing to act is unthinkable. There is, therefore,
infinitely more room for the introduction into the order of nature
(so far as it is known to us) of modifications through the direction
(by creative will) of tendencies obscured from scientific observation,
than there is for the admitted fact of the modification, within more
limited regions, of the course of natural events by the action of the
human will. Spinoza and Herbert Spencer, in different ways, seem
to fall into the logical snare of adopting a universal negutive, based
in the last resort on the limitations of their own powers of
conception of the possible; the more reverent and safer attitude
of the present scientific spirit, among the younger and more

114 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

cultured scientific school, is to be ready, if necessary, to say—‘‘ We
don’t know.” |

Dr. W. Woops SmytH said: I have great pleasure in seconding
the vote of thanks to Professor Orchard for his important and
interesting paper. He has clearly shown that science and men of
science are not opposed to the possibility or even the probability of
miracles. In one sense, therefore, the paper is rather misplaced,
because while science accepts miracles it is the Church which rejects
them. Therefore we should have had a paper on the attitude of the
Church towards miracles. I may illustrate my meaning by pointing
to the fact that Professor Huxley said that the Incarnation and the
Resurrection offered no difficulty to him as a man of science, yet
some of our leading divines are telling us of how difficult it is for
them to accept these miraculous occurrences. Again, even in the
case of Joshua’s miracle of the sun standing still, Huxley said it
presented no difficulties. The moment we admit the existence of an
Infinite Being, it was as easy for Him to alter the movements of the
solar system, as for the Professor to alter the hands of his watch.
I may mention here that the eminent astronomer, Mr. E. W. Maunder,
says that the astronomical, topographical and military data given
in regard to Joshua’s miracle all point to a truthful record.

However, there is a point which arises here and negatives all
attempts to explain miracles. We, as created beings, are not
competent to explain the mode of operation of uncreated Infinite
Being. It is out of the question to try to explain Joshua’s miracle
by the Lord slowing the rotation of the earth, etc., because it is
unphilosophic to imagine that the universe presents to an Infinite
Being merely ponderous bodies governed by the law of gravitation,
as it does to us. Neither men nor angels may ever be able to
explain how this and other miracles have been accomplished.

In reply to an objector who contended that the miracles of the
New Testament were alleged to have taken place in credulous times,
he said, the days of our Lord’s miracles were the most sceptical the
world has yet seen.

J. Scuwartz, Esq.—While congratulating the lecturer on his
interesting paper, I would point out that there is a large and
growing section of modern Christians who realise perhaps more
intensely than was ever done before the inspired ethical beauty of
Christ’s teaching and personality, but regard the miraculous

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. igs:

accretions, with which pious disciples enshrined His memory, as
a present source of weakness rather than a support to true religion.
The lecturer has laboured, I think, very needlessly over the point
that miracles are possible, which I believe modern scientists do nct
attempt to deny. Science is confined to the co-ordination of
phenomena, and the sciences of psychology and history (including
that of comparative religions) do not disprove but explain alleged
miracles, and make it quite clear that a real miracle would have
occurred if alleged miracles had not been interwoven into the
Christian tradition. Ethnology has demonstrated that primitive
folk everywhere and always remain unconscious of the invariable
sequence of phenomena, which has only been thoroughly realised
during the last few generations of the scientifically educated. All
natural phenomena were thought of as regulated by spirits,
influenced by magic, flattery, sacrifice, spells and ceremonies ;
and the large mass of the uninstructed and many of the so-called
educated whose knowledge is largely confined to the study of the
prejudices of past generations, hold this fetish form of religion in
a modified form at the present time, in civilised countries such as
Spain, Portugal, Russia, and the country districts of Italy and
France. Patient impartial scientific investigation has rejected the
alleged miracles of to-day, and open-minded historians have
explained the like misconceptions of past ages. It is a well-
established psychological law that miracles are seen by those and
those only who expect to see them. Strongly as I differ from the
general conclusions of Cardinals Newman and Manning, I, together
with many “ broad ” Christians, consider that their contention that
modern, medizval, and Biblical miracles form an unbroken chain,
and stand or fall together, is proved up to the hilt. The Virgin
Mary is still believed to be walking about in the country districts
of France and Belgium, and recently to have raised from the dead
a pilgrim youth hung in error with a highwayman. Christian
miracles were accepted by a population in a still lower state of
credulity, and the cultured rejected them, as is clearly stated by
New Testament writers, the Fathers and their opponents, and they
did not receive general acceptance until the Barbarian had destroyed
the old civilisation, and the dark ages had set in. The lecturer’s
definition, “Science is the investigation and study of things and
phenomena in nature, with a view to their explanation and

116 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

correlation in the great order of the universe,” is too broad. Science
does not attempt to explain (as fruitlessly attempted by philosophy
and metaphysics) but is content to state the co-relation of
phenomena, His definition of a miracle as “ An exceptional marvel
in nature not explicable by natural causes” may be accepted, but
the inference ‘‘and therefore directly attributable to a supernatural
cause,” science will not allow, because she hopes with a larger
knowledge to bring many phenomena that appear exceptional
into co-ordination with the natural order of phenomena. I fail to
understand why earthquakes, the burning of stars, and the odd
(sic) behaviour of radium can be described as “interrupting the
continuity of nature,” no such suggestion has ever been made to
my knowledge by any scientist. His attempts to demonstrate that
“the same forces sometimes act in the most opposite way” by
stating that ‘‘a charge of electricity sometimes attracts, sometimes
repels,” is a strange one; surely he is aware that the one word is
employed for two contrary manifestations differentiated as positive
and negative. The statements that “ Compared with Bible miracles
the spurious miracles which have from time to time attempted to
delude mankind, exhibit a difference of character so great as best
to be described as contrast,” and again, “ Nor can the belief in the
Christian miracles be accounted for by what is termed the
Mythopoetic theory,” are at variance with the honoured opinions
of many of our most eminent liberal scholars, as exemplified below.

J. S. Mill.—“ Stories of miracles only grow up among the
ignorant. Modern Roman Catholic miracles often rest upon an
amount of testimony greatly surpassing that for the early miracles.
Miracles have no claim whatever to the character of historical
facts.”

Matthew Arnold.—“ The human mind is now losing its reliance on
miracles, as its experience widens it gets acquainted with the
natural history of miracles, and sees how they arise. The
comparative history of all miracles admitted Bible miracles are
doomed.”

Professor Jowett— Every one who affirms the truth of miracles
does in fact assert the truth of his own miracles, as the one exception
to all the rest. But how impossible is this, For he asks you to
believe the most improbable of all things, and does at the same
time acknowledge a principle of self-illusion in human nature quite

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 17

sufficient to have invented them. Men will in time give up miracles
as they have given up witchcraft.”

Professor Lecky.—* We must quite dismiss from our minds the
ordinary Protestant notion that miracles are very rare and
exceptional phenomena, the primary object of which was always
to accredit the teacher of some divine truth that could not otherwise
be established. In the writings of the fathers, especially of the
fourth and fifth centuries, they were a kind of celestial charity,
supplying the wants of the faithful. Both Christians and Pagans
admitted the reality of the miracles of the other, though ascribing
them to the agency of demons. Whenever a saint was canonised
it was necessary to prove that he had worked a miracle ; there were
25,000 in the Bollandist collection, also thousands of miraculous
images and pictures. All history shows that in exact proportion to
the intellectual progress of nations the accounts of miracles become
rarer and rarer, until at last they entirely cease. It is the
fundamental error of most writers on miracles to ignore the
predisposition of men in certain stages of society towards
the miraculous, which makes an amount of evidence that would
be quite sufficient to establish an ordinary fact altogether inadequate
to establish a supernatural one. ‘To suppose that the Fathers who
held these opinions were capable in the second or third century to
ascertain with any degree of just confidence whether miracles had
taken place in Judzea in the first century is grossly absurd. The
predisposition to believe the miraculous constructed out of a few
natural facts the complicated system of witchcraft, persuaded all
the ablest men for many centuries that it was incontestably true,
and conducted tens of thousands of victims to a fearful and
unlamented death, the minds of men were completely imbued
with an order of ideas that had no connection with experience.”

J. A. Froude.—“ The Emperor Vespasian restored a blind man to
sight, and a man with a disabled hand had recovered the use of it
under circumstances which closely resemble those of the Gospel
miracles. The historical inquirer can look only through the eyes
of the early Christian writers who neither saw as he sees or judged
as he judges. The world as they already knew it was already full
of signs and wonders. A miracle was as little improbable in itself
as any other event. Celsus wrote, ‘The Christian teachers have
no power over men of education, they call human wisdom folly.’

118 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

The conjurers whom Celsus and Lucian knew to be charlatans and
impostors were to Origen enchanters who had made a. compact with
Satan.”

Dr. SCHOFIELD.—This lecture seems a fitting sequence to the
last. There it was proved that the concept of a Divine Creator was
necessary to a student of the phenomenon of the universe. To-day
it seems equally clear that the supernatural or miraculous is a
necessary effect of the Divine concept. What we call natural laws
are in reality Divine laws, and their Author can of course change or
modify their action at will.

It seems to me, however, that we make too much of the miracles
Christ did, and too little of the miracle He was. The greatest
miracles centred round Himself. His birth, life, resurrection, and
ascension were all miraculous.

Then, again, I am not quite sure that Professor Orchard’s
definition of miracle, no doubt a very good one, will absolutely stand
the test of a close examination. What is and what is not a natural
cause ? According to the previous action a molecule of radium may
be watched and will be found absolutely unchanged during a
ceaseless observation by generations of scientists for 3,000 years,
and a natural law may be deduced therefore that radium is an
unchangeable element, and yet within a few years later it may be
entirely dissipated and vanish away, showing the natural law
though right for 3,000 years is not after all a law at all.

Does Professor Orchard include the confused contradictions in
the sequence of events and in the motions of bodies caused by the
human will and life power among natural laws, or are they
supernatural and spiritual? I read that God made iron swim
which had sunk to the botton of the water according to the law of
gravitation.

Well, I can do the same; by my life and will power I can raise
it up and hold it just level with the water. The difference is my
arm is visible and God’s is not. Do I work according to a natural
law, and God bya supernatural ? Itseems to me a more satisfactory
definition if miracle could be “an occasional and exceptional action
of Divine power.”

I need hardly say how heartily I join with the other speakers in
the praise of this closely reasoned, logical, and convincing paper.

Lieut.-Col. MAckinLAY.—The Victoria Institute is to be con-

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 119

gratulated on this excellent paper, and the judges deserve our
sincere thanks for their laborious task of reading through the nine
essays and deciding on the best one.

In further support of the author’s refutation of the old statement
that miracles are violations of the laws of nature, pp. 81, 89, and 106,
it may be noticed that several miracles are recorded as being
themselves subject to law, as we are told that they could only be
performed when faith was present: I refer to Matt. xiii, 58, “He
did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief”: to
Mark ix, 23, “If thou canst, all things are possible to him that
believeth,” and in Acts xiv, 9, 10, the Apostle Paul said that the
cripple had faith to be made whole, before he said to him, ‘Stand
upright on thy feet.” (See also Matt. ix, 29, Mark ii, 5 and 52,
Luke xviii, 42.) In all these instances a law is evident that certain
miracles could only be performed when faith was present on the
part of the recipient.

Our author rightly insists on the value of the testimony of the
Bible to the miracles therein recorded. Most men who deny that
Bible miracles happened would more or less deny the historic truth
of the Scripture record. Hence it would seem that the arguments
in the paper before us would have been strengthened if more space
had been devoted to the remarkable historic accuracy in Scripture
recently demonstrated by archeological research, as for instance, in
the Book of the Acts where the exact and varied titles* are most
correctly given to different magnates, e.g., to Sergius Paulus, styled
pro-consul in Acts xiii, 7. In Thessalonica, Acts xvii, 6, politarchs
are mentioned: a word unknown in other history until an ancient
gateway was discovered in the ruins of that city bearing an
inscription with that very title. Chief man in Malta, Acts xxviii, 7
is also attested by a local inscription. Again in Acts xiv, 6, Paul
and Silas, we are told, fled to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra, and
Derbe. Sir W. M. Ramsayt has shown that in the first century
these two cities were both included in Lycaonia, but in the second
century Lystra was separated and identified with Iconium.

These are only some examples of the recently demonstrated

* Bible Accuracy, 1903, pp. 59, 60. Col. C. R. Conder.
+ Trans. Vict. Inst., 1907, “ Exploration of Asia Minor as bearing on
the historical trustworthiness of the New Testament,” p, 209.
I

120 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON

historical truth of one of the books of the New Testament; its
historic testimony to the truth of the miraculous Resurrection
which it so frequently alludes to should therefore also be received
even by those who may have previously doubted the sacred
narrative.

On p. 110 our author speaks of the myth theory to account for the
origin of various Bible miracles including that of the Resurrection.
If there really had been any such connection, why did not the
Apostle Paul make mention of it when he preached at Athens,
Acts xvii, 16-34, in accordance with his usual plan of being “all
things toallmen”? Asa matter of fact he did quote a heathen poet
that “we are all His offspring.” But when he spoke of the
Resurrection of Christ why did he not explain that it was only a
modification of some heathen myth with which they were already
familiar? It would have been quite in accord with his usual
methods, if he could have done so with truth.

The fact that he did not do so, and that some mpcked and
others assumed an indifferent attitude directly Paul preached the
Resurrection (Acts xvii, 32) is quite in accord with the supposition
that that grand event was unheard of and incredible to them. It
gives a strong negative to the idea that the Resurrection is a copy
of some ancient heathen myth. Paul’s hearers, educated Epicurean
and Stoic philosophers, must have had a wide knowledge of heathen
religion, and yet no idea of any connection between the Resurrection
and stories in heathen mythology struck any of them.

I should like to add that I much hope that the Institute will
make special arrangements to widely circulate this useful essay,
which is eminently suited to the needs of the times.

The AuTHOoR expressed his thanks to the Chairman for his kind
remarks. He wished also to thank the various speakers and the
large audience for the way in which the paper had been received.

One gentleman, however, had permitted himself to make one or
two assertions which appeared discordant from fact. Such was the
statement that the Christian Miracles were not believed until the
dark ages. The Bible miracles were believed by Christians from
the very first. Christianity was founded upon, and explained by,
the miracles of the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the character
of the Redeemer. The fact of the miracles was not denied by
opponents, though they sought to attribute them to magic.

THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. L2t

In connection with the definition of a miracle (p. 83) Dr. Schofield
asked for a definition of “ natural causes.” Perhaps a satisfactory
answer is that a natural cause is a cause acting according to
“natural laws” (or uniformities), “natural” meaning stated, fixed,
and settled.*

Responding later to a vote of thanks, the author called for one to
the Chairman, which was carried by acclamation.

Further reply by the AUTHOR :—

I wish to thank Mr. Schwartz for some interesting criticism
which deserves further comment. Some of his assertions seem
inaccurate. He says that “It is a well-established psychological
law that miracles are seen by those, and those only, who expect to
see them.” Iam unaware of any such law, and he does not support
the assertion by any authority. This so-called “law” does not
appear to have been operative in, ¢.g., the feeding of the multitudes,
Christ’s walking on the sea and His stilling of the storm, the
opening of the doors of the Apostles’ prison. Mr. Schwartz argues
that because Science has shown that some phenomena which had
been attributed to supernatural agency have been traced to natural
causes, therefore all such occurrences can be so explained. This is
to fall into the fallacy well known in logic as ‘ Undistribution of
the Middle Term.” To confound together the Bible miracles with
the pretended “miracles” of medizval fame is not a scientific
procedure. The Bible miracles (as is shown in the paper) stand the
tests of Science, but the medizval “ miracles” do not do so.

With regard to the argument that the early Christian age was
superstitious, it may be answered that a superstitious people would
be specially the class on whose behalf a theophany might be expected
to be attended by miracle. We should also bear in mind that the
Jews were not a credulous people, that the Apostle Paul—himself
no mean example of culture—spent a longtime “ disputing daily in
the school of one Tyrannus,” and that the Gospel was very early
and successfully preached at such centres of culture as Athens,
Corinth, Ephesus. If it be objected that many cultured people did
not believe, the obvious reply is that many uncultured people did
not believe. The explanation of unbelief is for both classes the
same, namely, man’s guilty repugnance to the truth of the Gospel.

* Butler.

E23

2 THE ATTITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES.

Mr. Schwartz’s statement that Science will not attribute to a
supernatural cause a phenomenon which cannot be assigned to any
other cause appears to be inadvertent. Science attributes every effect
to some cause.

He is perplexed with an illustration from an electrical charge
which goes to show that the same force may, under different
conditions, produce opposite phenomena. He must surely be aware
that an electrical charge attracts one body and repels another
according to the electrical condition of the bodies.

The opinions of certain “liberal scholars ” quoted by him can be
outweighed by others on the opposite side. They have little to do
with Science, though it is interesting to note that Lecky admits
that the Christian miracles were conceded by the Pagans. If
Mr. Schwartz will read the note at p. 99 of the paper, he will see
Mill’s considered conclusion as to the “ only antecedent improbability
which can be ascribed to a miracle.”

My thanks are due to Dr. Schofield, who invariably fluminates
every discussion in which he takes part. I am indebted to him
for several valuable observations. He seems, however, to err in
referring all miracles to God in view of such passages in Holy
Writ as Exodus vii, 12, and viii, 7, Deut. xiii, 1 and 2, Rev. xiii, 14,
and xvi, 14.

As to man, he may be looked upon as in some regards a part of
nature, but supernatural as to his will. He is a link between the
natural and the supernatural, partaking of the character of both.

The definition of a miracle (p. 83 of the paper) should read as
follows:—A miracle is an exceptional marvel in nature which, not being
explicable by any human or any natural cause, is attributable to some
supernatural cause.

This will, I think, meet Dr. Schofield’s difficulty.

502nD ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7tu, 1910.

D. Howarp, Esq., D.L, F.CS., F.LC. (Vick-PresIpEnt),
IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed.

The following paper was then read by the author :—

SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN.
By the Rev. Jonn Gerard, F.L.S.

O those who give attention to the discussion concerning the
origin of species, which since the time of Mr. Darwin
has so greatly exercised the scientific mind, it must frequently
have occurred not only that there seems no great prospect
of a conclusion being reached which shall secure universal, or
even general, acceptance, but that it is by no means clear what
the question itself is. Yet it is evident that, unless this be
first made perfectly clear, the discussion is not likely to have
any very profitable issue. Before we can arrive at any result
worth having touching the origin of species, or the manner in
which they have come to be what we actually find them,
we must begin by determining what we signify by the term,
that is to say, what species are. But to determine this will
certainly not be easy, for although everybody freely uses the
word, and has a general idea of its meaning sufficient for practical
purposes, very little investigation is required to show that
the differences masked by its employment are both wide and
vital.
Despite the title of his famous work, with which the question
we speak of must always be connected, Darwin himself seems
never formally to have stated what, in his view, “ species ” should

124 REV. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN.

be taken to mean. Undoubtedly, however, he clearly showed
that he supposed each species to be descended from a single
ancestor, or rather, it should seem, pair of ancestors. To this
extent, therefore, he was in agreement with Linnzus and the
older naturalists, who, as is well known, defined species as the
descendants of a brace of parents originally created in the
exact form which their offspring still perpetuate; but with
this notable difference, that Darwin’s whole point is that the
ancestors to whom common descent is thus to be traced, were
themselves sprung from progenitors so different from them
that they would needs be regarded as constituting another
species. The question does not now concern us as to how the
transformation of the older form to the newer may be supposed
to have come about, whether by the action of natural selection
or otherwise. What we have to examine is simply, What is it
that is said to have been transformed; or, in other words,
What is a species? To this various high authorities give
various answers.

Mr. Wallace* quotes one definition from a distinguished
botanist, De Candolle, another from a zoologist, Swainson, of
whom the former says :—

“A species is a collection of all the individuals which
resemble each other more than they resemble anything else,
which can by mutual fecundation produce fertile individuals
and which reproduce themselves by generation in such a
manner that we may from analogy suppose them to have all
sprung from one single individual.”

Swainson writes to somewhat similar effect :—

“ A species, in the usual acceptation of the term, is an animal
which, in a state of nature, is distinguished by certain peculi-
arities of form, size, colour, or other circumstances from another
animal. It propagates after its kind individuals perfectly re-
sembling the parent ; its peculiarities, therefore, are permanent.”

On the other hand, Mr. Mivart tells ust :—

“The word ‘species’ denotes a peculiar congeries of
characters, innate powers and qualities, and a certain nature
realised indeed in individuals, but having no separate existence,
except ideally, as a thought in some mind.”

These definitions are evidently quite different, and the
difference is of no slight importance. It is very frequently
laid down as undeniable that “species” themselves have no

* Darwinism.
t+ Genesis of Species, p. 2.

REV. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN. 125

real existence, but are mere abstractions, found not in nature,
but only in the mind which creates them, and here we are often
bidden to discern the true key to the question of their origin.
Thus Mr. G. H. Lewes writes* :—

“The thing species does not exist: the term expresses an
abstraction, like Virtue and Whiteness: not a definite concrete
reality, which can be separated from other things and always
found the same. Nature produces individuals ; these individuals
resemble each other in varying degrees; according to their
resemblances we group them together as classes, orders, genera,
and species; but these terms only express the relations of
resemblance, they do not indicate the existence of such things
as classes, orders, genera, or species. There is a reality indicated
by each term—that is to say, a real relation; but there is no
objective existence of which we could say, ‘ This is variable;
this is immutable.’ ”

This Mr. Lewes proceeds to apply to the matter now in
handt :—

“No sooner [he says] do we understand that ‘Species’
means a relation of resemblance between animals, than the
question of the fixity or variability of species resolves itself
into this: Can there be any variations in the resemblance of
closely alhed animals? A question which would never be
asked.”

On the same subject Professor Bowne declarest :—

“In any case, a species is nothing but a group of similar
individuals. These individuals and the power or powers which
produce them are the only realities in the case. The important
problem is not what is a species, but what is the individual and
what the power that produces individuals. Thus it is clear
that the transformation of species means simply the production
of individuals along lines of descent in such a way that, if we
should take individuals from points mutually distant in such a
line, they would be so unlike that we should not think of
classing them together.”

All this, no doubt, is true enough so far as it goes; but it
does not take us very far. . Of course, if we define species with
Mivart as a congeries of characters, innate powers, qualities, and
the rest, it must clearly be acknowledged that the basis of our
classification is no more than an abstraction, having no existence

* Studies in Animal Life, p. 169.
+ Po 130:
{ Hibbert Journal, Oct., 1909, p. 133.

126 REV. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN.

outside our own mind. But obviously it is not the same when
we define it as a collection or group of individuals bound .
together by certain characteristics. A group, though it is not
a substance, as is an individual, has, nevertheless, a real
existence of its own, and possesses attributes which do not
belong to the several individuals of which it is composed.
Such a body is now the British Parliament, such are likewise
our Royal Society, the Jockey Club, and the French Academy,
each with definite functions and powers, and its own
distinctive history. From these and similar instances it is
not difticult to see that, by analogy, “the transformation
of species” may be understood in a sense differing considerably
from what we have heard.

An example which may be worked out in considerable detail
is furnished by our army. This, as we all know, falls naturally
into certain broad divisions or classes—horse, foot, and
artillery. These, again, are further divided into what may be
styled genera—as the Cavalry, into Dragoons, Hussars, and
Cuirassiers, the Infantry into Grenadiers, Rifles, and Highlanders.
Finally, there are regiments which may well represent species,
every member of each being modelled on exactly the same
pattern as to uniform, accoutrements, and functions, so that
from an inspection of one it would be possible to arrive at a
correct description of all, none, however, being the exact
facsimile of any other. That there is a very real sense in which
the continued existence of such bodies can be traced as a
concrete reality, and not in any mere abstract or figurative
sense, our many regimental histories bear witness, nor can there
be any doubt that in very many instances, if not in all,
transformations have to be recorded which furnish some analogy
with those of which evolutionists tell us. Not a few regiments
have served in turn under Marlborough, Wolfe, and Wellington,
in the Crimea, the Indian Mutiny, and South Africa. He who
knew each of them first at one of these epochs could hardly
believe that it was identical with its own previous self, though
the unbroken continuity of its life cannot reasonably be ques-
tioned. Sometimes we still find in the present actual traces of
adaptation to a state of things that has passed away, as our
“Grenadiers” record the days when hand-grenades were used in
battle, and our “ Fusiliers” recall those when soldiers armed
with guns had to be distinguished from pikemen and archers.
Occasionally we are introduced to historical origins still more
remote and fundamental, as in the case of the well-known
“ Buffs,” a regiment which, as claiming descent from one of the

REY. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN. 127

ancient civic train-bands, still enjoys the privilege of marching
through the City of London with bayonets fixed, band playing,
and colours flying. Notable relics of the past are likewise fur-
nished by inter-regimental feuds, sometimes bearing witness to
very long memories. It is said, for instance, that one of these
dates from the massacre of Glencoe, in 1692, the corps, repre-
senting respectively its victims and its actual perpetrators,
being still ready to come to blows, more than two centuries later.

It is unnecessary to indicate in how many points analogy may
be discovered between those bodies which are styled regiments,
and those termed “species” of plants or animals. The latter,
like the former, are distinguished each by its own garb or
uniform, and never did the most exacting of martinets insist so
rigorously upon the right number of buttons or cut and tint of
facings on a soldier’s coat as does Nature in every minutest
particular whereby her several cohorts may be distinguished, and
manifold are the features which seem unmistakably to argue a
real continuity of life persisting through changes which
might appear altogether to separate newer forms from old.

It is of course proverbial that comparisons are always
defective, and that which we have used is no exception to the
rule; but one truth at least it serves to illustrate, that a number
of individuals being stamped with a common characteristic
linking them together as a distinctive group, this may have a
detinite historyincluding modifications and transformations which
might appear altogether to alter its character. The question to
be asked is therefore not quite so idle as that which we have heard
as to whether there can or cannot be variations in the resem-
blance of closely allied animals, the relations of those which
we term members of a species being clearly subject to a law
imposed upon them all.

The real problem, therefore, is to determine, What is the
power, influence or law, which makes such original groups what
they are, and invests each of their members with those common
characters which our mind naturally recognizes, and so proceeds
to classify individuals as included in one species, or species in
one genus.

This is, in fact, the root of the matter. Far more vital than
the question whether species can be transformed is the previous
question, How came they to be constituted? To what do they
owe their genesis? As we have been told by Mr. Lewes, the
relations of resemblance linking together the individuals of a
species are real relations—there is a reality indicated by each
term. What, then, is the cause of this reality, that to which

128 REV. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN.

we may trace its origin? Until we can satisfy ourselves upon
this point, it seems vain to seek any answer to the further
question regarding transformation; but if we can arrive at a
conclusion satisfactory to reason concerning the basis upon
which our classification must ultimately rest, we shall at any
rate have a tolerably clear understanding of the problems
which lie beyond.

It is clear, to begin with, that in such an enquiry we must
needs introduce the idea of Mind. Mr. Mivart, as we have
heard, after defining species as a congeries of characters having
no separate existence, adds the important qualification, “ except
ideally as a thought in some mind.” Similarly, Professor

3owne declares, “ Intelligence i is the only source of any objective

classification.” Nor can this be understood as meaning no more
than that were there no intelligence capable of making abstrac-
tions, and grouping individuals according to their common
characteristics, there could be no possibility of classification,
as in like manner there could be no colour were there no eyes
in the world capable of sight ?

We must, in fact, ascribe to Mind a far higher function, and
recognize in it the only power capable of establishing those
real relations upon the recognition of which any true principle
of classification must be based. And here we may apply what
Newman says in general concerning order* :—

“ As a cause lmpiies a will, so order implies a purpose. Did
we see flint celts in their various receptacles all over Europe,
scored always with certain special and characteristic marks, even
though those marks had no assignable meaning or final cause
whatever, we should take that very repetition, which, indeed,
is the principle of order, to be a proof of intelligence. The
agency, then, which has kept up and keeps up the general laws
of nature, energizing at ouce in Sirius and on the earth, and on
the earth in its primary period as well as in the nineteenth
century, must be Mind, and nothing else, and Mind at least as
wide and as enduring in its living action, as the immeasurable
ages and spaces of the universe on which that agency has left
its traces.”

Sir John Herschel likewise saw in such a manifestation of
order as is afforded by the repetition of similar features, clear
evidence of the influence of purpose. As he observes,f a line
of spinning jennies of the same pattern, or a regiment of

* Grammar of Assent, p. 70.
t+ Prelimanary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, p. 38.

REY. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN. 129

soldiers clad in the same uniform and going through the same
evolutions, necessarily implies a controlling force directing things
according to a detinite system. So true is this that if along a
road we travelled we should find at every twenty yards, or
other regular interval, merely a couple of stones laid one upon
the other, or three arranged as an equilateral triangle, we
should unhesitatingly conclude that an intelligent being had
been before us and left this mark, nor would any argument to
the contrary—if one could be found, or even imagined—avail
to shake our belief.

The admission of such a force being, however, what many
evolutionists are most unwilling to admit, they commonly seek
for the needful foundation on which to base the objective reality
of their classification in community of descent, so that a species
consists of individuals which have at some period, comparatively
recent, descended from a common ancestor—or pair; and a
genus consists of species which have similarly originated at a
period more remote, in the course of which the power to which
transtormation is due, whether natural selection or another,
has operated to produce alterations now recognized as specific.

Something of a digression here suggests itself, which appears
to be by no means unimportant.

It is not easy to ascertain on unimpeachable authority what
the course of evolution must be supposed to have been. In the
conclusion of the Origin, Mr. Darwin speaks of life having
been originally breathed “into several forms, or into one.”
Mr. Wallace intimates* that not only distinct forms, such as
crows and thrushes, may have descended “from each other,”
but that all birds, including such widely different types as
wrens, eagles, ostriches, and ducks, are possibly, or probably,
modified descendants of a common ancestor; further still, that
even mammals, birds, reptiles, and fishes may have a common
origin.

On the other hand, Mr. Darwin emphatically warns us
against the notion that we shall ever find, either living or fossil,
the direct progenitor of any species, existent or extinct.f All
that we have a right to expect is a form intermediate between
each species and a common but unknown progenitor not,
however, as it would seem directly, intermediate between them.
But he tells us, moreover,f that the same identical species cannot
be produced twice over, “ even if the very same condition, of life,

* Darwinism, p. 6.
+ Origin, 6th Edition, p. 264.
t Op. cié., p. 292.

130 REV. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN.

organic and inorganic, should recur.” From this it must follow
that every species now existing is made up of descendants of one
single ancestral pair, other descendants from the more distant
common ancestor having disappeared. But, to take the simplest
of Mr. Wallace’s examples, the forms intervening between
thrushes and crows and their original common ancestor must have
been immensely numerous along each line of descent, and of
these intervening forms each must have belonged to some
species, which for the time being had succeeded in establishing
or continuing itself, though it had finally to yield its place in
favour of other representatives of the same kindred, which had
better adapted themselves to the conditions of life. According
to this, each evolutionary stage which was marked by the
appearance of a group so distinctive as to be styled a new
species, must have witnessed the extinction of a multitude of
near relatives which had not sutticiently accommodated
themselves to actual conditions, an extinction which took the
form, not, as was once supposed, of a catastrophe or general
massacre, like that of royal princes on the accession of a new
sultan, but of a gradual dropping off of those less fitted to
survive. But, at any rate, this seems to be clear, from what
Mr. Darwin tells us, that in every instance a species has started
from progenitors which had developed characters distinguishing
them specifically from others descended from the same ancestry,
and which, because of such distinguishing characters, became the
sole survivors of their race.

Many points are here suggested which seem worthy of more
attention than they have usually received, but at present we
may concern ourselves with one only, which brings us back to
that from which we may seem to have digressed. Can
community of descent furnish a satisfactory basis for the
classification of species, if it constantly happens, and as it were
inevitably, that amongst the descendants of the same progenitors
specific differences are produced? As Professor Bowne says :—

“Descent, as such, carries nothing with it in the intellectual
system. It is merely the actual method by which the organic
system has been realised, but 1t becomes such a method only
because it is so adjusted as to produce the result. The
systematic relations of things in a graduated and ordinated
scale of existence were insisted upon long before the doctrine
of descent was thought of, and this doctrine adds nothing to
that earlier view, except a conception of the way in which that
intellectual order was realised. But, as just said, descent alone
explains nothing unless its inner order presupposes just this

REY. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN. 13

result. Animal homologies, we are told, presuppose blood
relationship ; but this is not so unless blood relationship implies
animal homologies.”

Our enquiry therefore comes in the end to this: are the
resemblances between individuals, plants and animals, accord-
ing to which we classify them in the same species, regulated
by some dominating cause, or are they merely fortuitous? As
Professor Bowne puts it :—

“The only further question that can arise concerning species
is whether the power which produces individuals does so at
random or according to rule. In the latter case species exist
in the only sense in which species can exist ; that is, natural
groups exist whose members are bound together by their
likeness, and the likeness of the members is due to the fact
that they have been produced according to a common rule.”

It would, in fact, appear that mere points of resemblance
between individual objects do not suffice for the establishment,
of a species, or, which is the same thing, that such points of
resemblance, if sufficiently numerous and characteristic to
afford a basis for such establishment, necessarily convey
the idea of a rule to which such resemblance is due. The
resemblances to a camel, a weasel, and a whale, which Hamlet
indicated to Polonius in the shapes of clouds, would never
sugvest the idea of species, simply because they were obviously
quite casual, being due to the random operations of the wind.
On the other hand, were the sky to be filled with cloud
pictures accurately representing droves of camels or schools
of whales, we should inevitably conclude that this was
undoubtedly owing to some sort of rule or cause, even though
we could form no notion as to what might be its character.
So, when we find in organic nature groups “of plants or animals
unmistakably stamped with the same image or likeness, we
cannot but explain their mutual relationship ; as being the result
of some common influence—just as in the case of coins or
books issued from the same mint or printing press. In the
case of organic species the influence thus manifested is, we
are told, that of common descent; but, whereas that of the
coiner or printer is one the nature of which we thoroughly
understand, of descent we can only say that we know nothing
whatever as to its mode of operation, nor, indeed, anything
except the phenomena exhibited by its results—the very thing .
that has to be accounted for; so that in reality, to explain what
we would understand, we are bidden to fall back on our lack of
knowledge.

132 REV. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN.

That species have no real existence naturalists who study
living nature must, it would seem, find it exceedingly difficult
to persuade themselves, so many and so far reaching are the
points of resemblance which they must continually discover ;
and which imperatively suggest the idea of a rule imposing
them. If there be such a rule, then assuredly in a very true
sense species are a reality, and the question of their fixity or
transformation has a very definite meaning. If on the other
hand, there be no such rule in existence, and the various
characteristics in which classification of species is founded are
due to fortuitous circumstances alone, then species owe their
origin only to the men who invented them. And doubtless
many species, especially amongst the smaller organisms,
whether plant or animal, seem to be based on a foundation
no more substantial. Professor Asa Gray, for instance, was
known to say that he did not believe in the fixity of species,
for he had made and unmade too many of them. But this
means no more than that some which once he had called
species were not in reality species at all; it nowise affects
the case of “natural species,” if such there be, based upon
characteristics common to individuals, and due not to fortuity
but to law.

There remains of course the perplexing question of the
distinction between species and varieties and the test, or tests,
by which species may practically be distinguished one from
another—that most usually adopted being the impotence of
creatures belonging to different groups to produce hybrids
regularly fertile inter se. That this is a real test Professor
Huxley at one time strenuously denied,* though at another
he appeared to take it as the basis of his own conclusion
on the subject. In any case it seems clear that groups
which are recognised as true species do in certain circum-
stances interbreed; for example, the black carrion crow
(Corvus corone) and the grey hooded crow (Corvus cornia)
undoubtedly do so on the borders of the districts which they
respectively inhabit, and there can be no question that the
offspring resulting from such unions are intermediate in
plumage between the parents, and though it is not very easy
in the case of such birds to obtain precise information, ib
would appear that the hybrid race perpetuates itself. The
same is the case with two species of goldfinch—Carduelis

* The Darwinian Hypothesis, 1859, (Darwiniana, p. 3.)
t+ The Origin of Species, 1860. (Lbid., p. 74.)

REY. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN. 133

elegans and caniceps. On the other hand, although the
common primrose (Primula vulyaris) and the cowslip (P. veris)
are acknowledyed to be but varieties of one species, it has
proved so difficult as to be well-nigh impossible to obtain
crosses between them.*

So, again, there are genera which Mr. Darwin styles “ protean
or polymorphic,” in which the species present an inordinate
amount of variation, with the result, as he adds, that hardly
two naturalists agree whether to rank them as species or as
varieties, examples being, amongst plants, the genera Rubus,
Rosa, and Hieracium ; amongst animals several kinds of insects
and Brachiopod Shells.| Some authorities in consequence
multiply the number of species prodigiously, whilst others
reduce this toa minimum. It is not an unusual experience to
find that as a man grows older he becomes less inclined to
favour the larger figures.

The whole question appears to be, Are there or are there
not “natural species,” species which have for their basis some-
thing in nature which impresses upon the individuals of which
they are constituted the common characteristics according to
which we classify them? Among the higher and more
developed classes, both of the vegetable and animal kingdoms,
there seem certainly to be groups thus stamped with characters
marking them as connected by a bond which man does not
make but recognise; and, if such groups there are, it seems
impossible to avoid the conclusion that there are in nature
really existent species.

If so, we are of necessity driven back on the enguiry, what
cause can possibly be supposed capable of producing such
uniformity ? And it is not easy to understand how any answer
to the question can be found which is even plausible, except
that the orderly disposition of nature which mind alone can
discern, mind alone can have instituted. Very specially, we
may add, should this be the lesson which we learn’ from
science, for if there be one conviction more than another
which is borne in upon us by every fresh investigation in all
her fields it is that all things have been ordered “in measure,
and number, and weight.” So it is that, in every nook and
cranny of her domain, we are able to discover laws which
human wit is only now beginning after all these ages dimly
and partially to descry, but which have been in operation from

* Darwiniana, p. 4.
t+ Origin, p. 35.

134 REV. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN.

the beginning. Such we find to be the case in those wonderful
researches as to the constitution of matter which are so marked
an achievement of our own day, but which, beyond the fact
that they reveal the existence of laws whereof we previously
had no inkling, do but enhance the bewildering mystery of the
universe in which we dwell. Of this only may we feel assured
that we shall never arrive at any region which coes not furnish
matter for science, in which we do not find order and not chaos
—a universe rationally explicable, bearing the stamp of mind
whereof we see a reflection in our own.

As Sir John Herschel declared*: “The presence of mind in
the universe is what can alone supply such explanation of her
constitution and operations as shall harmonise with our own
experience.”

So it is with inorganic nature ; so in an even more marvellous
degree with the hosts of organic life. Many a species of both
plants and avimals wears the family livery, including seemingly
trivial and insignificant details, in regions the most diverse and
under every variety of condition. There must, it seems obvious,
be some controlling power which sets and keeps the pattern,
so that from a woodcock, for example, bought in a London
poulterer’s, we can furnish a description which is sure to agree
in every particular with the plumage of birds found in Lapland
or in Japan; while in any of the multitude of dandelions which
April scatters through the land will be found an exact counter-
part, though not a facsimile, of its brethren in Greenland, Italy,
or Patagonia. If such agreement is without a cause, does it not
seem there must be an end of science? If, on the other hand,
a cause there be, must it not resemble, at least analogically, that
intelligence which of all powers known to us in the world can
alone discern in the visible universe more than can be perceived
by corporeal eyes, recognising as its ultimate explanation an
infinite cause, for which, to us, the word Mind is the least
inadequate and misleading of symbols ? +

DISCUSSION.

On the conclusion of the paper, the CHAIRMAN thanked the
author, in the name of the meeting, for his interesting and all too
brief lecture. It must be considered as a tremendous shock to the
strict Linnean to find that there were people who believed in species

* Familiar Lectures, “On Atoms.”
t+ Mivart, Lessons from Nature, p. 301.

REV. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN. 155

as unstable and even as non-existent. The question—or rather the
different questions—was as old as the controversy between the
nominalists and the realists ; but there was a real practical value in
this question of species. If there was an answer to be found they
would at the same time have found a conclusive answer to the query
whether there was anything but mere accident in it all.

It was generally agreed that the species had a real existence
apart from the individual, but much confusion was introduced by
the existence of the protean genera.

Was man more ignorant than the dog? Dogs at any rate were
all realists. For them there was no confusion introduced by the
extraordinary forms at which the breeder had arrived. Great Dane
or dachshund, it made no difference. The dog was always recognis-
able and treated as such.

It was to the speaker one of the most remarkable things to
consider the extraordinary results arrived at by an old gentleman
walking in his garden. The Abbé Mendel, a gardener and a most
patient observer of nature, had been able to demonstrate the rules
that governed the reversion to the original type, and only now was
the significance of Mendel’s discovery being made evident to them
by the work of those who had rediscovered him. Reversion to type
was for them the real test of species. Asa Gray wrote of making
and unmaking species—but did he ever unmake any of these
realities ?

The speaker himself had only studied one genus—cinchonu—a
protean genus, but giving real species, each reversionary to its type.
He could wish to have his whole life before him to study this
genus in the light of Mendelism.

But without a mind behind them all the differences of which they
spoke could have no real existence: this perpetual flux, if it were
true, was a greater evidence of mind than anything else in Science ;
and men, generally, were coming more and more to favour a broad
and general evolution under and controlled by a mind.

Professor HULL congratulated the author on the able manner in
which he had handled an abstruse subject. There was a double
difficulty to be met ; first, to define a “species,” and secondly, to
account on natural grounds for its development. Through his forty
years on the Geological Survey, the question of what was a species
was constantly cropping up, and was especially conflicting—because

156 REV. JOHN GARARD, F.1.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN.

authorities themselves were often not agreed—regarding special
organisms. His experience was, that whoever discovered a fossil
specimen, had a claim to give it a name as a species, and it became
atype. He, the speaker, recognised that there was a wide range of
variation admissible as regards species and even genera, but his
difficulty arose when they came to types of organic structure. A
type was the appearance of a new fundamental idea, such as the
vertebrate type in animals, and the dicotyledonous type in plants
commencing in the upper cretaceous stage of the geological series.
The explanations of the life history as given by the Darwinian
hypothesis was, in the speaker’s opinion, inconclusive, and insufficient
to account for the phenomena they were dealing with, which can
only be explained on the view of Sir John Herschel, quoted by the
author of the paper that ‘the presence of mind in the universe is
what can alone supply such explanation of her constitution and oper-
ations as shall harmonise with our own experience,”—a Mind all wise,
beneficent and all pervading.

Professor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD.—I am sure we all join in
the thanks which have been expressed to the author for his able
paper. The paper suffers, however, from the lack of a good
definition of “Species.” None of the definitions quoted seems
adequate. Better than any of them is that given by Buffon,
namely, ‘‘A constant succession of individuals, similar to and
capable of reproducing each other.” This distinguishes at once
between species and varieties. If varieties (within a species) pair
together, the result is mongrels, which are perfectly fertile. If
species are made to pair together, what are obtained are hybrids—
creatures of very limited fertility. It was this physiological fact
which (as he himself points out) kept Huxley, who had plenty of
good-will toward Darwinism, from accepting that theory.

The so-called “ species,” mentioned on p. 132, are not species at all.
They are varieties—two varieties of the species “ crow,” two varieties
of the species “ goldfinch.” On the other hand, primrose and cowslip
are probably different species. Professor Asa Gray’s “ species ”—
which he could make and unmake—were varieties.

Darwin’s theory of descent, brought before us on p. 124, Conyaats
him of either inconsistency or confusion of thought.

Darwin supposes that if we trace the descent of all dogs back
through thousands of years, we shall at last arrive at a single pair

REV. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN. 137

of dogs, from which all the others have sprung. He supposes that
for this ancestral pair and all the multitude of their descendants
throughout the ages, the law of descent is that “Like produces
Like” and they are all of one and the same species. Darwin does
not, however, regard this ancestral pair as the final ancestor—he
imagines that it had itself an ancestor. And he arbitrarily and
inconsistently affirms that the law of descent undergoes a
remarkable change, so that descendant and ancestor are of different
species. To assume, without evidence, that the law of descent
changes in this strange manner, is a procedure born not of science
but of imagination, and it may safely be said that a supposition so
violent would never have been made but for the exigencies of 4
theory.

I would congratulate the able author of this paper upon the
felicity of his comparison—of course only analogical—between a
species and a regiment.

We entirely concur with him as to “the controlling power which
sets and keeps” the species pattern, recognising that the pattern
finds its sole explanation in ‘“‘an infinite cause for which, to us, the
word mind is the least inadequate and misleading of symbols.”

JOHN ScHwWARTZ, Esy.—I would suggest that the definition of
species quoted from Mr. Wallace as limited to those which can by
mutual fecundation produce fertile individuals, is now held by
practically all the younger generation of biologists; and that the
views quoted from Mr. Mivart and Mr. G. H. Lewis are dealing
with the matter from a metaphysical or philosophical rather than
from a strictly natural science standpoint. As our lecturer states,
the vital question is: How can species be constituted? He appears
to suggest, on p. 129, that the unwillingness to accept mind as over-
ruling all, has been the reason for adopting the evolutionary theory
of the origin of species ; this, I think, is incorrect. Biologists have
frankly adopted the empirical view of natural science, and have
practically unanimously accepted the evolutionary theory as estab-
lished by historical facts; quite independently of any further
philosophical or metaphysical views which they may individually
hold, as to whether an over-ruling mind has planned it all, or
whether it is the result of a fortuitous concourse of forces or atoms ;
and those definitely holding the latter views are, I think, a minority.
Darwin was in no way dogmatic about variation and the precise

K 2

188 REV. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN.

methods of natural selection, and I believe that the views that have
long been held respecting “the extinction of vast multitudes of
nearer relatives,” referred to on p. 130, have recently been consider-
ably modified, and that it is now largely held that sports or sudden
abrupt large variations are the real causes of permanent variations.
Modern Mendelism has made a further analysis, the varying com-
ponents account for variations in the germ cell, just as electrons
have modified our ideas about molecules.

All members of this Institute must, as Christians, thoroughly
endorse the conclusions so ably driven home by the lecturer, that
the word mind is the least inadequate word that we can apply to
the Infinite Cause of the Universe and its operations, and dim as is
our comprehension, yet the fortuitous concourse of atoms theory is
quite irrational.

Mr. ARTHUR W. Surron, F.L.S8., expressed the very great
pleasure with which he had listened to the lecturer’s able and sug-
gestive paper, and alluded to the fact that those whose lives were
spent in the more practical branches of horticulture were impressed
with two outstanding facts:—On the one hand the wonderful
possibilities, by means of selection and cross-fertilisation, of the
improvement of the plants of the garden and farm, and on the other
hand, the limitations imposed by nature which raised barriers
beyond which it was impossible to go.

Mr. Sutton mentioned that, from his experience, he supposed that
there was no body of men who, taken as a class, were more pro-
foundly conscious of a supreme or supernatural Power or Being who
controlled the course of nature than gardeners. Extraordinary as
the results obtained by gardeners undoubtedly were, they were
constantly reminded that their success would be impossible were it
not for the inherent potentialities with which their plants, trees, ete.,
were endowed, and although nature allowed her servants to extend
the usefulness or increase the beauty of a plant, it was only on lines
and in directions peculiar to the individuals under treatment, and
that by no possible means could a gardener induce one plant to
assume the specific characteristics of another.

Mr. Sutton remarked that it was contended by some that
different species could not interbreed and produce fertile offspring,
while others contended that certain species did so; this difference
-of opinion Mr. Sutton attributed to the fact that some included as

REY. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN. 139

species individuals which really ought more properly to be termed
varieties, while others limited species to those individuals which
were essentially distinct from all others, the whole question
hingeing upon what is the true definition of a species.

One speaker had alluded to the theory of “ mutations,” or sudden
modifications in plants or animals, as the starting point for further
evolution, or for the origin of new species, but Mr. Sutton contended
that there was no instance on record of any such “ mutation” having
produced a new species, and that the “ mutations ” of which so much
had been heard, were really nothing more than variations which are
so common and which occur so constantly when different varieties
of any one species are cross-fertilized.

Dr. SCHOFIELD.—I have listened with great interest to the paper
just read and it seems to me that the very existence of Science
postulates mind, for it is all a quest for laws or orderly and rational
sequences which require mind to produce them, The most
remarkable thing is the facility with which some scientists can turn
the blind eye when they wish. For instance, they wander along an
old river bed and pick up a flint evidently chipped purposely to
sharpen it, and they called it an arrow-head and see in that flint
the unmistakable impress of mind beneath. They are quite clear
that it must require mind to make the chips on a flint that have an
obvious purpose in view. The funny thing is that when they leave
the flint and consider the philosopher who discovered it, the blind
eye is turned and they see no necessity for the intervention of mind.

He forsooth is a somewhat fortuitous concourse of atoms, the
product of a mysterious and wholly imaginary force called evolution
that by “sexual selection” and the “survival of the fittest” has
succeeded in forming him. In short it took a great mind to design
St. Paul’s Cathedral—no one doubts this—but Sir Christopher
Wren himself was a chance product of a blind evolution. To make
these chips on an arrow-head requires mind, but no mind is needed to
make a philosopher. How Wisdom rises above folly in the words,
“Every house is builded by some man; but He that built all things
is God!”

The SECRETARY desired, as one of the least of the followers of
Darwin, to be allowed to protest against the manner in which the
opinions of evolutionists were so often travestied. He trusted that
none of them wouid ever meet in the flesh the sort of evolutionist

140 REV. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN.

whom their friend, Professor Orchard, was in the habit of exhibiting
to them and then successfully demolishing. He believed that no
such person existed.

No one could afford to neglect the vast changes which had been
introduced into almost every branch of science, since and as a direct
result of the propounding of the theory of evolution. ‘The principle
of evolution was held to a greater or less degree by almost all men
of science. It was true that not all believed now in the Darwinian
theory of selection. ‘They differed greatly as to the means, some
were selectionist and some mutationists, but on the main principles
most agreed, and they were hoping, not without reason, that the
study of the “laws” of Mendel would throw new light on the great
problem of the means by which evolution was effected.

There were some who conceived of evolution as contrary to
Christian belief. Yet it seemed to him that it was the study of
this very problem of species or evolutionary lines that led men of
science more and more to demand, to postulate, the existence of a
first cause, a mind controlling and ruling all the processes of
nature.

Surely there was something infinitely grand in the conception
of a universe brought slowly into being, from the beginning
the germs of progress in it, gradually developing on the lines laid
down by the Creator towards a future at which they could scarcely
guess ; and this was more in accordance with their conception of
the Divine power than that ideas of separate creations or a
world knowing no change where all things were made for man and
man lived beneath the jealous sovereignty of the Jehovah of the
Hebrews.

Note By Rev. A. Irvine, D.Sc., B.A.

I have read the Rev. John Gerard’s paper on “Species and their
Origin ” with considerable interest, and beg to be allowed to make
a few remarks upon it. The paper is a careful piece of consecutive
reasoning from the selected data, and one has no reason to find
fault with the general conclusion, though the author’s phraseology
is scarcely satisfactory when he speaks of mind asa ‘“‘ force” (p. 129).

There seems to be very little of the inductive method in the
paper ; and by omitting practically all consideration of the influence
_ of environment he has given us only one side of the question under

REV. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN. 141

consideration. Of course the distinction to be drawn between
“species” and “ varieties” constitutes a very great cruz, and we
must on this matter defer in each case to the specialists. It is that
to which Asa Gray referred when he said that he had had to do
with the making and unmaking of so many species, that he had not
much faith in the hard and fast definitions by’ which species were
distinguished in handbooks of Botany ; like the man who “did not
believe in ghosts, because he had seen too many of them.” (Natural
Science and Religion: Scribner, New York.) That is an important
confession.

Each species is known by characters, which are established in each
case by generalisations from those actually found in the individuals
which compose the group ; and in every instance the generalisation
is arrived at, as Mill would say, “by enumeration of instances.”
There they are, however, transmissible in each species through many
generations. Each individual is itself a “summation of powers,”
including those which characterise the species and those which it
shares in common with other species of the genus to which the
species belongs ; so that we are thrown back upon the well-known
necessity of proceeding in the definition of a species per genus et
differentias (see Mill, Logie, B. i).

The genus Equus, for example, contains not only the three
modern species—caballus, asinus, and zebra—but others, as L. stenonis
of the Italian region and £. sivalensis of the Indian region; both
extinct since the Pliocene, yet with parts of skull, teeth, and lmb-
bones sufficiently preserved to warrant the assignment of them to
the genus Lyuwus and at the same time the differentiation of them
structurally from the three modern species, with their manifold
varieties. The descent of all these from the Miocene Anchitherium
is pretty well established ; but many modifications are marked in the
lines of descent, in which the influence of environment has played
an important part. Judgments vary as to what constitute generic
or specific differences. ‘Thus the form of ‘“ Horse ” now seen in the
British Museum and labelled Hippidium neogvum was first described
as a species of Eyuus; and the Equus caballus pregivalskiu, now
accepted as the type of the original wild horse of Mongolia, was
even thought by a very eminent naturalist to be a hybrid between
the Tarpan and the Kiang. That however has been disproved
since more individuals have been brought to England, and foals bred

142 REV. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN.

from them. Sterility or fertility in breeding would seem to be after
all the true criterion for distinguishing between “species” and
“varieties”; but this requires the patient following of the experi-
mental method to check opinions formed from mere observation.
Mr. Gerard quotes Huxley “ junior” and Huxley “senior,” as incon-
sistent. Obviously the latter must correct the former.

As research advanees, the Darwinian creed is apt to receive some
rude shocks. Thus Mr. Gerard (pp. 129, 130) quotes Darwin himself
as saying that the same identical species cannot be produced twice
over, “even if the very same conditions of life, organic and inorganic,
should recur.” That dogmatic utterance seems to have been rudely
traversed of late by the reproduction of the Pleistocene species of
small slender-limbed species of horse, which Professor Cossar Ewart,
F.R.S., of Edinburgh, but named Equus agilis, but which Owen had
described from a few fragments from the Oreston cavern as Asinus
Jossilis, Professor Ewart, it would seem, has, in his experimental
farm at Penicuik, reproduced, by the cross-breeding of some seven
breeds of small horses, the identical species of horse which ranged in
Pleistocene times from Algiers to the South of England; and he
seems satisfied that it represents more than a mere “ variety,” but
rather the “small slender-limbed species hunted and sketched or
sculptured by our Paleolithic ancestors.” (See Nature, Jan. 20th,
1910.)

Ewart enumerates as specific characters—“a fine head, slender
limbs and small hoofs, a mane which, instead of clinging to the
neck, arches to one side, a well set-on tail, and only two out of the
eight callosities usually found in horses; i.e, the four ergots and
the hind chestnuts are absent.” Here again it remains for the
naturalists to decide how far these amount to specific, as distinguished
from varietal differentiac. Whatever uncertainty may beset this
question, we may with a fair degree of certainty maintain, 1 think,
that Professor Ewart’s results have given a practical demonstration
to the important principle of “directivity,” as a necessary supple-
ment to the crude Darwinian dogma of “natural selection by the
survival merely of the fittest.” And in further illustration of this
in the plant-world, we hear of a new “species” (? variety) of wheat
obtained from cross-fertilisation of species or varieties of Triticum,
and remarkable for its disease-resisting powers.

Reply by the Rey. J. Gerarp, F.L.S.—I find the result of this

REV. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN. 143

interesting discussion to be almost entirely confirmatory of the
main contention to the support of which my paper was directed :
viz., that while on the one hand we cannot but recognize something
objectively real at the back of “ species,” we have not yet succeeded
and probably never shall succeed, in determining the precise
character of that reality, and are therefore obliged to base our
definitions, not as strict logic would require, upon genus and
differentia, but upon differences which appear on the surface in
phenomena which lie within the range of ordinary observation—
such, for example, as the oft-quoted sterility of hybrids infer se.
Here, however, it must be observed there is undoubtedly a danger
of arguing in a circle, if we think to explain the fact of sterility
by difference of species and then to form this difference by the fact
of sterility.

But, as I have said, the net result of the views now expressed
appears to be, firstly, that species have a real actual existence in
the nature of things, and secondly, that no satisfactory explanation
of specific distinctions is possible apart from a Mind ordaining
them.

T may be allowed to remark on one or two particular points.

Dr. Irving considers it unsatisfactory in regard of phraseology to
speak of mind as a force (p. 140). I would, however, point out that
in so speaking I refer to mind 7x action, using the term in its widest
sense—i.¢., to will, and this, as I hold, is not merely @ force, but the
only causative force of which we have practical experience.

Professor Langhorne Orchard (p. 136) takes exception to the
classification which makes two species of Corvus corone and UC. cornix,
or of Carduelis elegans and C. caniceps, which he declares to be only
varieties. As to this, it seems enough to say that, in spite of the
great authority of the late Professor Newton, the majority of
ornithologists consider the difference in each case to be specific, as
may be seen in the case exhibited, in illustration of this very point,
in the entrance hall of our Natural History Museum. With
regard to the distinction between primrose and cowslip (Primula
vulgaris and veris) although Professor Huxley, whom I cited in his
essay on the Darwinian Hypothesis, declares it with considerable
emphasis to be a well-established fact that these are only varieties
and not species, it must be acknowledged that the great majority of
botanists are of a contrary opinion.

144 REV. JOHN GERARD, F.L.S., ON SPECIES AND THEJR ORIGIN.

Two observations in particular made in the course of the
discussion appear to me both interesting and suggestive.

The first is that of the Chairman (p. 135) as to the unfailing
recognition by dogs of specific identity in their own kind, in spite
of all the bewildering: varieties which have been produced—a
mastiff and a toy terrier equally accepting each other as indubitable
dogs. This is certainly a very powerful argument for the reality
of species.

Still more important in the observation contributed by Mr.
Sutton, that within his own experience no class of men are more
fully impressed with the conviction that nature bears witness to the
controlling influence of a supreme Power, to which like all else the
distinctions of species must be referred—than are practical
gardeners. Such an observation I take to be of great importance,
as the evidence of those who habitually come into contact with
living nature must always, I think, be entitled to much greater
weight than that of those who know her chiefly through the
observations of others, or as studied in museums and laboratories.

5038rp ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2st, 1910.

THE REV. CANON GIRDLESTONE, M.A. (VICE-PRESIDENT),
IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting having been read and confirmed,
the Chairman referred to the great loss sustained by the Institute since
the last Meeting by the deaths of the Rev. G. F. Whidborne and of
Colonel C. R. Conder.

Mr. Whidborne was at the time of his death a member of Council,
and had been a member of the Institute for over twenty years. His
papers and contributions to discussions had always been welcome, and his
presence and advice at Council Meetings, more especially during the late
period of reorganisation, had been invaluable.

Colonel Conder was one of the earliest supporters of the Institute.
His contributions to the Society’s Transactions had always been much
appreciated. His death was a great loss to the Science of Bible
Archeology.

The election of the Rev. C. L. Drawbridge, M.A., as a member of the
Institute, was announced.

The Chairman then called on the Rev. Professor H. M. Gwatkin, M.A.,.
Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Cambridge, to read his paper
on :—

ARIANISM AND MODERN THOUGHT. By Rev. Pro-
fessor H. M. Gwarktn, M.A., Dixie Professor of Ecclesi-
astical History, Cambridge.

EFORE we can see the relation of Arianism to modern
thought, we must look at its significance for its own
time.

The Gospel then begins as the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the
Son of God; and indeed nothing short of this will justify its
claim to be the full and final revelation of God. If Jesus of
Nazareth is the eternal Son of God, the revelation must be
final ; if He is anything short of this, it cannot be final. In the
one case, there will be infinite depths of meaning for us to
learn; in the other, there will be indefinite possibilities of
mistake for us to correct. Our doctrine then is that He is as
divine as the Father, and as human as ourselves; and all the

146 THE REV. PROFESSOR H. M. GWATKIN, M.A., ON

refinements of the Nicene Creed mean nothing else and nothing
more than this.

But common opinion in the early Christian centuries was
persuaded that God and man are mutually exclusive, so that
what is divine cannot be human, and what is human cannot be
divine; and the Christians were apt to think as_ their
neighbours thought, without clearly seeing that such a position
is fatal not only to an incarnation, but to religion generally,
and even to thought itself. So some started from the manhood
they had seen, and denied or qualified His deity, while others
insisted on the deity they had spiritually known, and denied or
qualified His manhood. The history of the doctrine of the
Person of Christ is made by the conflict of these two
tendencies.

Arianism represents the former, though it concedes so much
to the other that some will be tempted to think it a happy via
media, though in fact it combines the evils of both systems
without the advantages of either. Starting then from the
Lord’s manhood, the Arians were willing to add to it every-
thing short of proper deity. But there they drew the line.
He is in some sense divine, said they, and must be worshipped
as our Creator and Redeemer ; but how can one who is man be
in the proper sense divine? We cannot make Him a full
revelation of God or more than a creature. He is not even a
creature of the highest sort, for His virtue is only the constant
struggle of imperfect manhood, not the fixed habit of perfect
free-will, And now that His manhood was a mere difficulty, it
only remained to say that there was nothing in Him human but
a body.

This is the doctrine of the Arians. They establish the Lord’s
deity by making Him a creature, and end by overthrowing the
manhood from which they start. But I need not dwell on the
endless confusions of such teaching, for nobody is an Arian in
our time. Unitarianism is the most elastic word in theology,
and covers a prodigious range of doctrines; yet no modern
form of it, so far as I know, is quite lke Arianism. But the
thoughts from which Arianism arose are thoughts of all ages;
and in our own time we can see them plainly, not only in the
whole range of Unitarianism, but in much catholic and other
agnosticism, and in many schools of philosophy. Modern
developments may even have strengthened them in some
directions, though upon the whole their tendency seems not
only the other w ay, but more and more the other way.

The modern developments which most directly bear on

ARIANISM AND MODERN THOUGHT. 147

Arianism are the scientific and the social. Summing these up
for present purposes, we are abandoning the deistic and the
despotic conceptions of God which held the field till lately.
The old conceptions of a great engineer and of a despot in
heaven still linger in the backward forms of belief, and among
the backward followers of all beliefs; but we are coming more
and more to see that God works directly in common things, and
that He is more a Father in heaven who guides His erring
children than a king of heaven dispensing arbitrary rewards and
punishments.

Now all the Arianizing forms of thought in past ages and in
our own entirely depend on these cbsolete conceptions. It
must be allowed that the modern conception of natural law
may be fitted in to the deistic view; for (if taken in a certain
way) it destroys the possibility of direct divine action in the
world. But then (if taken in the same way) it equally destroys
the historical facts which are as vital for Arianism as for
orthodoxy. Nor can the Arians bring back divine action into
the world by the help of a mediator, for such mediator will
have divine work to do, and therefore must be divine. There
is no escape from the argument of Athanasius, that if a divine
Person is needed to create, a divine Person is equally needed to
restore. Yet on Arian principles the mediator cannot be
divine. Hence those who hear this way commonly go further,
and altogether deny any divine action in the world. They
forget that law, like force, accounts for nothing without an
intending will behind it. But setting aside these confusions
of thought, natural law is nothing more and nothing else than
a symbol of our own, which sums up the action of that will,
so far as it is at present known to us. Hence anything super-
natural must be absolutely natural, and everything natural
must be supernatural. The two are co-extensive and form one
organic whole, so that the sharp separation of the kingdom of
nature from the kingdom of grace required by the deistic
systems 1s a vain imagination.

Even more significant and emphatic are the indications of the
social development. We note first that men have formed their
conceptions of God and of His kingdom by idealizing earthly
rulers and earthly states. Thus the quarrels of tribes and cities
are reflected in the anarchy of polytheism, and it was under
the shelter of the Roman peace that the unity of God became
the belief of the civilised world. Ezekiel’s conception of the
future is an idealised kingdom of Judah, and there is likeness as
well as contrast in Augustine’s parallel of the Roman Empire

148 THE REV. PROFESSOR H. M. GWATKIN, M.A., ON

and the city of God. Now the conceptions of society and
government are undergoing in modern times a subtle and far-
reaching change, carrying with it an equally subtle and
far-reaching change in our conceptions of the divine. To
understand it, we must glance back nearly twenty centuries.

The Roman Empire furnished nobler ideals than anything
that had gone before it, and those ideals were long sufficient.
Indeed, the Empire had a forward look towards better times.
Rome alone of ancient empires ruled the nations for their own
good and not for selfish gain. Yet in its essence the govern-
ment was a weak and selfish despotism, and society a structure
of selfish class-prides. Like the Empire, but without its nobler
features, were most of the kingdoms that followed—that for
instance of Louis XIV. Still there was an advance after the
Reformation. The philosophic despots reached the stage of
everything for the people; and everything by the people was
soon to come. Before long the world was startled first by the
separation of America, then by the crash of the French Revolu-
tion. In England the change was made more peacefully, and
through a transition period ot softened aristocracy. I need not
trouble you with details: suffice it that the modern state in its
better forms entirely denies the claim of kings or nobles to
govern in their own right or for their own purposes, and calls
for the active and intelligent co-operation of all its subjects for
the common welfare. Rulers and subjects in their several
vocations are alike servants of the common good.

Now this changed conception of society is reflected in a
changed conception of the divine, for we must needs believe
that God is everything and more than everything that the best
of rulers are only endeavouring to be. If such ruler is a guide
and father of his country, God cannot be less than the guide
and father of mankind. Tf he chooses his servants for their
fitness and not by favouritism, God will do so too. If he is
just and right, we know that God is not just and right in some
other sense, which in men we should call unjust and unright.
If the ideal king never wavers in moods and tempers, the
unwavering sternness of the laws of nature becomes a sign of
love divine. If the king is merciful, and strives to turn his
rebels into loyal subjects, we cannot believe that God will some
day burn His rebels in hell. If the king tries to do so much,
God will do no less. Above all, if we expect the king to give
himself heart and soul without reserve to the service of his
people, it becomes easier to believe the Christian story that
there is One who gave His life a ransom for us all. Thus the

ARIANISM AND MODERN THOUGHT. 149

whole conception of the divine is softened and made humane,
and suffused with a tenderness our fathers never dared to
realise as we are realising it. The change is immeasurable
when we come to this from the hard impassive God of Islam
or Arianism—not to add of Rome and Geneva—who sits
throned far off in selfish bliss, and has a glory of his own which
is not the highest welfare of his creatures.

In yet another direction the social development strikes at
the root of all these Arianizing or Unitarian conceptions. The
advance of the nineteenth century is shown not only in the
changed: spirit of governments, but in the wider range of their
action, and in the increasing attention they give to social
questions. Administration was comparatively simple when it
was chiefly occupied with the king’s wars, or with the security
of hfe and property. But the modern state regulates factories
and provides for the poor; it inspects slums and stamps out
diseases ; it educates the young and pensions the old, regulates
companies from the railways downward, and endeavours to deal
with strikes and lock-outs. In all directions it cares for the
destitute and the helpless, from the vaccination of infants to
the supervision of criminals. No doubt much of this work is
badly done, but there is not much dispute that it ought to be
done, and that a good deal of it is best done by the state. And
this is no passing fancy, but a steady trend of thought, most
marked in the most civilised states. There is not much of it,
I fancy, in Honduras or Afghanistan. The tide will not
recede—we shall not leave the destitute to chance help, or
cease to hinder infection. On the contrary, there is every
sign that it will advance further. We have all been more or
less of socialists ever since the Poor Law of 1835 firmly
planted the principle of socialism in the state; and the
practical questions which now divide us concern rather means
than ends, for we all profess the utmost devotion to the social
welfare of the nation. So we are, at any rate, all agreed that
social questions are much more complicated and more urgent
than they used to be. This means that the social element of
human nature is being rapidly developed along new lines.
Some think it bids fair to swamp the individual ; and though
I do not believe this, it certainly plays a larger and a growing
part in life.

It is time now to show more precisely what all this has to
«lo with Arianism. If, then, man has in him that spark of the
divine which is theologically called the image of God—and he
must have it if the universe is rational—then the social element

150 THE REV. PROFESSOR H. M. GWATKIN, M.A., ON

which forms so large a part of human nature cannot be entirely
wanting in the divine. Again, we believe that God is good,
for otherwise we could give no account of goodness in our-
selves. But goodness is a relation, and therefore implies a
second. Were there but one being in the universe, there
would be no room for goodness. If such goodness could be
supposed incidental, it might possibly be satisfied by a
transitory world; but if it is essential as it must be, the
second it implies must be eternal. Yet, again, goodness means
submission to a rule of goodness which is not conventional.
If I am good to some unconscious infant, I confess our common
duty to an ideal of goodness which is no creation of my will,
however willing I may be to follow it. So if God, who is
essentially good, is good to us, He is following a law of goodness
which is no mere creation of His will, but the expression of His
nature.

As for Arianism and the rest of the half-and-half systems
which make the Lord more than man, yet not truly divine,
they preach a solitary God surrounded indeed with creatures,
but having no true second in the universe. His goodness is,
therefore, will, not nature—-at least we can never know for
certain that it is anything more than the expression of a will
subject to change. So of other qualities. Everything becomes
arbitrary, and the Son of God Himself can give us no certainty
if he is but a creature, and the true nature of the Father is
unknown to him as well as to us.

This is all very well for an Eastern sultan with infirmities of
temper; but is it a worthy conception of God? And if we can
find a worthier, are we not bound to accept it? Now the
opoovarov of the Nicene Council, which a logical necessity soon
shaped into the full doctrines of the Trinity, simply means that
the Son is as divine as the Father. It means nothing more,
except that Christian men are not free to explain it away.
But it makes a world of difference. If God spared not His own
Son, we have a mighty argument; but it does not come to
inuch if He only gave up Joseph’s son. Here then and only
here we reach firm ground at last. The prophet may tell his
vision, but neither man nor angel—no being short of the
eternal Son can tell us with full and final certainty the very
heart of God our Father.

Again, whatever be the mysteries of the Trinity, there is a
simple aspect of it which anyone can understand. It gives us
the social element we were looking for; and by making it a
relation of eternal Persons, it firmly plants it inside the divine

ARIANISM AND MODERN THOUGHT. Tod

nature. Here is one reason why I believe that this, rather
than some sort of Unitarianism, is the religion of the future.
The half-and-half systems may suit the simple administration
of past ages ; but we are learning from the infinite complexity
of nature and society something of the infinite complexity of
the divine expressed alike in the universe and by the doctrine
of the Trinity. Shortly to say, Unitarianism in all its forms
belongs to an order of thought which has ceased to satisfy either
reason or conscience, and both the scientific and the social
development make it everyday more visibly untenable. Ideals
once transcended are for ever false; and if the deistic and
agnostic mists are once more gathering round us, they will
surely vanish in the brighter light which the revelation through
society throws on things divine.

DISCUSSION.

Canon GIRDLESTONE thanked Professor Gwatkin, in the name of
all present, for his thoughtful paper. He added that many of our
theological difficulties arise from changes in the sense which we
attach to words, e.g., Person. He emphasised the distinction between
Unitarianism which leads to the “ hard impassive God” of Islam,
and Biblical monotheism which involves eternal relationship
answering to the words Fatherhood and Sonship, within the compass
of the Godhead. The new theology was either Gnostic, on which
Mansel’s lectures on early heresies should be consulted, or Agnostic,
which St. Paul touched in a sentence when he said “whom ye
ignorantly worship, Him I declare unto you.” Professor Drummond,
who was brought up at the feet of Dr. Martineau, has done us good
service by his study of St. John’s Gospel, which he determines both
on external and internal grounds to be the work of the disciple
whom Jesus loved.

The DEAN OF CANTERBURY expressed his gratitude to Professor
Gwatkin for his excellent paper.

Mr. Cory thought that there was a saying of St. Augustine
which would always be found helpful towards the realisation of this
doctrine, “ There have always been a lover and a loved.”

Professor GWATKIN.—There was still left the difficulty of the
Third Person, yet he thought that he could see a way.

152 THE REV. PROFESSOR H. M. GWATKIN, M.A., ON

The Rev. H. J. R. MAarston.—To venture to say anything on
this subject is to launch out into deep waters. Professor Gwatkin
has to-day said almost the last word on a subject that he has made
his own. I hope that we may hear the Professor again in the
Victoria Institute.

Perhaps, however, it is not self-evident that every phase of
human society in its development must reflect an aspect of the
Godhead. Each genuine phase has adumbrated some aspect of the
Biblical God, not the naturalistic God.

There is then something to say for the Sovereignty of God once
unchallenged, now so much impoverished and caricatured. The
idea of Sovereignty is more needed than ever. As a life-long
Liberal he hoped that there may be some such thing as a Divine
Democracy.

Of the Sovereignty of God, Augustine and Calvin have caught
glimpses, but St. John had a real vision.

It is my hope that all those who have ideals of Society, whether
democratic or other, may gradually find all worthy speculations
and ideals realised and transcended.

REMARKS BY LIEUT.-COLONEL ALVES.

Whilst there appear to be certain differences between ancient
Arianism and the forms of modern Unitarianism, I think that,
broadly speaking, both practically deny the unique Divinity of the
Lord Jesus Christ ; Gnosticism, on the other hand, denying His real
humanity. Each of these opposing heresies would render useless
His work on our behalf.

The reader of the paper has hinted that God can have no
favourites ; but is this correct? Abraham was God’s friend ; it is
true that he was a man of great faith ; but God must have foreseen
that his descendants through Jacob would manifest what a writer on
Scripture has called ‘a genius for perversity.” Yet that nation—
as a nation—was marked out for special favour; and, although at
present in disgrace, is being preserved in order to be a blessing to
the whole world, and also its head nation temporally. This is
‘“‘Calvinism,” so called, applied nationally.

As regards individuals, we cannot get rid of this (“ Calvinistic ”)
doctrine without destroying the Bible. To say nothing of others,
Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul, Peter and John held those doctrines

ARIANISM AND MODERN THOUGHT. 155

of grace (‘Calvinism”) which, I believe, all the Protestant
Reformers held without exception.

The revelation is clear, that some are ‘chosen in Him (Christ)
before the foundation of the world” (Eph. i, 4). This is more than
an invitation, or free grace which calls, setting the will free to
accept or reject ; it is Sovereign grace which compels. All are not
compelled ; those who are, must be ‘“ Favourites.”

I think that “Calvinism” has. suffered in two ways; (1) in
restricting salvation to those irresistibly called (“ hyper-Calvinism ”) ;
(2) in restricting God’s plan of salvation to these, and to those others
called who accept the invitation. ‘‘ Arminianism,” if not as mis-
chievous in one way as false, “Calvinism” in one direction, is worse
in another, inasmuch as it leads men to suppose that they can come
to Christ when they themselves choose, and not when God calls
them. Both seem to me to narrow the scope of God’s plan by the
work of Jesus Christ through His Church and His nation ; whereas
He, through Paul, hints at a vast work extending through the
Universe ; see 1 Cor. vi, 1-3, and Ephesians i, 1-10. The Bible
does not say that the case of those not called in this life is hopeless.
1 Peter ii, 18-22, and iv, 6, hints at a more populous Paradise, but
not another or wider door.

I cannot go with one of the speakers in his hints at a Divine
Democracy. Differences in degree and position are revealed where
Christ bears rule; and the nearest approach to Democracy will be
when, after the period known as “the ages of the ages” comes to
an end, and everything contrary to God’s mind is utterly destroyed
out of existence, the Lord Jesus hands over the kingdom to God ;
even the Father. Even then, it is to me unthinkable that Our
Redeemer should stand no higher than even the highest of His
Redeemed.

504TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.
MONDAY, MARCH 7tu, 1910.

THE Rey. J. TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S., IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed.
The announcement was then made of the impending election to fill eight
vacancies on the Council, to take place on May 2nd.

The following paper was then read by the author :—
(Illustrated by Lantern Slides.)
ASSUR AND NINEVEH.
By THeEopuiuus G. Pincues, LL.D., M.R.A.S.

Assur.

()" all the little explanatory verses on the Old Testament

there are probably but few which are of greater imterest.
than that referring to the great cities of Assyria. It is that
well-known verse 11 of the 10th chapter of Genesis, which, in
the Revised Version, tells us that, “out of that land (Shinar or
Babylonia) he (Nimrod, who is best identified with the
Babylonian god Merodach) went forth into Assyria, and builded
Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, and Resen between
Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city).” Whether it
was Asshur or Nimrod who went forth from Babylonia or not is
a matter of but minor importance, as it is the cities which were
founded, and not the person who founded them, with which we
have to deal.

A very important testimony to the great size of Nineveh is
given in the Book of Jonah, where it is spoken of, in verse 2 of
the third chapter, as “ that great city,” and further, in the third
verse of the same chapter, as “an exceeding great city, of three
days’ journey,” the distance referred to being commonly regarded
as indicating its extent. Naturally, there is some difficulty in

ASSUR AND NINEVEH. 155

estimating this from such a vague statement, for, admitting that
the words are correctly applied, the distance traversed must
necessarily depend on the speed of the traveller. Perhaps a
preaching-journey, such as that upon which the prophet Jonah
was engaged, was slower than an ordinary one, but taking as a
rough estimate 10 miles a day, this would make about 30 ‘miles
as its greatest extent. Between Nineveh and Calah, however,
there is nothing like this distance, so that another explanation
will have to be found.

But though I shall refer, later on, to the size of Nineveh, the
primary object of this paper is to describe the recent discoveries
there and in the old capital, ASSur—a site which, strangely
enough, seems not to be referred to in the tenth chapter of
Genesis at all. Assur, however, was a city of considerable
extent, and, as the older capital, and the centre of an important
branch of Assyrian religious life, a place of considerable impor-
tance. Situated between 40 and 50 miles south of Kouyunjik,
the ancient Nineveh, Assur, which is now called Qal’a Shergat,
was first excavated by the late Sir Henry Layard, in 1852, when
some fragments of the great historical cylinder of Tiglath-pileser
I., with a few other objects, were found. Excavations were
continued on the site in 1855, when other copies of the cylinder
were discovered. One of the largest objects recovered at that
time was the black basalt headless statue of Shalmaneser i
the king of the Black Obelisk, who came into contact with the
Syrian League and Ahab, and received tribute from Jehu, son
of Omri.

The date of the foundation of the city is naturally unknown
to us, but it-was in existence as early as 2000 years B.c., as
Hammurabi testifies. He speaks of having “restored to the
city, Assur, its good genius,” suggesting that the place had
passed through a period of depression—in any case, whatever
the misfortune was, Hammurabi would seem to claim to have
remedied it.

The German excavations at ASSur, the city to which the eyes
of English explorers had for long been turned, have added much
to our knowledge of Assyrian history. About the time of the
Babylonian kine Abesu, or Ebisu, ruled viceroy USpia, who
seems to have been the founder of the temple of ASS8ur in the
city of that name. This ruler was succeeded by Kikia, after
whom came Iu-Suma and his son Erigum, both of whom were
known, from bricks brought from the site by Sir Henry Layard,
to have been viceroys of Assur (issak Assur). Erisum built
anew the temple of A&8ur, which was called E-hursag-kurkura

156 THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON

“the house of the mountain of the lands,” but in the course of
179 years it fell into ruin, and was rebuilt by Samfi-Adad,
viceroy of A&Sur. Ikunum, who reigned after Erisum, rebuilt
the temple of the goddess Eres-ki-yal, the queen of Hades so
often referred to in the account of the Descent of the goddess
star to that region. At this early date the records are mainly
architectural, but it is to be expected that something more of the
history of the country may come to light, though as the viceroys
of Assyria seem to have been under the suzerainty of Babylonia,
their natural warlike nature would be somewhat hidden. It
seems to be only when they became kings in their own right
that those long and often tedious but exceedingly valuable
historical records, giving details of their conquests, and recount-
ing their relations with the countries around—relations generally
the result of those conquests—meet our wondering gaze. The
Assyrians seem not to have engaged in military exploits for
the mere lust of conquest, but because they were ambitious, and
wished to hand down their names to posterity as more renowned
than any ruler who had preceded them.

According to Mr. Hormuzd Rassam’s account, the site of
Qal’a Shergat, as ASSur is now called, is unlike that of the
ruin-mounds of other Assyrian cities. Instead of standing out
boldly and distinctly from the natural and artificial hills around,
it is comparatively flat, the greater portion being simply a
gradual slope upwards from south to north. When approaching
it from the south or south-east, therefore, nothing can be seen
except the ruins of the great temple-tower, f-hursag-kurkura,
the lower boundary being simply a continuation of the natural
hills at those points. Viewed from the north and north-west,
however, the platform upon which the city is built has the
appearance of a structure towering almost perpendicularly to
a height of about 100 feet above the level of the plain.

It is at’ the north-east corner of the city-enclosure that the
temple of the god Assur, founded, apparently, by USpia, lies ;
and immediately adjoining it is the palace of Shalmaneser I.
(about 1330 B.c.) and another small temple. The great ziqqgurat
or temple-tower lies a little farther to the W.S.W. Still farther
to the same point is the palace of ASSur-nasir-dpli (885 B.c.),
and W.S.W. of that again, lies the most noteworthy ruin of the
place, namely, the temple of Anu and Adad—the well-known
god of the heavens and his son, Hadad or Rimmon, the god of
the atmosphere. The westernmost erection is the terrace of
the new palace of Tukulti-En-usati (Tukulti-Ninip) I. (1300 B.c.),
which seems to have been a building of considerable extent.

ASSUR AND NINEVED. 157

Among other erections may be mentioned the temple of Nebo,
built—or more probably rebuilt—by Sin-Sarru-iskun, the
Saracos of the Greeks, under whom the fall of Nineveh and the
domination of Assyria took place. This foundation contained
a treasure-house of the goddess TaSmétu, the spouse of Nebo.
Another important building on the site was a temple to the
eoddess I8tar, who seems to have borne the name of Ninaittu.
Numerous private houses and graves, some of them excellently
constructed vaults, with terra cotta coffins, have been found.
Of the smaller antiquities some examples have been published,
but bas-relefs similar to those found in such numbers at
Nineveh and Khorsabad, are rare or non-existent. Concerning
certain royal figures and stele I shall have something to say
later on.

From the photographs which have been published it is
satisfactory to notice that Mr. Rassam’s description of the ruins
is correct—the great zigqurat or temple-tower is the only thing
appearing prominently above the surface of the ground. Not-
withstaiding the interest of this structure I am compelled to
leave it for the present, as I have not sufficient material for a
eood description of it. Later on, when a detailed account with
restorations, similar to that treating of the temple dedicated to
Anu and Adad, which has been so well described by Dr. Andrae,
the chief explorer of the site, has appeared, I hope to return to
the subject.

Though it is somewhat surprising, we probably know more
about the comparatively worse-preserved temple of Anu and
Hadad than about the great zigqgurat which was, in the days of
its supremacy, such a prominent feature of the city. But the
temple to these two gods is so interesting that a special
monograph concerning it has been written by Dr. Andrae, the
Director of the excavations, and it is on this account that the
description which I am about to give of it is possible.

The lowest structures of the Anu-Adad temple are of A&8ur-
ré8-i81, who was the ancient builder, if not the founder, of this
double shrine. This ruler, who was the father of the well-
known Tielath-pileser I., records his name on the bricks which
his builders used, as follows :—

(1) Assur-rés-ist (2) Sangu Assur (3) dpil Mutakkil-Nasku (4) Sangu
Assur (5) dpil Assur-dan (6) Sangu Assur-ma, banw bit Addi (8) wu
Anim.

¢ ASsur-réS-i8i, priest of ASSur, son of Mutakkil-Nusku, priest of
Assur, son of ASSur-dan, priest of ASsu likewise, builder of the
house of Adad and Anu.”

158 THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON

This inscription is not produced by means of a brick-stamp,
but is written by hand, probably with a rectangular stick of
wood, a corner of which, pressed into the clay, forms the
wedges—no matter what their shape—with which we are so
familiar. The words are all usual ones, and the text is composed
with a due regard to the rules of Assyrian grammar, as far as
their ideographic system allowed. It is noteworthy that, in
this and other inscriptions found on the site, the name of
Adad precedes that of his father Anu—whether because
he was the more popular god, or for some other reason, is
uncertain.

Like all the structures of this class in Babylonia and Assyria,
the corners of the buildings are directed, roughly, towards the
cardinal points. Its rear looked therefore towards the northern
city-wall, which sloped from north-east to south-west, and its
front towards the south-west, facing the central portion of the
city. The temple proper seems to have consisted of a rectan-
gular terrace with its entrance on the site referred to, flanked
by two towers, by which one gained access to a central court-
yard, and thence into the rooms where the religious ceremonies
were performed, the priests’ private rooms, and those wherein
the holy vessels and utensils were kept. As it was a double
temple, the architects arranged the rooms in each portion
symmetrically, aud each god had the same number of rooms
in the fane dedicated to him—four small rooms arranged round
a central chamber which was apparently the sanctuary. The
broad recess at the north-western end of each hall suggests
that at that end fay the holy place, where the image of the god
of the fane stood, and the priests performed their ceremonies.
On each side of these rooms, at the angles of the north-western
front, were the two massive temple- towers, which Dr. Andrae
supposes to have been in four stages, access being gained to them
from the terrace, and also, probably, from a corridor which ran
between the chambers (dividing the temples from each other),
or from the chambers themselves. Though no sanctuaries are
shown at the tops of these temple-towers, it is not improb-
able that there was one in each case, similar to that of the
temple of Belus at Babylon. It is to be noted, however, that a
sanctuary at the top of every temple-tower was not an absolute
necessity, as the ceremonies may have been performed in the
open air. Dr. Andrae’s restoration of the earlier structure,
which I now describe, does not represent the outer walls as
being decorated with those deeply-recessed panels which are
such a characteristic of structures of this kind, both in Assyria

ASSUR AND NINEVEH, 159

and in Babylonia. As will be seen later, however, this decoration
was employed in the later structure.

It is needless to say that brick structures such as these were
constantly needing repairs, and the successors of the builders
were accustomed to regard it as their duty to carry them out.
Tiglath-pileser L., the son and successor of ASSur-rés-i8i, fwfilled
this task with great thoroughness, and records it in detail on his
great cylinders, now preserved in the British Museum, and
published in the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. 1,
pl. 15, 1. 60 ff. This king states that the temple tower was
built or founded by SamSi-Adad, viceroy of ASSur, about 1821
years B.C. It had been demolished by ASSur-dan, who ruled
about 1200 B.c., but this king had not been able to rebuild it.
For some reason which does not appear, Tiglath-pileser does not
refer to the work of his father ASS8ur-rés-18i—perhaps he ouly
began the work towards the end of his reign, and Tiglath-pileser
may have had the superintendence of it, for he expressly states
that it was at the beginning of his reign that the gods ordered
their dwellings to be rebuilt. He then made the bricks, cleared
the site, reached the core, and laid the foundation upon the
ancient nucleus—brickwork first, and then blocks of stone. He
built it, he says, from its foundation to its battlements, and
made it larger than before, and he rebuilt also the two great
temple-towers, which were adapted to the dignity of the two
gods’ great divinity. Here it may be noted that translations
similar to this were made before the discovery of the site, so that,
if there were any doubt as to Assyriologists having found out the
way to translate the wedge-written inscriptions, the temple of
Anu and Adad would, in itself, suffice to prove beyond a doubt
that the renderings were correct. The interior of the two-fold
temple, he says, he made bright like the centre of the heavens,
decorating its wall like the. glory of the rising of the stars.
Having founded the holy place, the shrine of their great divinity
within it, he caused Anu and Adad, the great gods, to enter there,
set them in their supreme seat, and thus eladdened their hearts.

After a description of the bit hamri, which seems to have
been the treasure-house attached to the temple, or to one of the
two shrines (that of Adad) which it contained, Tiglath-pileser
calls upon the gods whom he had thus honoured to bless him,
and hear his supplication, granting fertility and plenty to his
land, and in war and battle bringing him safely back, etc. He
states that he had performed the usual ceremonies, anointing
the memorial-slabs of Samsi-Adad, his father (ancestor), with
oul, sacrificing a victim, and then restoring them to their place.

160 THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON

He asks that the future prince, when those temple-towers grew
old and decayed, might treat his own inscriptions in the same
way, and calls down a deadly curse, and all the displeasure of
his gods, on any who should destroy his inscriptions. Tiglath-
pileser’s own inscriptions, impressed on the bricks of temple,
read as follows :—

Tukulti-dpil-ésarra Tiglath-pileser,
Sangu Assur mar Assur-rés-is8i priest of ASSur, son of ASSur-
rés-isi,

Sangu Assur bit Adad béli-su priest of ASSur, the house of
Adad, his lord,
épus-ma tkstr he has (re)built and paved.

Time passed, and though the temple was in all probability
repaired as occasion required by the successors of Tiglath-
pileser [., it had reached such a state of decay by the time of
Shalmaneser II. (859 B.c.) that that king thought himself
justified in rebuilding it. It will be remembered that Shal-
maneser II. was the king who came into conflict with the
Syrian league, to which Ahab of Israel and Ben-Hadad of
Damascus belonged. Inscriptions on what are called zigati,
found on the site, record the work which he executed on the
temple as follows :—

‘“‘Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, son of A8Sur-nasir-Apli, king of
Assyria.”

[Here follow references to his conquests in Armenia, the
West, Babylon, and the sacrifices which he offered in Borsippa,
the renowned suburb-city of Babylon, of which he speaks also
elsewhere. As the cradle of their religion, Babylonia, and
especially the capital and the cities around, must have been a
land of veritable romance to the pious Assyrian. ]

‘In those days the temple of Anu and Adad,

my lords, which earlier Tukulti-Apil-ésarra (Tiglath-pileser),

son of As8ur-ré3-i8i, son of Mutakkil-Nusku (had rebuilt), had
fallen into ruin,

to its whole extent I built it anew.

I brought beams of cedar, (and) set them for (its) roof.

Let the future prince renew its ruin,

restore my written name to its place—

Assur, Anu, Adad, will hear his prayer.

Let him restore myziqdtt to its place.

Month Mahur-ilani,day 5th, first year of my reign (or possibly,
of my twenty expeditions).

From this we gather, that the restoration of the temple of

ASSUR AND NINEVEH. 161

Anu and Adad by Shalmaneser II. was no mere work of simple
repair, but a rebuilding of the structure, as, indeed, Andrae’s
plans indicate. The halls and rooms were to all appearance
decorated with all the skill of the Assyrian artisans, and cedar,
probably from Lebanon or Amanus, were used for the support
of the flat roof of the outer structure. Contrary to what we
should expect, the temple, when rebuilt, was smaller than the
structure erected by AsSur-réS-isi, the father of Tiglath-pileser I.
The design, it is true, Was more symmetrical, but as the new
structure was wanting in breadth, it must also have been
wanting in boldness. The entrance seems to have been to the
left of the centre of the terraced front elevation, and the
central courtyard was smaller. It was from this last that access
was gained to the rooms used for the ceremonies and for the
furniture of the temple. Passing through extensive vestibules,
the visitor reached the main halls, which, instead of recesses
regarded as holy places (which were probably separated from
the main halls by curtains), were provided with side-rooms on
the right and left of the halls to which they belonged respec-
tively. The two siqqurrati, to which access was probably
obtained from the terrace above the chambers, were towers in
stages similar to those of the earlier structure, but their outer
walls were panelled, not plain. A fine view of the river to the
north-west must have been obtained from these heights. The
absence of formally straight lines in Dr. Andrae’s restoration
is not altogether unpleasing, and is, in fact, in accordance with
the picture on the grant of land obtained for the proprietors of
the Daily Telegraph by the late George Smith, aud now in the
British Museum. The carving on the stone in question is very
rough, and the details are not, therefore, very marked, but
it may be noted, that the shrine on the top is very distinctly
shown, suggesting that similar erections may have existed on
the similar buildings in the city of Assur. After this, the
restorations of Assyro- Babylonian temple-towers in Perrot and
Chipiez’s History of Art in Chaldca strike one as being rather
formal.

Among those who repaired and restored the structure at a
late date, Dr. Andrae mentions King Sargon of Assyria, the
well-known ruler who captured Samaria. Tn Shalmaneser II.’s
courtyard (which has, by the way,a very good well in the
south-west corner), an excellent pavement of tiles almost
exclusively of Sargon was discovered. The inscriptions thereon
were in the two languages, Assyrian and dialectic Sumerian, and
read as follows :—

162 THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D.,' M.R.A.S., ON

‘For Assur, the father of the gods, his lord,
Sargon, king of the world, king of Assyria,
magnate of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad,
has caused this pavement to be laid, and with bricks of the
sacred oven,
the pathway of the court of E-hursag-gal-kurkura
he has made bright like the day.’”*

This “pathway” finds a parallel in the festival-street at

sabylon, and was probably for the processions of the gods when
their statues were carried round to visit other shrines and
temples, both of the city ASSur and the neighbouring towns.

One of the pictures published shows the entrance to the
room designated F, looking from the courtyard. Before it is the
pavement of Sargon, and below that, the older pavement. The
earthen vessel near the centre is said to be a collecting vase,
possibly for offerings.

The desolation which this once flourishing town and feauple
present may be gathered from the general view from the East,
showing the remains of the old North and the late West temple-
towers. On the left are the lowest foundation-courses of the
courtyard-wall, and in the middle are the remains of walls of
some of the rooms. The remains of the late West temple-
tower are to be seen behind.

Naturally there is much to say concerning these interesting
and extensive ruins, which testify, among many others, to the
great and active life of the ancient cities of Assyria, at one time
the scourge of the then known world. The walls and their
gates, the numerous other temples, especially those of Assur,
Nebo, and Eres-ki-gal, the Queen of Hades; the palaces; the
platiorms ; which you have seen in the plan; and the “ hunting-
box ” of Sennacherib, which lay outside the walls to the north-
west, all present points of interest. Descriptions of these,
however, will be best undertaken when satisfactory monographs

* The following are the two versions of this inscription of Sargon, and
will give an idea of the differences of the two idioms :—
1. Assyrian.
Ana Assur abi tani béli-Su Sarru-ukin Sar kissati Sar mét A%sur Sakkanok
Bab-ili sar mat Sumeri wu Akkadi uSalbin-ma agurre utuni lliti tallakti
kisal B- hur-sag-gal-kurkurra kima ame unammir.

2. Sumerian.
Assur adda dimmerene lugalanir Sarra-ukin lugal kisara lugal mada
Assur-ge neuru Tindir lugal Ningi-Ura-bi segalurra udun azagga
amenidudu negin kisal k- hur-sag-gal-kurkurra t-dime ban-lah.

ASSUR AND NINEVEH. 165

dealing with them are published, ike that of Andrae upon the
Temple of Anu and Adad, which has furnished material for
this portion of the present paper.

Though the objects of art do not by any means equal in
number to those from Nineveh, Calah and Khorsabad, there are
still a few which are worthy of notice. One is a sixteen-sided
column of basalt with a strange-looking capital, supposed to be
of the time of Tiglath- -pileser I. Another good specimen of
Assyrian art consists of fragments of bronze on which chased
figures in relief may be seen, reminding one of those magnificent
brazen gates which Mr. Rassam was so fortunate as to discover
at Balawat. This shows figures in procession, seemingly going
to meet the Assyrian king, and introducing a smaller figure,
apparently a child. There are several scenes on the Balawat
gates which can be compared with this, and in the light of
Shalmaneser’s historical inscriptions, it is seen that the little
personage is a princess who is represented, and that she is being
surrendered by a conquered prince or chief to the Assyrian king
to become one of his wives. The proportions seem not to be so
well kept as in the case of the Balawat Gates, but the work in
general is good.

Nineveh.

Assur is regarded as having been the first capital of Assyria,
and Nineveh the second; but Dr. Rogers lays claim to the
honour of chief city of the kingdom for two others in addition—
Calah and Khorsabad, the order being AS8ur, Calah, Nineveh,
Khorsabad (built by Sargon on the site of Maganubba), and
then Nineveh again. If so, this is a case of kings proposing
and God disposing, for notwithstanding all that Sargon did for
Dir-Sarru-ukin, now Khorsabad, its importance declined after
his death, and Sennacherib, his son, showered his favours on
Nineveh, which remained the capital of the land until the
downfall of the Assyrian monarchy in 606 B.c.

And it is apparently in consequence of what Sennacherib did
for the city that its glory revived. Two German scholars,
Messrs. Meissner and Rost, have edited and translated very
successfully the inscriptions in which that king records his work
there, so that we have had for a considerable time rather full
details of his architectural, horticultural, and defensive
achievements.

Lately, however, fresh attention has been attracted to them,
for the British Museum has been fortunate enough to acquire
another text—a prism similar to the monument known as the

164 THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON

Taylor Cylinder, inscribed for the same monarch. This text has,
on its eight faces, no less than 740 lines of writing dealing with
his campaigns and his architectural works. There is the usual
honorific introduction, and this is followed by his first campaign,
which was against Merodach-bal-adan ; his second, directed
against the Kassites and the YaSubi-galleans ; his third, which
passed in the land of Hatti, the territory of the Hittites,
and was undertaken to chastise Hezekiah and punish the
Ekronites; his fourth, which was against the small Chaldean
kingdom of Bit-Yakin; and his fifth, directed against certain
states occupying the mountain-fastnesses of Mesopotamia.
After these well-known narratives, however, we get details of
two little-known military expeditions, in which Sennacherib
did not personally take part, but which were led by his generals.
The first of the two was against Kirua, ruler of the land of Que
(Cilicia), whom he calls “city-chief” of Illubru, and describes
as one of his officials. This man not being, as his name implies,
an Assyrian, naturally thought to make himself independent of
Assyrian rule, and to this end got the city of Hilakku (Cilicia)
to revolt, and the inhabitants of the cities Ingiraé and Tarsus
to rally to his side. These allies occupied and blocked the
Cilician pass, hoping to be able to arrest the Assyrian troops in
their advance. In this, however, they were unsuccessful, the
forces sent against them being armed with all the thoroughness
for which the Assyrians were renowned, and even more thoroughly
than on former occasions. The Cilicians were first defeated
“among the difficult mountains,” and the cities of Ingira and
Tarsus were captured and spoiled. Next came the siege of
Tllubru, carried on with the help of all kinds of warlike engines,
and its fall followed in due course. Kirua, the governor, was
captured, and much spoil taken. Having been brought to
Nineveh, he met the fate which awaited him, that of flaying—
whether alive or dead the record does not say. At the re-
occupation of Illubru, which followed, Assur’s emblem was set
up, and, facing it, the memorial slab which had been prepared
for the purpose.

According to Polyhistor, Sennacherib proceeded against
Cilicia in person, a statement which, if he be referring to the
same campaign, must be regarded as incorrect. This historian
also says that he fought with them a pitched battle, in which,
though he suffered great loss, he was successful in defeat-
ing them, and erected on the spot a monument of his
victory, consisting of a statue of himself, and a record of
prowess “in Chaldean characters.” Sennacherib does not mention

ASSUR AND NINEVEH. 165

any statue, but there may well have been a bas-relief above
the inscription to which he refers. Confirmation of Polyhistor’s
statement that Sennacherib rebuilt the city of Tarsus after the
likeness of Babylon, and changed its name to Tharsis, may
possibly be confirmed by records of a later date—if such ever
come to light. Though it is not much, this new chapter in the
history of ‘the Apostle Paul’s native city is interesting. It had
already been taken by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser IL., about
850 B.c., when Kati, the then ruler, was deposed, and his
brother Kirri placed on the throne in his stead.

The other campaign referred to was against Tilgarimmu, a
city on the borders of Tubal, which Assyriologists have iden-
tified with the Biblical Togarmah—a comparison, however,
which is not altogether satisfactory ; though it may, by chance,
turn out to be correct. This place was ruled by a king named
Hidi, who had “ consolidated ” (such seems to be the meaning of
the verbal form irkusw) “his kingdom,” apparently meaning that
he wished to be considered as independent of Assyria. Again
the superior armament, and, it may be supposed, the organiza-
tion of the Assyrians, prevailed ; and after the usual siege, the
city was taken and destroyed, and the gods of the people carried
into captivity. At the end, Sennacherib mentions the amount
of military supplies which he captured and distributed among
his forces. This was apparently not an important expedition,
but it added to the glory of his reign, and is on that account
recorded.

But the longest section of the text is that detailing the work
which Sennacherib did at Nineveh, his capital, to which he has
devoted no less than 345 lines of writing. He describes the city
as the place beloved by the goddess Istar, wherein exist the
shrines of all the gods and goddesses—and i in this statement we
may see why he thought more of Nineveh than of Dtr-Sarru-
ukin, his father’s great foundation—the new city and royal
residence did not appeal to him because it was a place of but
little religious and historical interest. This view of his favour
towards Nineveh is rather contirmed by the words which follow,
wherein he goes on to say, that Nineveh is the eternal ground-
work, the everlasting foundation, whose design had been
fashioned and whose structure shone forth from of old with the
writing of the (starry) heavens—practically a claim that it had
a divine origin. It was a place craftily wrought, wherein was
the seat of the oracle, and all kinds of art- works, every kind of
shrine, treasure, and thing of delight (7). It was there that the
kings his fathers had ruled the land of Assyria before him, and

166 THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON

directed the followers of the god Enlil, in which last we may,
perhaps, understand the Babylonians as being meant. None of
these kings, however, had beautified the city as he had done.

For the work which he had in view, therefore, he brought the
people of Chaldea, the Arameans, the Mannites or Armenians,
Que and Hilakku (both mentioned as countries, though in the
historical part the latter appears as a city), the land of Pilisti
or Philistia, and the land of Tyre. These nationalities, which
had not submitted to his yoke, he placed in servitude, and they
made bricks for the extension and decoration of the city.

The work which first appealed to him was the building of a
palace for himself, and to this end he pulled down the former
palace, the terrace and foundation of which had been destroyed
by the Tebiltu, a violent stream, which since remote days had
souzht to reach the structure. In order to safeguard it in
future, he turned aside the course of the river, and reclaimed,
from another stream, the Khosr, a piece of land 540 cubits in
length by 298 in breadth. The palace itself was enlarged, when
rebuilt, to a length of 700 great suklwm and a width of 440, and
he caused palaces (that is, separate sections or divisions of the
whole structure) to be built, and adorned with gold, silver, and all
kinds of valuable woods. To this palace he added a gateway made
after the likeness of that of a Hittite palace, and from the excava-
tions which have been made on Hittite sites, it seems probable
that this was a special arrangement of winged lions and bulls,
such as the Assyrians had themselves been accustomed to employ
for decorative purposes. I quote here Sennacherib’s words :—

a house of double doors (7.e., porch)
in the likeness of a palace of Hattu,
I caused to be made opposite its gates.”

It therefore seems clear that it is the arrangement which is
referred to, and not the ornamentation. The lines which follow
are characteristic of the East, the land of sweet odours and
precious wood :—

“Beams of cedar and cypress,
whose scent is sweet, the products of Amanus
and Sirara, the sacred* mountains,
I caused to be set up over them.”

In the shrines within the royal chambers Sennacherib opened
dpti birri, which are regarded as meaning “ light-holes,” or
windows, and in their gates (the gates of the shrines apparently)

* Or “the snow-capped.”

ASSUR AND NINEVEH. 167

he set up female winged colossi of white stone and ivory (or
perhaps stone of the colour of ivory), which bore ¢dluru
(?columns) and whose claws were curved. “TI set them up in
their gates, and caused them to pass as a wonderment,” says the
kine. If one might make a suggestion with regard to these
interesting objects, it is that they were small and more of the
nature of statuettes than of statues, and were in fact possibly the
same as that beautiful winged lioness found by the late G. Smith
at Nineveh in 1873-4. He describes it as a winged cow or bull
(it is restored in accordance with this description) in fine yellow
stone, with a human head surmounted by a cylindrical cap
adorned with horns and rosette ornaments, wings rising from
the shoulders, and a necklace round the neck. On the | top of
the wings, which stretch backwards, stands the base of a column
in the usual Assyrian style. He describes it as being 3 inches
high without the feet (which are wanting), 3 inches. long, and
having a breadth of 14 inches. As the face is unbearded it is
almost certainly intended for a female, and the absence of any
traces of an udder makes it more probable that it is intended
for a winged lioness-sphinx rather than a woman-headed cow.

Architectural details concerning the newly-erected palace
follow. The recesses of the chambers were lighted “like the
day,” and the interiors were surrounded with decorative orna-
ments of silver and copper and with burnt brick and valuable
stones, one of them being lapis-lazuli. Some of the great trees
used in the construction of the palace had been brought, the
king says, from secret places among the mountains of Sirara,
their positions having been revealed to him by Assur and IS8tar,
lovers of his priesthood. The stone (marble, or perhaps ala-
baster) used was regarded in the times of his fathers as a fit
decoration for the sheath of a sword (implying that it was
something rare), and was brought from the land or mountain of
Ammanana, and a stone called tur-mina- -banda, identified by
Mr. L. W. King with breccia, which was used for the great
receptacles of the palace, came from the city Kabridargilé on
the boundary of Til-Barsip (Birejik). The white limestone
used for the winged bulls and female colossi, and other similar
statues of alabaster came from the district of the city Balatu,
near Nineveh.

These bulls and lions were made in a single piece of stone,
and it is noteworthy that the transportation of similar objects,
probably for the palace in question, is represented more than
once on the slabs from Sennacherib’s palace which were dis-
covered by Layard and are now in the British Museum. It does

168 THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON

not require a very lengthy inspection of these gems of Assyrian
art to realise that they are exceedingly instructive illustrations
of the way in which the great Assyrian palaces were built. We
see there the palace- platform being constructed, and the finished
and unfinished human-headed bulls being dragged to the positions
in which they were to be set up. The king speaks of the
perfection of the form of the female colossi of marble :—

“Like glorious day their bodies were bright,”

and we can easily imagine the imposing effect which they had
when they were new and fresh from the sculptor’s hands, on the
day when the palace was completed.

And here, in the course of his description, Sennacherib touches
on another subject, namely, the casting of bronze. When, in
early days, he says, the kings his fathers wished to make an
image of themselves in bronze to set up in the palaces (or
temples) they made all the artizans groan in their construction :—

“ Without instruction, not understanding the matter,
for the work of their desire,
they poured out oil, the fleece of a sheep
they sheared within their lands.”

This, as Mr. King points out, probably refers to some ceremony
in which oil and a fleece were used, in order to bring good luck
upon the work. Sennacherib, however, through the clever
understanding which the divine prince Nin-igi-azaga (the god
Ea, patron of handicrafts) had conferred upon him, combined
with his own research and inquiry into the matter, was able to
make “great columns of bronze,” and colossal lions “open of
knee ”—probably meaning with the legs separated from each.
other, and not joined together with a core of metal.

“ By the counsel of my understanding,
and the inquiry of my mind,
I formed the bronze-work, and
made its execution artistic.
Of great beams and framework,
the forms of 12 shining (?) lions,
with 12 bull-colossi
sublime, which were perfect as to form,
(and) 22 colossal heifers, upon whom
was lusty beauty, who were mantled with strength,
and vigour abounded,
according to the command of the god
I made moulds of clay, and

ASSUR AND NINEVEH. 169

poured copper (bronze) therein—
as in the casting of half-shekel pieces
I completed theiri ormaticn.”

What was the improvement which Sennacherib effected ? The
want of a precise translation renders this doubtful, but we may,
perhaps, guess that he had come to the conclusion that much
labour, and also a considerable amount of metal, would be saved
by casting these objects as a shell round a core of clay which,
being constructed with a wooden framework, could afterwards
be removed, and the same employed over and over again. In
any case, the process here detailed is most interesting, and
when more is known of the Assyrian technical terms, may even
add something to our knowledge of the history of bronze-casting.

Two of these brass colossi, when finally produced, were overlaid
with what is suggested to have been gilding, and were placed,
with others of limestone and male and female colossi of alabaster,
in the gates of the palaces. Numerous other details concerning
the colossal bulls and lions which the king caused to be made
follow, and he states that he made columns of bronze, and also
of all the different kinds of wood which the Assyrians regarded
as precious, for which the colossi seem to have formed supports,
and the whole was erected as colonnades (?) in “his lordly
dwelling.” After this come references, apparently, to the bas-
reliefs which the king caused to be carved, the slabs being
described as having been produced wonderfully, and if this be
the true rendering, the specimens in the British Museum confirm
Sennacherib’s words concerning them—they are wonderful.

Next comes Sennacherib’s account of, the irrigation works
which he constructed. In order to have water daily in abund-
ance, he caused swinging beams and brazen buckets to be
fashioned, and having set up the necessary framework over the
water-reservoirs and attached them thereto, they were used for
the watering of the fields and plantations. Here we have a
description of that well-known Eastern apparatus, the shadou/,
which Sennacherib would seem to have introduced into Assyria
—it is said from Egypt.

“« . . . Those palaces I cause to be produced beautifully —
as for the vicinity of the palace, for the wonderment of
multitudes of men
I raised its head—‘ The Palace which has no rival’
I called its name.”
And then comes the description of the surroundings of the

palace—the great park or plantation “like mount Amanus ”
M 2

170 THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON

which he laid out, wherein were all herbs and fruit-trees, trees
produced on the mountains and in the land of Chaldea (a plain
low-lying and flat), and trees bearing wool. This, as my former
colleague of the British Museum points out, must be a reference
to the growing of cotton, as is shown by the statement, that it
was used for the fabricating of clothing.

At this point he quits the references to his palaces, and speaks
of his work on the city of Nineveh. From former days, he says,
the area of its circuit had been 9,500 cubits, and the princes
going before him had not built an inner and an outer wall.
Here we have two rather surprising statements, for this estimate
of its area is too small to accord with what we have learned from
ancient writers, and the absence of defensive walls is not what
we should have expected from the Assyrians. If true, however,
it would show how remarkably confident they were that the city
would not be taken by an enemy—it must have been indeed the
city of a nation which trusted in its own power.

This state of things, however, he immediately proceeded to
rectify, for he states that he increased the size of the city by
12,515 cubits, and from this portion of the record we gather that
the suk/um and the dmmat or cubit were the same. The great
wall, of which he records the laying of the foundation, he called
“The Wall whose glory overthroweth the enemy.” He made
its brickwork 40 (? cubits) thick, which would probably not
greatly exceed the estimate of the late George Smith, who
reckoned it at about 50 feet, but added that excavation would
probably decide that point—and we may add, that it would also,
perhaps, decide the measure of the swklum or dmmat. The
height of the walls he raised to 180 ¢ipki, which, according to
Diodorus, should amount to about 100 feet. These were pierced
by fifteen gates :—

“To the four winds fifteen city-gates,
before and behind, on both sides,
for entering and going forth,

I caused to be opened in it.”

Then follow their names, with which, though they are suffi-
ciently interesting, I will not tire you. As specimens of their
nature, however, it may be mentioned that the gate of the god
Assur of the city of ASSur was called “ May Assur’s viceroy be
strong” ; whilst “The Overwhelmer of the whole of the enemy,”
was the name of the gate of Sennacherib of the land of
Halzi—an indication, perhaps, of Sennacherib’s birthplace.
The gate of the Mesopotamian city of Halah was called “ The

ASSUR AND NINEVEH. 171

Bringer of the produce of the wooded heights.” The gate of
Sin, whose name forms the first element of Sennacherib’s own
name, was called “ Nannar (=Sin) the protector of the crown
of my dominion,” the moon god being “lord of the crown” in
Assyro- Babylonian mythology. What would correspond with
the “water gate” was called “Ea, the director of my water-
springs ” ; and the (Quay- gate was named “ The Bringer-in of the .
tribute of the peoples.” Interesting, also, is the name of the
gate Pakidat kalama, “The guardian of everything,” which was
the gate of the tribute-palace or armoury—possibly a kind of
museum wherein were placed all that the Assyrian king
regarded as curious or precious in the way of tribute, gifts, and
trophies. The identification of the fifteen Ninevite gates will
add much to the interest attaching to the site of that ancient
city.

Following on this, Sennacherib described what he did in the
way of constructing the outer wall named Bad-iig-erim-hulhula
in the old Sumerian language, which he interprets as meaning
“that which terrifies the enemy.” This wall was constructed with
foundations of enormous depth—as far down, in fact,as “ the waters
of the underground courses,” at which point blocks of stone were
placed as a foundation, and it was then carried up to the height
fixed upon for the coping with further massive blocks. The object
of the wall’s great depth was to frustrate attempts at under-
mining in case the city should be besieged—a vain precaution,
if the accounts of the taking of Nineveh be true, for it is said
that some part of the wall was undermined by one of the rivers
flowing near, and fell down; and that it was through the breach
thus formed that the allied forces of the Medes, “Babylonians,
and others, entered. “ I made its work skilfully,” the king then
says, as if satistied with what he had done.

He then returns to the city itself, the area of which he
enlarged, broadening its open spaces, and making it bright “ like
the day” —an improvement which Oriental cities often need.
Above and below the city he then constructed plantations, and
placed therein the vegetation of the mountains and the countries
around—all the sweet-smelling herbs of the land of Heth
(Palestine and Pheenicia), and certain plants called murri,
among which, more than in their native places, fruitfulness
increased. ‘These and other plants he set therein, and planted
them for his subjects—probably the higher, rather than the
lower, classes of his people. A description of what he did to
improve the water-supply for these plantations, and wherewith,
at the same time, apparently, he watered all the people’s orchards,

172 THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON

and a thousand cornfields above and below the city, forms a fit
conclusion to this portion of the narrative.

To retard the current of the river Khosr the king construeted
a swamp, in which its waters lost themselves. Reeds and
rushes were planted within it, and wild fowl, wild swine, and
apparently deer placed therein. All the trees which he planted
throve exceedingly, in accordance with the word of the god. The
reed-plantations prospered, the birds of heayen and the wild
fowl of distant places built their nests, and the wild swine and
forest-creatures spread abroad their young. The trees useful for
building he used in the construction of his palaces—the trees
bearing wool they stripped, and beat out for garments.

To celebrate the completion of the work a great festival was
held, worthy of such a king, who, whatever may have been his
conduct with regard to other nations, seems to have attended
well to the needs of his own people. Assembling the gods and
goddesses of Assyria in his palace, numerous victims were
sacrificed, and gifts were offered. There was oil from the trees
called sirdi (which may therefore have been the olive), and
there was produce from the plantations more than in the lands
whence the trees therein came. On that occasion, too, when
the palace was dedicated, he saturated the heads of the people
of his land with oil, probably from those trees, and filled their
bodies with wine and mead. The inscription ends with the
usual exhortation to those “among the king’s his sons, whom
Assur should call for the shepherding of land and people,” to
repair the wall when it should fall into ruin; and having found
the inscription inscribed with his name, to anoint it with oil,
sacrifice a victim, and restore it toits place. “ Assur and I8tar
will hear his prayers.”

After this pious wish comes the date :—

““Month Ab, eponymy of Ilu-itti-ia, governor of Damascus.”

In all probability many will say that we have here a view of
the great and (it must be admitted) cruel conqueror in an
entirely new light, namely, as the benefactor of his country.
And if what he states be true, the question naturally arises :
What modern ruler could say that he had done as much for his
capital as Sennacherib claims to have done for Nineveh? And
who shall say that he claimed unwarrantedly to be the benefactor
of the great city? The sculptures from his palace exist to
confirm his record. We see the winged bulls, of colossal size,
lying down on the sledges on which they were transferred from
the quarries to the site of the palace, sometimes placed uprightly,

ASSUR AND NINEVEH. 173

and carefully propped up to prevent damage by breakage. The
sledges, which the Assyrians called ships or boats, are being
dragged and forced forward by means of enormous levers upon
rollers by armies of workmen, the captives taken in his warlike
expeditions—Armenians, Pheenicians, Tyrians, Cilicians, Chal-
deans, and others, driven to strenuous effort by the whips of
unsparing taskmasters and the loud voices of the directors of
the work. In the background, behind the slaves toiling at the
great cables and the levers, we see the soldiers of the guard, and
behind these again extensive wooded hills. In other sculptured
pictures, however, it must be the pleasure-grounds of the palace
which are represented, with a row of trees, alternately tall and
short, in the distance. ‘This scene is placed on the banks of a
river, whereon we see boats, and men astride on inflated skins.
At another point we see the great king himself in his hand-
chariot, superintending the work. Here the background consists
of reeds and rushes, and we see the deer to which he apparently
refers, and also a wild sow with a litter of young. One of
Layard’s pictures, which is described as a representation of an
“ Obelisk or stone in a boat,” implies that these boat-like sledges
were made to float or to be moved on land by means of the
rollers referred to above. In this case the “boat” is in the
water, and being dragged by long rows of labourers, many of
whom are naked, and all seem to be toiling in the water. The
ropes attached to the boat-like sledges or rafts are excessively
long, and even in the incomplete state of the slabs as Layard
saw them, 36 men to each may be counted. The great pioneer
of Assyrian exploration gives, in his Monuments of Nineveh,
second series, an excellent drawing of a winged bull and human
figure from one of the gates of the old wall of Nineveh, showing,
if any proof were needed, how very excellent the work of
Sennacherib’s sculptors was. It is said that some of the remains
seen by Layard on the spot have been since his time destroyed,
and if this be the case, it is a deplorable loss. Fortunately we
have Layard’s drawings, and know what they were like.

George Smith, in his Assyrian Discoveries, gives us a good
account of Nineveh. He states that the north wall measures
about 14 miles, the south rather more than half a mile, the east
wall about 34 miles, and the west over 2} miles. No extension of
the city outside the walls seems to have been recognised by the
Assyrians, except that called Rébit Ninua, probably meaning
“the extension of Nineveh,” which seems to have been on the
north, stretching towards Khorsabad. It has been identified
with great probability, as the Biblical Rehoboth-Ir. In the

174 THEOPHILUS G, PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON

Book of Jonah, however, Nineveh is stated to have been an.
exceeding great city of three days’ journey, and that being the
case, the explanation that Calah on the south and Khorsabad on.
the north were included seems to be very probable. The distance
between those two extreme points is about 50 miles, which at
10 miles a day, would take the time required. Ovid, in his
story of Pyramis and Thisbe, states that the tragedy which he
relates took place near the pyramid at the entrance of Nineveh.
This was the traditional tomb of Ninus, and may well have
been the great temple-tower excavated by Layard at Calah, in
which he found a long passage, the original object of which was
difficult to determine, and it cannot be said therefore whether
it had ever been used as a tomb or not. It is to be noted,
moreover, that in Genesis x, 11, 12, Resen, between Nineveh
and Calah, is described as being ‘“ the great city.’ As it seems
never to be spoken of in the inscriptions (the only Resen
mentioned having lain seemingly on the north of Nineveh
proper), it could not have been a city of any dimensions, and
this parenthetical description may therefore refer to all the
sites mentioned. As Jonah’s missionary visit to Nineveh took
place during the reign of Jeroboam II., 783-743 B.c., Khorsabad
must be excluded; but perhaps the extent of the united cities,
“Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah” (with Resen), was
sufficiently great for a three days’ preaching journey without
taking the northern foundation of Sargon in.

COMMUNICATION FROM THE Rev. Dr. IRVING.

As one who joined heartily in the unanimous vote of thanks to
Dr. Pinches for his paper, every paragraph of which bristles with
interest, I venture to touch upon a few points by way of eliciting
fuller information, as I should have done had there been time for
discussion when the paper was read.

(1) One would be glad to know to what extent animal or vege-
table remains have been found in those buried cities. Such remains
(like those found by Dr. Macalister in the ruins of Gezer and in all the
three successive cities of that site) are of great interest for students
of Anthropology. Professor Ridgeway of Cambridge, for example,
has lately shown me hoof-bones (“ coflin-bones”) of Hquus or Asinus
completely calcified by a well-known natural process for which the
soil, the building material, and the climate of Palestine furnish all
the necessary conditions.

ASSUR AND NINEVEH. 17D

(2) On p. 161 Dr. Pinches speaks of the flat timbered roofs of the
buildings ascribed to Shalmaneser II. It would seem that so
late as the eighth century B.C. (and perhaps later) gabled roofs
were unknown among those oriental nations of the Euphrates-
Tigris region. This point is interesting as tending to confirm the
surmise of Professor Ridgeway that the Celtic nations have to be
accredited with the invention of the latter structure, through
utilising horizontal branches of trees to support their tent-coverings
in the primeval forests.

(3) It is very instructive to learn that the haughty Sennacherib,
the mighty conqueror and destroyer of cities and small states, hada
better side to his nature as a ruler and as a benefactor of his own
people, though the hard and stern side of his character, in his
attempt to crush Hezekiah, appears only in Holy Writ. We too
often perhaps overlook the more humane side of the later Nebuchad-
nezzar shown in what he did for the later Babylon by way of founding
a royal college and a system of competitive examinations for the
more efficient training of higher civil servants, as recorded in
Daniel i; a system which Cyrus (“ God’s Shepherd”) seems to have
continued and improved upon under the régime of the Medes and
Persians. All this goes to show progress in the humanisation of
those heathen peoples, and that the great monarchies of antiquity
were really far from being mere phases of tyranny and bloodshed, as
the evidence of the monuments and the unsupplemented records of
the Old Testament may lead us to suppose.

(4) Intensely interesting to anthropologists is the information
which is now given to us of the advanced working in bronze in the
days of Sennacherib, and Dr. Pinches informs me that artefacts in
copper and bronze (if not iron) can be traced back in those ancient
Babylonian lands, to at least 3000 B.c.* Have we not here a clue to
the mixed race that is incidentally mentioned (Tubal Cain in
particular) in Gen. iv, 16-23, as having sprung from Cain and a
pre-Adamic woman ?

The later Hallstadt and La Tene ages (Harly and Late Celtic)
in Europe seem to have been anticipated in Sumerian lands by at

* This is a greater antiquity moreover than is assigned to the Minoan
Period (“ Bronze Age”) of Crete. See Howes, Crete the Forerunner of
Greece (1909).

176 '’. G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R,A.S., ON ASSUR AND NINEVEH.

least 2000 years. What the skill of the later Celtic artificers in
bronze and iron (and gold) was, is well known. No fools (as many
moderns airily suppose) were those ancients, who could apply the
malleability of native copper (as in the copper-plated chariot of
Sennacherib) or the alloying of tin with copper for casting purposes ;
nor were those, who, as simple observers of nature, could detect the
lasting nature of the slab of diorite, on which Hammurabi’s portrait
and laws were incised, more than a millennium earlier.

(5) Then again the artistic power of the men, who drew and
cast those figures on the bronze tablet of Sennacherib’s time, strikes
one as something surprising ; and the more so when one looks at
them more closely, and perceives the expression of agility, elegance
of figure, nerve, and accuracy of detail in figure after figure of the
horses thereon delineated. They bring out the qualities of the
‘wild horse of the mountains,” to which Professor Maspero refers
in his account of the ‘“frenzies of Ishtar,” and with that vigour of
expression which we are learning to see in the early drawings of
the horse by our palolithic ancestors (see Boyd-Dawkins’ Cave
Hunting ; and the writings of Professor J. Cossar Ewart).

A. Irvine, D.Sc.

NOTE ON THE ABOVE BY Dr. PINCHES.

References to the animal and vegetable remains in Babylonian
and Assyrian ruins are rare, and for this reason any that I may
have come across in the descriptions I used escaped my notice.
Gabled roofs seem to have occurred in Armenia (Botta, Pl. 141;
Bonomi, Nineveh and its Palaces, 1878, p. 186).

There is no doubt that both the Babylonians and the Assyrians
were most intelligent and energetic sections of the human race, and
had made really good progress in arts and crafts at an exceedingly
early date. Babylonian sculpture was probably hampered by
dearth of stone, but the fragments which did fall into their hands
were used with excellent effect and considerable success. The
Assyrians were originally less advanced than the Babylonians, but the
sculptures which have come down to us show that they speedily made
up for lost time. About 640 B.C. marks the zenith of Assyrian art.

I am exceedingly obliged to the Rev. A. Irving for his most
interesting and appreciative notes upon my paper.—T. G, P.

505TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.
MONDAY, MARCH 2ist, 1910, 4.30 P.M.

Heywoop Smitu, Ese., M.A., M.D., IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed.

The following elections were announced :—
As Member, T. B. Bishop, Esq.,
As Associate, The Rev. S. H. Wilkinson, F.R.G.S.,
As Missionary Associate, The Rev. E. A. L. Moore.

In the regrettable absence of the author the following paper was then
read by his son, P. A. Irving, Esq., B.A. :—

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE; IN CONNECTION
WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION,
By Rev. A. Irvine, D.Sc., B.A.

(Illustrated by lantern slices.)

CONTENTS.
§ L. Introduction.
§ II. Some general points further considered :—
(A) The Geocentric Conception of the Universe.
(B) The “ Firmament.”
S$ ILI. The Solar Earth.
Note on “The Nucleate Origin of the Planets.”
$ IV. Early Life on this Planet.
§ V. The Birth of the Moon.
[Vote on “ The Action of the Early Tides.”]
§$ VI. Life in General.
§ VII. Human Life and its ‘“time-age” on this Planet.

I. INTRODUCTION.

HIS paper being intended to be supplementary to my
former paper,* on “Evolutionary Law in the Creation
Story of Genesis,” a few references to that paper are called for
by what has passed since in public controversy, more especially
that which appeared in the Guardian newspaper in the autumn
of 1907. Professor E. Hull was also good enough to bring
that paper into prominence in the columns of the Church Family

* See Trans. Vict. Inst., vol. xxxviii (1906).
+ See the Guardian, Oct., Nov., Dec., 1907.

178 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

Newspaper in an article in defence of the thesis—* The Genesis
Account of the Creation not inconsistent with the Geological
tecord.”*

I am glad to know that my previous paper has been found
both interesting and useful to many students (pace Professor
Driver, of Oxford, and the feeble “ Vaticanism ” of Professor
Sollas in the Guardian). In addition to what has appeared in
print, I have a collection of private letters, some from entire
strangers, expressing their appreciation of the line which I had
taken and of the arguments of my paper,t which were partly
repeated in controversy.

Among matters which, since my paper was read, have come
under my notice, I feel bound to express my warmest appreci-
ation of the paper read before the Church Congress by the
Rev. G. T. Manley.f It was what might be expected from a
man of Mr. Manley’s academical and intellectual antecedents,
who had so completely riddled the so-called philosophy of
Huxley and Spencer several years before.§ Especially valuable
are the remarks in his paper on the value and importance of
giving closer attention to “apparent discrepancies.” As he truly
remarks,—“ An attitude of inquiry is far different from the
undesirable frame of mind, which looks upon the reconciliation
of science with the Bible as a Chinese puzzle, and twists and
forces them into agreement by some Ingenious process :
Current Science is only the teacher of its own generation, the
Bible is the teacher of all the ages.”|| <A fitting rebuke that to
the rather flippant sneers of the Oxford Professor of Geology
about “reconcilers.”| Professor Sollas (the recent President of
the Geological Society) should know that quwubbling does not

* See C.F. Newspaper, Oct. 2nd, 1908.

+ These include such men as the Dean of Lincoln, the Headmaster of
Eton, F. Hugh Capron (author of The Conflict of Truth), Rev. Arthur
Carr, the Headmaster of Wellington, along with others, entire strangers
to me ; one long letter to that effect reaching me from a missionary in
far distant Matabeleland, whose mind seemed relieved on finding the
strong negations of the late Bishop Hicks (scientist as he was) combated
in the pages of the Guardian. To one writer, Rev. A. J. 5. Downer,
T am much indebted.

{ Guardian, Oct. 9th, 1907. Mr. Manley, as a Senior Wrangler and
Fellow of his College, shows a more capable grasp of the scientific
aspect of the “Genesis” question than does the learned and distinguished
Hebraist of Oxford, to whom I shall have to refer in the sequel.

§ See Christian Apologetics, London (John Murray), 1903.

|| Guardian, loe. cit.

| Guardian, Nov. 6th, 1907.

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 179

advance the cause of ¢ruth; and he ought to recollect, that each
new attempt in that direction should be judged on its own
merits, and not looked at through the haze which may have
been created by earlier attempts ‘made in a less advanced state
of our knowledge. On several occasions I have felt it necessary,
before this Institute and in the columns of the Guardian, to
point out the fallacy of assigning to the utterances of even the
highest authorities in science a finality, which they would be
the last to claim for what seems to them the resultant outcome
of the latest scientific advance. It was therefore satisfactory to
find this contention of mine strongly supported two years ago
by a member of the staff of Greenwich Observatory, who writes
EO Me --—

“T was very glad that you laid emphasis at the Meeting on
Wednesday* on the fact that there is no Jinality in Science. I fens
that that fact must always be kept in view as of first importance,
when we are discussing the relation between Revelation and
Science.” T

IT have been taken to task in several quarters for suggesting
that the ancients, and in particular the writer of the Genesis
Narrative, may have been possessed of more knowledge of
nature by direct observation than we generally accredit them
with. I dealt with that point as it turned up in controversy ;}
and it may suffice to remark here that the more one learns of
the indications of such knowledge as possessed by prehistoric
men, and of the ancient science of the Chinese .§ the more value
one is compelled to attach to such references as are made in the
prehistoric chapters (i to xi) of the Book of Genesis,|| to such
knowledge of practical application of nature to the wants of
man, as was possessed by the men of at leas tthe Bronze and
the Iron Ages, if not even by the Neolithic men. It is from
people who touch science from the outside that such criticisms

* The Annual Meeting of the Victoria Institute.

+t Letter to the present writer, dated Aug. 21st, 1908, by Mr. E. W.
Maunder.

t Guardian, Nov. 20th, 1907.

§ See Yu Tung Kwai, on the “ Ancient Knowledge of Chemistry,”
in the Times, June 3rd, 1909, and the Standard of June 2nd.

|| £.9., the building of cities and the use of bronze (? copper) and
iron by the impure race of Cain’s descendants.

Sir Robert S. Ball, F.R.S., the Cambridge astronomer, remarks ; “The
discovery of Mercury w was a brilliant achievement of prehistoric times.
The early astronomer who accomplished that feat . . . merits our
hearty admiration for his untutored acuteness and penetration” (Story of
the Heavens, p. 290).

180 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

come, and it seems to have taken away the breath of a Cam-
bridge Professor of Divinity, who writes to me:—“I am
confident that the doctrine of a ‘pre-Adamite man’ is not the
doctrine of the Bible.” If by that is meant that the early
chapters of the Bible are primarily concerned with the develop-
ment of the race of Adam, centering itself at the Call of Abraham
upon the chosen people and its history, to whom the special
revelation was given, we may I think agree. But while we
recognise that as “the doctrine” of the Bible, we may surely at
the same time look for agreement between the glimpses given to
us of earlier races, in those parenthetical verses (iv, 16-24) and
what anthropological science has revealed to us of prehistoric
man. It is therefore somewhat startling to find Professor
Driver* writing, “ Who could there have been to slay Cain ?
According to the existing Book of Genesis there could have
been no one”! Yet the Book tells us that he found a people,
among whom he took a wife, at a distance from his paternal
home, in the land of the Nadu, “the wanderers,” the nomads,
as the Stone Men undoubtedly were. This fact is blinked, and
then the inferencef is suggested that “ Cain ” is “a figure which
belonged to a much later stage in the history of mankind.”
The speculations on this subject given in Dr, Driver’s learned
work are not very conclusive. He points to an “ inconsistency,
of which the narrator is evidently unconscious” ; on which it is
fair to ask why he should have been conscious of the “ incon-
sistency,” which is read into his narrative by the critics, who
refuse to recognise (as he does) the existence of a pre-Adamic
race? With this may be compared the preface to the story of
Noah and the Flood contained in Genesis vi, 1-8, on which
some interesting remarks by Mr. Henry Proctorf are very sug-
gestive, although some adverse criticisms of Mr. Proctor’s
“ Hebrew ” have reached me from Cambridge.

At the time when my previous paper was read I was further
taken to task by two ot my critics, neither of whom is very
prominent in the world of letters, for speaking of the Genesis
account as a “poem,”§ as if they had never heard of “ poems
in prose.” Yet so distinguished a scholar as the Dean of
Lincoln did not hesitate to write to me at the time: “The

* The Book of Genesis (5th ed., 1906), p. 67.

t+ Op. cit., p. 72.

f See Trans. of Vict. Inst., vol. xl, pp. 74, 75. Discussion of
Professor G. F. Wright’s paper on “The Influence of the Glacial Epoch
upon the Early History of Mankind.”

§ See 7rans. Vict. Inst., vol. xxxviti.

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 181

criticism of your use of the term ‘poem’ is absurd. Longi-
nus puts the ‘Let there be light, etc.’ by the side of the first
passage of Homer, as types of ‘the sublime’ in style. You
can have prose poems.” Again, a very able contributor to the
subsequent correspondence in the Guardian* writes to me—
“The objection that it has not poetical form seems to me a
quibble, and a rather poor one. Some of the fienst poems in
existence are in prose ; ¢.g., De Quincey’s ‘ Levana, or our Lady
of Sorrows.” I was impelled to speak of it as a poem from
the balanced proportion and the rhythmic swing of its thoughts,
which seem to me to give it the stamp of poetic genius. Per-
haps we all need to “think orientally ” a little more than we are
accustomed to do, in order rightly to appreciate it, or the Bible
generally.

What I find in briefest outline in the poem may perhaps be
put thus :—

From the first it was God (Zlohim, a word of obscure deri-
vation according to Dr. Driver)? who was creating the heaven
and the earth ; bringing into being the “ waste and void ” matter
of the universe, with its marvellous properties imparted to it by
the Creative Spirit, the primary result being luminosity (v. 3), as
this “ waste and void” matter (this matter in an ultra-gaseous
state) became integrated by the energy of chemical affinity ;
directing the powers of inorganic nature (supplemented later on
by the introduction of life); so that the inspired writer was
able to reach the climax in ii, 3, summing it all up in the double
category of the work “which God had created and made,” all
culminating in man,a being endowed with spiritual faculties and
powers.

This will be found to agree with the last paragraph of my
previous paper, which does not clash very much with the credo,
to which Dr. Drivert confessed in the last stage of the contro-
versy, except on the question of the sequence of the phenomena,
which are associated with the third and fourth “days.” That
question is dealt with at length in the present paper. It has long
been a puzzle to me,as to why the writer, if he meant a literal
“ day,” should have gone out of his way in each case to define it by
“an evening and a morning,” instead of phrasing it in accordance
with the natural sequence of things.

* Rev. A. J. 8S. Downer (tbid., Dec. 18th, 1907).

+ Genesis, 6th ed., p. 402.

{ Guardian, Dec. 11th, 1907. See also my reply to that (hid.,
Dec. 18th, 1907).

182 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A. ON

One more point may, I hope, be permitted here. The more
one compares the Genesis poem with the 90th Psalm, the
more one finds of community of thought in the two. The latter
has been described as “perhaps the most sublime of human
compositions.”*

If we want to get behind the narrative of Genesis at the
thoughts of God floating in the mind of the author of it, it is
to this 90th Psalm that we may, I think, fairly look. An
impartial perusal of Bishop Perowne’s introduction to this
psalm will enable anyone to see how feeble is the case that has
been made out by the critics against the traditional heading, “ A
Prayer of Moses, the man of God”; and we may fairly claim
that the same lofty conception of tlhe Divine Immanence with
the Divine Transcendence behind it all, which characterises the
psalm, may be found in the Genesis poem.

The case against the Mosaic authorship of the psalm may be
said to be “ not proven”; and a close comparison of the internal
evidence found in the community of the ideas, which run
through the two documents, ought in common fairness to be
taken into account by those who would assign a later—even an
Exilic date—to the Genesis document.

The dogmatic style which characterises the assertion of the
“higher critics,” must be taken for what it is worth; more
especially after the collapse of the contentions of that school in
the matter of the historicity of the Acts of the Apostles.’t

II. SomME GENERAL POINTS FURTHER CONSIDERED.
(A) The Geocentric Conception of the Universe.

In the controversy, to which reference has been made
Professor Driver§ had the hardihood to say that the Genesis
account of creation is geocentric, and therefore “ false.” How on
earth could it be otherwise than geocentric ? That however does
not make it false, unless it can be shown that those observations
of the heavenly bodies which were fitted into that conception
were false. Hmpirical it certainly is; but empiricism is a
matter of degree; and we might equally say of such a dogma
as the Lyellian uniformitarian doctrine, which long dominated

* See Perowne, Zhe Psalms, vol. ii, p. 157.

+ See letter from Dr. Dukinfield Astley, Guardian, Nov. 6th, 1907.

+ See Sir Wm. Ramsay’s Paper, “ Exploration of Asia Minor,” etc.,
Trans. Vict. Inst., vol. xxxix.

§ Guardian, Nov. 20th, 1907.

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 183

geological thought in this country, that it was empirical. The
astronomers of the earliest civilizations known to us, and pro-
bably even Neolithic men,* had very ingenious ways of recording
and classifying their observations of the apparent movements of
the celestial bodies ; and, so far from being “ false ” were these,
that they went a good way towards laying the basis of the
Kalendar, by using the geocentric conception, upon which the
Nautical Almanack in use to-day is constructed.f

Professor Masperof tells us that “the Chaldeans had con-
ducted astronomical observations from remote antiquity,”
centuries anterior to the earliest date ever assigned to the Book
of Genesis, and with such a degree of accuracy as to be able to
foretell eclipses; and though their notions of the causes were
affected by their “vain imaginations,” the observations were not
falsified by that. One can follow Mr. E. Walter Maunder,
F.R.A.S., of the Greenwich Observatory, much more readily than
Professor Driver (even with Professor Bonney’s endorsement,)§
when, in his Address to the Victoria Institute,|| on “The Bible
and Astronomy,” he tells us that “The Astronomy of [Genesis i]
is indeed primitive and simple in character, but it is the
astronomy of observation. It concerns the observed brightness
of the sun, moon, and stars. But it is not myth; there is not
the faintest deification of sun, or moon, or stars, or of spiritism.
There is no confusion of ideas ; no anthropomorphic treatment
of sun or moon. The astronomy of the chapter is sane and
simple, and (we may truly say, to the very small extent to which
it goes) scientific.” So the astronomer. Is it not possible for
the mind of the geologist to be too geoconcentrated? It
certainly seems that it was, for the quarter of a century or so
which held the geological mind in the swaddling bands of
uniformitarian empiricism, before it was forced to open its
windows to the side-lights of astronomy, chemistry and
physies.4

One thing that impressed itself upon my mind in the

* Hg., at Avebury and Stonehenge.

t See letter by Mr. H. W. Morley in the Guardian, Nov. 27th, 1907.

{ Dawn of Cwilization (trans. Maclure). 8.P.C.K., p. 775.

§ C.F. Newspaper, Oct. 9th, 1908.

|| Trans, vol. xl.

“I Cf. Friday Lecture at the British Association, Bath Meeting (1888)
by T. G. Bonney, F.R.S., on “the Foundation Stones of the Earth’s
Crust,” and the Address to Section C on “ Evolutionary Geology,” by
J. W. Sollas, F.R.S., in 1900; also Chemical and Physical Studies, etc.,
by myself (1889).

184 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

controversy in the Guardian of 1907, to which reference is
made in the present paper, was the apparent incapacity of
Professor Driver to think in terms of scientific thought. That
eminent Hebraist is not serving the cause of truth, by including
in the earlier chapters of his Genesis feeble attempts to give
the results of later investigations of great scientific questions
cast in the mould of his own mind, and then resorting to the
art of dialectic “fence” to maintain them for consumption by
his pupils in the Oxford lecture-room. Such a process amounts
to dogmatism on matters on which he has no claim whatever
(so far as I know) to speak as an expert; and involves the
fallacy of assuming finality for the conclusions of scientists
themselves. It would be better, I think, if Dr. Driver would
substitute for his little homceopathic doses of “science ” a good
“bibliography ” of the subject, which could be simply added to
from time to time, and would do far more to open the minds of
theological students to the meaning and nature of science.

It is only fair to recollect that in his last letter dealing with
this subject,* Dr. Driver corrects himself to some extent, when
he speaks of “the imperfect science of antiquity.” I think,
however, that he would find very few Fellows of the Royal
Society who would not be prepared to tell him that the science
even of the twentieth century is “imperfect.” Every Presi-
dential Address to the British Association emphasises the fact.

(B) The “ Firmament” (Hebrew Lxpanse).

Dr. Christopher Wordsworth (no mean Hebrew scholar) tells
us in his Commentary that the Hebrew word sakia means
“literally an expanse, not necessarily solid, but simply extended.”
The ZXX render it by the Greek word crepéwpa, in which we
may perhaps trace the influence of Egyptian mythology. Then
the Vulgate translated that by firmamentwm, which carries
more the idea of something rigid, as a prop or support. But
I would suggest that we are under no logical necessity of
forcing into the Hebrew word rakia the conceptions of later
ages and cultures involved in the words orepéwpa and
firmamentum. It was therefore with no little surprise that
I found a professor of theology, who is moreover a fair Hebrew
scholar, saying in a letter to me a short time ago,t “ Why the
very idea of a‘ firmament,’ the inverted bowl of the sky, belongs

* Guardian, Dec. 11th, 1907.

+ Following apparently the writer of the article “Creation,” in
Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible.

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 185

to a geocentric conception of the universe, doesn’t it?” My
reply was that we are not bound to the word “ firmament ” in
its secondary (and poetic) meaning; and that, if you substitute
the true word expanse the difficulty vanishes, and we get a
scientific fact stated, the geocentric conception notwithstanding.
It would seem almost that the poetic idea, as expressed (¢.g.) in
Addison’s well-known couplet-—

“The spacious firmament on high,
And all the blue ethereal sky,”

had so interwoven itself with modern literature that it
required more moral courage than the Revisers of 1884
possessed, for them to boldly translate rakia by expanse in the
text.

Let us consider the three definite statements :—

v. 14.—‘“ Let there be lights an the firmament of heaven ” ;
v. 15.—‘“ Let them be for lights zn the firmament of the heaven” ;
v. 17.—“God set them in the firmament of the heaven.”

We shall have to deal with these more at length later on.
For the present we do well to see what lead they give us as to
the idea present in the mind of the writer of this chapter,
when he used the word rakia in these places, and at an earlier
stage of the narrative (v. 6, 7, 8). The most hostile critic
wiil surely refrain from imputing to him such puzzle-headedness
as to make him mean one thing by the word in the earlier
passage and a totally different thing in the later. He identifies
the expanse with “heaven,” to which he does not even hint at
assigning a limit. And if, by all canons of criticism, we have
the common fairness to allow him to use the word in the two
passages consistently, we are driven to the conclusion that when
he spoke. of “the waters above the firmament” in the earlier
passage, as divided by it from the waters under the firmament
(terrestrial waters) he placed the waters above the firmament
beyond the region of space in which the great luminaries
appeared to move. If this be admitted, then we may further
assert that to him “the waters above the firmament” meant
simply the nebulous and slightly luminous (or illuminated ?)
masses of the “ Milky Way,” which in those oriental skies, and
to the keen sight of people living so much in the open air,
could hardly fail to suggest the idea of fluidity. It is surprising
to find this rather knotty point (where “science” must have
something to say) evaded by Professor Driver in his Genesis
(5th ed.). At any rate, I have failed to find it squarely dealt
with in that most valuable and learned work.

N 2

186 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

III. Toe Souar EArtu.

For a long time (see my previous paper to this Society) it
was easy to point to a “manifest absurdity” in the Mosaic
Cosmogony, since that represents the appearance of light at the
first stage, while the celestial luminaries are represented as not
appearing before the fourth. Such shallow criticism is now
seen to be based, not on knowledge but on ignorance, since the
fuller comparative study of the Solar System in recent years,
and the extension backwards in time of the physical history of
this globe,in the light of the great law of Dissipation of Energy
and all that it involves, has given us a new mental perspective.
The results of investigation on such lines have made it
practically certain that our planet, in common with other
members of the system, has passed through what Zollner years
ago called the “solar phase” of its history; and the results of
the application of telescopic photography to astronomy have
revealed things to us in the “ spiral nebulz,” which confirm my
suggestion of more than twenty years ago as to the nucleate
oryin of the planets.* This hypothesis in a somewhat modified
form has been more recently adopted by Messrs. Chamberlin
and Salisbury in their great text book of Geology. In other
words this dark ball, which now revolves round the sun, was in
the remote past self-luminous, as the central orb of the system
is to-day. Assuming that the elements appeared in the nebula
in a state of elemental dissociation, as they appear to exist in
the tails of the comets,+ then combustion on an inconceivably
enormous scale would go on during that solar stage to produce
not only steam (H,O), but also the oxides of the metals, of
silicon and of carbon, which together form well over 90 per
cent. of the constituent materials of the rocks, which make up
the present lithosphere of the planet. If it did not involve the
use of language too technical for the present occasion it would
not be difficult to indicate roughly from the teaching of the
higher chemistry the order in which such oxidation probably
proceeded; and I go so far as to assert that we should arrive:
at results which would render the assumptions which underlie
the theory as to the salinity of the hydrosphere propounded

* See my Chemical and Physical Studies, ete. (Longmans, 1899),.
pp. 22-24, also my previous paper, “ Evolutiovary Law, etc.,” § IV, and
Trans. Vict. /nst., vol. xxxvii, pp. 210 ff.; also the “Note” at the end
of this section.

t Cf. letter to the Zimes by Sir Robert 8. Ball, F.R.S. (Feb. 10th, 1910).

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 187

in recent years by Professor Joly, altogether untenable. I had
that in my mind when, in my previous paper, I spoke of the
“diminution of the salinity of ocean waters” during the
geological ages, as one of the conditions making for advance in
the evolution of organic life.

Let us go a step further in the evolution of this planet.
Owing to its comparative smallness the earth has long since
passed its solar phase, though it has not yet reached the senile
condition of the smaller planet Mars. By loss of heat through
radiation into space, and by concentration uuder the influence
of gravitation a stage was reached at which this globe consisted
of a molten ball rotating in space, but for a long period of time
enveloped in such a dense mantle of vaporous and gaseous matter
(not water-vapour only), that the radiation of heat from the
incandescent globe must have been ettectually retarded, owing
to the low conductivity of the vaporous envelope. Very great
changes must have occurred during this long-continued “ pre-
oceanic stage,” as I have called it,* of our planet’s history,
before the first portions of steam condensed into water upon
its surface at a temperature much higher than that at which
water boils under the pressure of our present atmosphere,
which we measure daily by means of the barometer.t It has yet
to be shown, [ think, that the “ Crystalline Schists” may not
have their special characters accounted for by their production
then through mineral changes in the presence of highly-
superheated steam ; conditions which would admit of such a
kind of “sedimentation ” as some petrologists perceive in them.
The contention of mine more than twenty years ago that they
represent the first-formed “crust” has since been endorsed by
such an eminent geolouvist as Dr. Andrew C. Lawson,f the
Professor of Geology in the University of California.

Note to [II[.—The paragraph in which I definitely put forward
the idea of the nucleate origin of the planets runs as follows :—

“Given a nebulous mass of matter in a state of elemental dis-
sociation and losing heat by radiation into space, a point must be
reached, at which condensation of certain elements (those possessed
of the highest condensation-temperatures and the least potential

* See Chemical and Physical Studies on the Metamorphism of Rocks.
The mathematicians like Kelvin and G. Darwin seem to persistently
overlook this, and the geologists seem to fail to understand it, which is
not perhaps to be wondered at.

t See A. Irving (op. cit.) ; also letters to Vature, vol. lxxii, pp. 8 and 79.

t See Bull. Geol. Soc. of america, March, 1890.

188 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

energy of chemical affinity) must set in. As a direct result of this,
concentration into a nucleus must follow from the law of universal
attraction. As the nucleus (the embryo-sphere) is thus formed,
latent heat is set free, and the temperature of the nucleus is raised,
giving off its heat by radiation, to be absorbed for the most part by
the surrounding nebulous matter, and ultimately lost by radiation
into space. As dissipation of energy progresses, further conden-
sation must follow, the newly-condensed matter gravitating towards
the nucleus, every increase of mass in this increasing the force of
gravitation.”

In the light of this, which was published in 1889, but is now out of
print, I think my remarks upon Dr. Warren Upham’s paper (7’rans.
Vict. Inst., xxxvii) were fully justified. (Through the great kind-
ness of Mr. E. W. Maunder, I am able to illustrate this by a few
lantern slides from the Greenwich Observatory.)

ITV. Earty LIFE ON THIS PLANET.

We may proceed next to trace in the hght of science, the
sequence of development of this planet as a member of the
solar system, when the early oceanic waters condensed upon
the surface. As steam was more and more condensed, with the
gradual lowering of temperature, there must have been gradual
dilution of the saturated brine, in which were dissolved the
salts (chiefly sodium chloride) previously formed syuthetically
in “the dry way” during the “ pre-oceanic stage,” as the teach-
ing of the higher chemistry (“ physical chemistry”) compels us
to believe; and we brush aside the fundamental conception of
Joly’s theory, upon which he has attempted to calculate the age
of the ocean.* Oxyven, nitrogen, and carbon were present
(the last-named as carbon-dioxide, CO,, the result of the
combustion of carbon during the solar phase) in the atmo-
sphere and in the waters under the partial pressures of the
respective gases; and these constitute along with the hydrogen
of the water (H,O) the most important elements of all those
forms of matter with which /ife is known to be associated on
this globe. It is the essential function of vegetable life to take
up crude mineral matter to build up the protoplasm, which
forms the “physical basis of life,” as this comes under human
observation ; although it may be equally true, as the late
Dr. Burden Sandersont pointed out, to say that “life Gn

* See The Age of the Earth, by Professor J. W. Sollas, F.R.S.
t+ See his Presidential Address, British Association, Nottingham,
1893.

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 189

another sense) is the basis of protoplasm.” That power of
building up the mineral constituents of our planet into living
material,* is a function which animals in general do not
possess. There seems to be little room therefore for doubt
that the earliest living cells belonged to the vegetable kingdom.
In the early Cambrian rocks, there is evidence of a practical
differentiation of the animal from the vegetable ; and we must
suppose that the lowest forms of animal life began to feed upon
vegetable matter, only as yet elaborated into very simple forms,
and for a length of time attaining to no higher development
than that of cellular cryptogams (alge, lichens, etc.). Some
light was needed for this, but not very strong light, such as
we receive from the direct rays of the sun. In fact, reasoning
from what we can actually observe of the conditions most
favourable to the reproduction and development of such low
living forms, we may safely infer that a permanent diffused
light, accompanied by warmth and moisture, such as prevailed
upon the earth universally in very early times, would be most
favourable to the organic advance at that stage. And there is
plenty of evidence to show that such conditions prevailed on
this globe through the Cambrian and Silurian periods of its
history ; and toa less degree during the Devonian and Carboni-
ferous periods, when the great developments of continental
regions were outlined along with the permanent ocean basins,
after our planet had passed through that stage of planetary
development, during which there was practically a universal
ocean,t retarding the cooling of the lithosphere, owing to the
non-conductivity of water for heat. though allowing of trans-
mission of heat upwards by convection currents. The physical
conditions under which the enormous development of vascular
cryptogams characteristic of later Paleozoic time took place,
were—we may fairly believe—those of warmth and a moist
atmosphere surcharged with CO, with the further alteration

* But everywhere in the presence of the elements of water. Lionel
Beale, Trans. Vict. /nst., vol. xxxiv.

+ In the Guardian (Nov. 6th, 1907) Professor Driver made his
professorial confrére Professor Sollas to say, in his characteristic manner,
“Geologists know nothing of an universal ocean.” It was easy to
answer him, as I did; but he was made to contradict himself, when he
endorsed, as ‘accepted universally by all geologists” (cbid., Nov. 27th,
1907), the “table of succession of life on this globe” (oc. cit.), from
which no other inference than the “ universal ocean” view is deducible
as I pointed out then (cbid., Dec. 4th, 1907).

t “Surcharged,” as compared with the present atmosphere.

190 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

of that atmosphere (as the result of further cooling), and the
increasing intensity of the light-giving power of the central orb
of our system. I have discussed all this elsewhere.* Here it
may suffice to quote the co.clusion at which Lord Kelvin (the
“Prince” of Scientists) arrived after many years spent in
investigating this profound problem. Towards the end of his
address to the Victoria Institute on “The Age of the Earth” in
1897t Kelvin remarked :—

““Whatever may have been the true history of our atmosphere,
it seems certain that, if sunlight was ready, the earth was also ready,
within a few hundreds of centuries after the rocky consolidation of
the earth’s surfare. But was the sun ready? ‘The well-founded
dynamical theory of the sun’s heat, worked out and discussed by
Helmholtz, Newcomb, and myself says No, if the consolidation of
the earth took place so long ago as fifty million years; the solid
earth must in that case have waited another twenty or thirty
million years for the sun to be anything like as warm as at present.
If the consolidation of the earth was finished twenty or twenty-five
million years ago, the sun was probably ready though not nearly so
warm as at present; yet warm enough to support some kind of
vegetable and animal life upon the earth.”

Not apparently so familiar with these speculations as he
mivht have been, the satire of Professor Sollast was rather
cheap. He does me too much honour to suggest that all this is
merely “ Mr. Irving’s Science,” for it is simply a deduction from
the science of Lord Kelvin, Helmholtz and Newcomb, three intel-
lectual giants in the world of physical science (strictu sensw)
representative of the science of Britain, Germany, and America
respectively. It raises a suspicion that geological science in
this country is tainted in some quarters with the pseudoscientitic
spirit and methods of the “ higher criticism.”

The teaching of Lord Kelvin has not been, I think,
materially affected by what we have learned since of the
recently discovered body radium, which has however revealed
a mode of storage and transmission of heat energy previously

* Trans. Vict. Inst. (vol. xxxvii) and Guardian, Oct., Nov., Dec., 1907.
By the courtesy of Dr. Horace Brown, F.R.S., I have also had an
opportunity of perusing the MS. of the paper he read before the joint
sections C and K of the British Association, He agreed with me that
the effects upon Angiosperms (as in the Kew experiments), are not
conclusive as to the ettect upon Cryptogams.

+ Trans. Vict. Inst., vol. xxix (1897).

t Guardian, Nov. 6th, 1907.

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. LOM:

unsuspected by most scientists. A little careful thought enables
the scientific imagination to see vast possibilities of intimate
relationship between various elements, under such conditions of
high temperature and planetary pressure, continued through
immense periods of time, as are altovether beyond the reach of
the most powerful laboratory appliances.*

_For reasons indicated above, and from other considerations,
we may extend the interval beyond what Lord Kelvin suggests,
for the early stages of the evolution of life, as it was manifested
in those early forms, which represent the flora and the fauna of
our globe down to the Carboniferous Period, when the atmo-
sphere was by no means so clear as we know it in our experience,t
and vast forests of vascular cryptoyams (ferns, mosses, lycopods,
etc.) grew and flourished in the feebly illuminated warm
atmosphere with such luxuriance as they have never attained
to since. There would seem to be no valid reason for denying
that our earth passed through the condition in which the giant
planet Jupiter appears to exist at present, and gradually
advanced to those terrestrial conditions, which we know to be
most favourable to the growth of the higher Cryptogams, so
luxuriant and abundant in later Paleozoic time; and we may
fairly contend that the period of time roughly estimated by
Kelvin since that stage of the earth’s history as 25 millions of
years, would amply suttice for the further evolution of this globe
and of the fossilized forms embedded in the strata during the
Secondary, Tertiary, and Quaternary stages of its history.
Temporarily and locally such conditions may have partially
recurred, here and theie, as evidenced by the coal-seams (marked
however by a different cryptogamous flora) of the Lower
Keuper of Germany and the Alps, the Lias of Europe and Asia,
the Dogger, the Wealden, the Cretaceous, and in the Tertiary
formations, allowance being made for drift-wood as the leading
material of the Brown Coal. Even at the present time it is
possible to meet with those dusky and moist conditions favour-
able to the undergrowth of a sort of “carboniferous” flora, as
we know from the observations of Hochstetter (quoted by
Zittelf) in the North Island of New Zealand, and from personal
observations of my friend Dr. Gybbon Spilsbury in the forest-
region of the Amazon.

* Compare Supplementary Note A, to my previous paper to this
Institute.

t Except under occasional local conditions, as in a London fog.

{ Aus der Urzeit, p. 256.

192 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

I have omitted the consideration of Fungi here, with their
anomalous physiological function in the absence of chlorophyll.
It has long seemed to me conceivable that enormous and rapid
fungus growths in the dusky dank atmosphere of later Paleeozoic
times, may account for much of the spore-containing material of
the coal-seams, possibly washed down from the early continental
regions by water.

V. THE Brrtu or THE Moon.

We begin now to see the possibility of both marine and
terrestrial vegetation appearing on this planet and reaching a
fairly high stage of development before the sun appeared as a
definite luminary orb to the earth itself. But what of the moon ?
It is necessary to remind ourselves that the inspired writer does
not pretend to tell us anything as to the modus operandi of their
origin ; and he tells us nothing as to the time when they were
made. He only recognizes them here as set for lights in the
heaven to give light wpon the earth, and to be for signs and for
seasons, for days and for years; and this fits in with our
conception of the sequence of things from the inferences which
science justifies, as indicated in brief outline only in this paper.
Well, the moon at its birth was probably thrown off the earth
in a way with which Sir Robert Ball, F.R.S., the Cambridge
Astronomer (following up the calculations of Sir George Darwin,
F.R.S.) has made us familiar for some years past.* The writer
of Genesis knew nothing of that portentous event, though it
would be impossible to say what great ideas may not have flitted
through his brain. At all events he deals only with the moon as
a luminary to the earth. To argue therefore, as it was argued by
Professor Driver—that according to the Genesis account the
moon must have been thrown off the earth after vegetation
appeared-upon this globe involves a strange misconception. If
the moon (according to the latest computations) was thrown off
from the molten earth fifty million years ago, and (as we follow
Lord Kelvin) the sun lad not entered by contraction upon the
“solar phase ” before some twenty-five million years ago, ample
time would seem to be allowed in the interval, for that
development, up to a certain stage, of vegetable and animal life
(both marine and terrestrial), of which the geological record

* On the authority of Professor Turner of Oxford, Professor Driver
tells us that this is consid: red by astronomers to have taken place about
50,000,000 years ago. (Guardian, Oct. 23rd, 1907.)

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 193

informs us. During that vast interval the moon (with a mass
about one-eightieth of that of the earth) must have soon lost its
feeble initial luminosity, and revolved as a dark satellite round the
earth, becoming effective as a luminary only later on, when the
solar rays became sufficiently powerful to strongly illuminate «.*
This was pointed out by myself in the Guardian; but the point
was entirely missed by the distinguished Professor of Hebrew at
Oxford, who simply met the argument by a reiteration of his
previous fallacy.

Having answered objections then, and put the matter more
fully in the present paper, I repeat, that, however he may have
got the idea, the inspired writer, in introducing the sun and
moon (qué luminaries) at a stage when vegetable evolution had
made considerable advance, gives expression to an idea, which
does not conflict with the latest conclusions of science. As I
read the passage, the statement—* He made the stars also ”—is
parenthetical, and simply reminds us that they were also
embraced in the same range of the monotheistic idea of creation.
We ought fairly to allow for a certain amount of temporal
overlap, if not even parallelism, when we have dismissed from
our minds the notion of “the days” as indicating periods of
time, and become possessed of the far grander and more
ennobling conception of them, as representing so many definite
“ phases of Creative Will and Thought realised.”

By a closer study in the light of advancing science of such
apparent discrepancies as those dealt with in this paper and
elsewhere, we are brought nearer to the acceptance of the thesis—
“The Genesis account of Creation not inconsistent with the
teaching of Geology ” ;{ and the truth of this is not affected by
the fact that the Holy Scriptures were never intended to teach
men the Sciences of Nature. May we not say with Mr. Manley§
that, so far as the Creation story is concerned, the grand old Book
still stands out surviving the tides of criticism that have rolled
over it, like the primeval rocks of the earth itself ?

Note to V.Those tides, in the early stages (when the moon was
nearer the earth and the attraction of its mass upon terrestrial water

* The time required for the cooling of the Moon compared with the
time required for the cooling of the Earth would be (cet. par) as 1 : 80° or
as L : 512,000.

+ See further my previons paper, “ Evolutionary Law, etc.” : also the
Guardian, Oct. 30th, 1907.

t Professor Edward Hull, F.R.S., in the Church Family Newspaper,
Oct. 2nd, 1908.

§ Guardian, Oct. 9th, 1907.

194 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

greater in the inverse proportion to the squares of the distances)
were much greater and more f:equent than the tides of the present
ocean, as Sir Robert Ball taught us long ago. On this point I
wrote more than twenty years ago (see Chem. and Phys. Studies, etc.,
p. 91):—* On the supposition that the ‘crust’ had sufficiently cooled
to allow of a general condensation of water upon it, the vast
accumulations of the materials of the Cambrian slates, grits, and
conglomerates can be understood as resulting from the destruction,
and deposition of sedimentary detritus from the cooled slaggy
crust and its voleanic ejectamenta by the great tidal waves which
swept over and levelled down the inequalities of that crust, even
though (as some have thought*) there may have been no very
general elevation of dry land above the ocean-waters in the
Cambrian and Silurian periods.” Those conglomerates, etc., have of
course partaken in the great earth-movements since, which have
resulted in the building of the present continents and mountain
systems; and it would be a marvel if the contained blocks did not
here and there simulate such signs of “ glaciation” (smoothing,
polishing, striation and scarring) as have been shown by Professor
Albert Heim of Ziiricht to oceur in slow long-continued earth-
movements. When these things are considered, the value of the
evidence lately produced by Professor P. E. Coleman,{ and the
recorded evidence of a similar nature in the Permian conglomerates
of South Africa, India and Australia, is very largely discounted as
evidence of gluciation. Such a notion is opposed to an over-
whelming mass of cosmic evidence.

VI. Lire IN GENERAL.

In concluding his adress to this Institute$ from which I
have quoted above, Lord Kelvin said: “Mathematics and
dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth fitted for life
but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon
it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry
or electricity, or crystalliue grouping of molecules under the
intluence of force, or by any possible fortuitous concourse of
atoms. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and
miracle of the creation of living creatures.”

This is profoundly true. Later on (in 1903) I heard Kelvin
emphasize this with all tie force of his great personality in his

* See references above to the Guardian correspondence.

+ “ Bergstiirze,” Geol. May. (March, 1883).

{t See Nature (Nov. 17th, 1909).

g Trans. Vict. Inst., vol. xxix ; compare Lionel Beale, F.R.S., bzd., vol.
SEXV.

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 195

remarks on a lecture by Professor George Henslow at University
College.*

He remarked that “in the coming into existence, or the
growth, or the continuance of the combinations presented in
the bodies of living things, scientific thought is compelled to
accept the idea of Creative Power.” Again, “it is not in dead
matter that we live and move and have our being, but in the
creating and directive power, which science compels us to
accept as an article of belief. . . . We have an unknown
object put before us in science. In thinking of that we are all
agnostics. We only know God in His works: but we are
absolutely forced by science to believe with perfect confidence
in a Directive Power—in an influence other than physical, or
dynamical, or electric forces.” He refers to a conversation
many years before with Liebig, when they were walking
together in the country. To the question put to him, whether
he believed that the grass and flowers around grew by mere
chemical force, the illustrious chemist rephed,—* No, no more
than I could believe that a book of botany describing them
erew by mere chemical force”; and (adds Kelvin) “every
action of human free will is a miracle to chemical, physical,
and mathematical science.” So we fall back upon creation as
the process of Divine Will and Thought realising itself in life
aud form; and upon evolution directed to ends, as the Divine
Method, though the Hand which guides it still wears the glove
of mystery.

Attempts are made in one direction and another to pierce the
veil, but without much success. One of the latest of these
speculations has been put before the scientific world by the
accomplished physiologist, Professor Starling, of University
College, London.t It is an extremely interesting—one may
almost say fascinating—address, as we are led on through the
various stages in the evolution of the animal world to see how
functional development goes parz passu with cerebral develop-
ment. But the eruv is—as ever—at the first step. Professor
Starling attempts, with not much more success than Haeckel
before him, to explain this by a bold hypothesis. He attempts
to account for the origin of life, by the accidental building-
up of endothermic compounds, “during those chaotic chemical

* “Present Day Rationalism, with an Examination of Darwinism.”
(Christian Apologetics, London : Johu Murray, 1903.)

+ Presidential Address to Section L of the British Association,
Winnipeg Meeting, 1909, by KE. H. Starling, M.D., F.R.S.

196 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

interchanges which accompanied the cooling-down of the
molten surface of the earth, some compound being probably
formed with absorption of heat, endowed with the property of
polymerisation and of growth at the expense of the surrounding
material.” A rather big assumption, to which the physicist and
the chemist are entitled to cry “ Halt!” and to decline to be
included under the little pronoun “we,” when the learned
physiologist says—“ We can imagine” that to be “the first
step in the evolution of life”; and further suggests that under
such conditions “some complex analogous to the present
chlorophyll corpuscles” could be formed. We have the right
to ask him if he has not overlooked the conditions of exceed-
ingly high pressure and temperature which then existed at and
near the surface of the globe in “the pre-oceanic stage ” of its
history, or forgotten the rather narrow range of temperature
within which life as we know it can manifest itself. The
building-up of highly complex mineral molecules by an endo-
thermic process under great heat and pressure, and their
subsequent resolution exothermally into more stable molecules
of less complexity has been long known to science. I discussed it
myself years ago* ; and it has long seemed to me that here we
get near the true account of the genesis and behaviour of such a
complex as radium; but Professor Starling would hesitate, I
fancy, to sugyest that radium even with all its wonderful proper-
ties, 1s an organic compound, or endowed in any way with life.
Pressure applied hydrostatically makes for crystallisation in
the densest and most stable form which the particular body can
assume, as 1 showed more than twenty years ayo.t But this
implies an internal fixity of atoms, which is opposed to the free
atomic movement, characteristic of the internal economy of the
chlorophyll corpuscle.f

We can follow Professor Starling more easily when he speaks
of “methods adopted by organisms for their self-preservation in
the production of some artificial surroundings, which protect
from the buffeting of environmental changes.” This is however
a way of putting the facts, which gives the “go-by” to the
Darwinian notion of chance adaptation : it recognizes “ direc-
tivity”; it introduces the idea of working for ends; and it
leaves us face to lace with what Asa Gray§ calls “ the ‘mystery

* Geolugical Magazine, July, 1891.

+ Chem. Gig Vhys. Studies, etc., Section “ Metatropy.”

t See my letter in Nature (June, 1905), on “the Romance of the
Nitrogen Atom,” and the correspondence oe, cit.

§ Religion and Science, Scribner, New York.

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 197

of a beginning,” which is involved in every variation favourable
to advance. The early stage of adaptation, to which Starling
refer sin the case of the Calenterata, may well be the bevinning
of an evolutionary process, which attained its minimum in the
Cephalopoda, where we witness an extraordinary blunting-off of
that process at the close of the Mesozoic Age in the extinction
of the Ammonitide and the Lelemnitide, leaving the cuttle-fish
and the nautilus to represent the narrowed-duwn development
of the series in modern seas ; the whole of that evolution lying,
it would appear, quite outside that which is beginning to appear
from the researches of Dr. Gaskell* (to which Dr. Smith
Woodwardt has drawn attention) to have proceeded in quite
another line through the Arthropoda.

On the one line, it seems, that brain is the fundamental basis of
development, on the other stomach, with their respective functions
predominating in the one case or the other. The Darwinian
guess about the Ascidian or the 7’wnicatu seems to fall through.

Dr. Starling’s treatment of the subject seems to clash very
seriously with the scientific romancing of Dr. F, Darwin about
“Memory in Plants,” a year or two before, in his Address to
the Botanical Section. More sane are the remarks of the President
of the Queckett Microscopical Club in May last.t After referring
to Kant’s confession of awe at the contemplation of “the starry
heavens ” without us and the “moral law” within us, Professor
Minchin recognizes a third source of “wonder in the contem-
plation of the simplest living things, as revealed by the
microscope, in the combination of apparent simplicity with
infinitive complexity, and of extreme minuteness with the
most extraordinary powers.” In an ameeba (¢g.) we see “a,
minute creature without definite parts or organs, which never-
theless exercises all the functions of /7e, and exhibits the germ
of every faculty which we possess.’ What, again, he asks, “can
be more wonderful to contemplate than that peculiarities in the
complex mental endowment and physical structure of a human
being can be transmitted from one generation to the next
through the medium of a spermatozoon, the tiniest cell in the
human body, in which the microscope reveals only a structure
of the simplest kind ?”

So it remains that where people, whose science consists in
the manipulation of scientific phraseology (with more or less

* Nature, May 13th, 1909.
+ Address to Section C (Geology), Winnipeg Meeting, 1909.
t See Nature of that date.

198 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

literary skill), strut upon the stage, the real student of science
uncovers his head with a sense of awe and mystery, and can
share the humility of Lessing, when in his Streitschriften he
writes: “If God should hold in His right hand all truth, and in
His left hand the ever active desire to seek for truth though
the condition be of perpetual error, I would humbly ask for the
contents of the left hand saying, ‘ Father, give me this; pure
truth is only for Thee.’ ”

VII. Human LIFE.

The physical laws which come under “the law of universal
causation ”* reveal to the believing man of science one phase of
the Divine Immanence, and Life in its manifold manifestations
reveals to us another phase. In the latter phase we see the
more direct revelaticn of the Divine Transcendence which is
behind all phenomena. There is yet a third phase within our
ken of the Divine Immanence; and that is to be found and
observed, and inferences drawn from it, in all that region of
consciousness, which has to do with reasoned thought and
reflection, with those powers of the human mind by which
scientific investigation is carried on, with the affections and
instincts of the soul, and in that still higher plane of conscious-
ness which belongs to the realm of spirit and to the faculty of
worship. It is here surely that our perceptive faculties realize
most directly the Divine Transcendence. For, as life is not the
same in kind as gravitation or chemical affinity or electric force,
nor the sum of all these together, there is manifestly some-
thing of another kind or order included in it; and in that
something we recognize another phase of Creative Will and
Thought. Just so in the spiritual nature of man there is a
something superadded which is no part or factor of mere
physical life ; and in that too we can recognize a third and higher
phase of Creative Will and Thought. And we can only
conceive of the spiritual nature of God and His Fatherhood,
through what is highest and best in ourselves, as Christ
Himself teaches us.

The late Aubrey Moore, a keen student, in his brilliant essay
in Lux Mundi, on “the Christian doctrine of God,’ has well
remarked—* We do not read our full selves into the lower
world [of being], because we are higher than it; we do not
transfer [in thought] to God all that belongs to our own self-

* See J.S. Mill, Logic, B. iii, ¢. 5.

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 199

consciousness, because we know that He is infinitely greater
than we are. But we should be wrong not to interpret Him in
the highest category within our reach, and think of Him as self-
conscious life.” Add to this Will or Volition, and we get the
fundamentals of personality. Here perhaps we get nearest to
the true inwardness of the phrase, “In the image of God,” by
which the inspired writer of Genesis designates the highest act
known to us of Creative Thought and Will, where there
appears the very topstone—the crown and summit of the
progressive creation, with its “groaning and travailing in pain”
—in painful effort, which is written upon the whole sentient
creation, from the first dawn of conscious life on this globe, to
the present, as the universal law of Redemption through sacrifice
works itself out.* ¢

In what the Bible teaches us of the Adhim (the Man), as
distinct from the Homo, a race (the presence of which on this
globe the Genesis cast of the traditions of prehistoric times
assumes before the appearance of Adam and his progeny) we
have a differentiation indicated in the general stream of human
life on this planet. The race of the Adham is endowed with
those spiritual powers and faculties and capabilities for response
to spiritual influences, which mark off the “Man” of Scripture
and philosophy, as a being distinct from Homo sapiens. Along
with these endowments comes in the crowning intellectual
gift of language or speech, the essential instrument of that
evolutionary illumination of the human mind, which is written
upon the history of recorded thought, from its inception in the
earliest Sumerian script, or the unknown vocables of Neolithic
man, to the finished structure of the Greek language as an
instrument of thought.t+

As I said a year or two ago,t in reply to criticisms of a
previous letter of mine from the pens of Mr. Woods Smyth and
Dr. Dukinfield Astley, “Somehow and somewhere a_ being
possessed of higher endowments than those of a mere highly
intelligent biped does appear on the stage of the world;
and I think it has yet to be shown that the conception
of an Adamic race, such as we can form from the Creation story
of Genesis, clothed in oriental figure and hyperbole, conflicts
substantially with the evidence that can be drawn from true
science.” The paragraph is too long to quote here in extenso,

* St. Paul, Romans viii, 22.

+ Cf. an interesting article on “ Heredity and Tradition ” in the Times
of June 22nd, 1910.

t Guardian, Dec. 23rd, 1908.

200 REY. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

but it is easily accessible. As regards the time-age of Man (in
the wider sense) on this planet, much (1 have pointed out, loc.
cit ) depends upon our definition of the terms JM/an and Homo,
and I give reasons for bringing down Dr. Astley’s positive
assertion that its duration reaches 80,000 to 120,000 years,* to
something more like a fourth of such estimate. To me, asa
geologist, it seems preposterous to build up a piece of theory—
as Dubois has done—upon such flimsy evidence as he has been
able to produce. We have no evidence even that the anthropoid
fragments which he found belonged to the same individual ; and
it may be seriously questioned, whether, in the want of a
geological survey, the assignment of the deposits in which those
remains were found to the later Tertiary is anything more than
guesswork, Weare not justified in reasoning from the recognized
succession of superficial deposits in Europe, where the glacial
epoch furnishes us with something like a definite horizon, to an
unsurveyed region in the heart of the Tropics. Anyone,
moreover, who has hke myself recently been engaged in an
investigation involving exact correlation of later deposits, in
which the later Tertiaries shade off in some regions into the
Quaternary, as in Britain the post-glacial Pleistocene shades off
into Post-pleistocene and recent alluvial deposits, knows how
exceedingly difficult it is to get conclusive evidence as to the
exact place in the time succession of a given superficial deposit,
where redeposition has often to be allowed for, unless we can
get clear evidence derived from contemporaneous fossils, and
can make pretty sure that such remains as occur are not
derived from older strata. I am not aware that anything like
such conclusive evidence has been brought forward by Dubois
for his Pithecanthropus erectus.

During the past year the scientific world has had its curiosity
aroused by the announcement of the discovery of a massive
human jaw under some 80 to 90 feet of stratified diluvial sand
at Mauer in the Neckar Valley, near Heidelberg—a locality
with which I am pretty familiar. There is an excellent model
of the jaw in the Geological Department of the Museum of
Natural History at Kensington, with a modern human jaw
placed above it for comparison. To Dr. C. W. Andrews, F.R.S.,
who kindly drew my attention to it, I am indebted for a perusal
of Schoetensack’s Monograph on this supposed late Tertiary
“man,” which he named Homo heidelbergensis. It is a
magnificent piece of descriptive woik; but unfortunately the

Following Prof. T. Rupert Jones, F.R.S., and others of the Lyell School.

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 201

conclusion of its author, as to the age to which the individual
is to be assigned, is mercilessly cut up by Dr. Emil Werth, who
has shown that he belonged to about the middle of the Glacial
period. He shows that H. heidelbergensis does not represent the
Diluvial Eolithic age (so-called), still less is he a type of sucha
creature as Tertiary man; and that “the end of the Tertiary
period was as remotely behind him as his ancient Chellean
culture is behind us.”* It seems that this criticism from Werth
appeared too late for the use of Professor Windle, F.R.S., in the
new edition of his valuable work, Remains of the Prehistoric
Age in England (new ed.), p. 307.

Within the last few weeks, another most important “ find” has
turned up,f this time a fairly complete skeleton of a Paleolithic
homo, in the Dordogne, which has been identified as of the
early Mousterian age, and therefore nearly contemporaneous
with the homo of the Neckar Valley. The remains have been
carefully preserved and removed to Paris for complete examina-
tion. Here again no evidence appears to be forthcoming, which
would date the appearance of the homo further back than
20,000 years.

And as regards the time-age of “man,” in the wider sense,
upon this planet, if we accept the conclusions of Dr. G. F.
Wright, and his American geological confréres,t drawn from
what appears valid evidence, and allow 10,000 years since the
retreat of the ice§ and if we further accept the latest con-
clusions of the French savants, in allowing 20,000 years to
carry us back to the beginning of the Mousterian age, with
its lowest possible degree of culture, as the artefacts of that age
prove, there is not much left behind that, which we can assign
with any great degree of certainty to the presence even of the
homo. And as regards the intermediate periods, the Solutrean
and the Madelainean, there may have been a certain amount of
temporal overlap, so that mere addition of inferred time-periods
may mislead us as to the aggregate.

With such increasing evidence, as it comes to be sifted, we are
surely warned more and more against following the specula-
tions of some, who, upon very flimsy evidence, attempt to date

* See Nature, Nov. 25th, 1909, p. 105 ; also Globus, Bd. xcvi, No. 1
(Vieweg, Braunschweig).

t See Mature, Feb. 24th, 1910 (and the photograph of “la Squelette
de la Ferrasie” in La Na ture, 25 Décembre, 1909, p. 51).

é Trans. Vict. Inst., vol. xl.

The late Sir Joseph Prestwich, F.R.S., the Oxford Professor of
Geology, arrived at a similar conclusion.
0 2

202 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

back the first appearance of the homo on this planet, to
hundreds of thousands of years. But whatever the date of
his first appearance may be—and perhaps we shall never
know—I think we may fairly contend that Man, as he is
represented to us in the Adham of the early chapters of
Genesis, appears at a much more recent date, and that he
received, as a special endowment from his Creator, those
faculties which carry with them moral responsibility. This
contention was sustained by me in the Gwardian,* and chal-
lenged by Dr. Astley and Mr. Woods Smyth. The latter
gentleman (who is known in this Institute) maintained that
“evolution is sufficient to account for the whole chain of
sequences from the /Protiste to Man in the highest sense.”
I had only to let him refute himself; for after elaborating
this statement in the first paragraph of his letter (Dec. 23),
he occupied the second half of his letter in contending for
what constructively amounts to a special Divine interposition
at the incoming of man (sc. more than homo) upon the stage of
Creation. He even quoted Samuel Laing (for what his opinion
may be worth) as saying that “there is no evidence of any
people having arisen by themselves out of a state of savagery.”
He continues— This then is the most significant place in human
history; this is the time when the same Divine Being, who
had been disciplining life for long ages up to mun’s estate by
natural conditions, now, at the demand of, and in harmony with,
the position man had reached, came into intelligent converse
with His intelligent creature in a new and higher form.” So
Mr. Woods Smyth, I may fairly think, surrenders his case to
my contention all the way through, that something more (and
more special) than evolution in the Darwinian, or the Spencerian,
or the Haeckelian sense of the word, is required to account for
all the cognizable facts. (See further Z’rans. Vict. Inst., vol. xl,
pp. 136-139). He seems to fall into line with the dictum of
the great Apostle (1 Cor. xv, 46), “That is not first which is
spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is
spiritual.” We cannot in the nature of things expect to find
auy physical record of this. The important point is that (so far
as we can see) the teaching of Science leaves us free to accept
the view of the place assigned to the Adham (the Man) in the
pictorial grouping of facts about Man as the centre, which is
put before us with much legendary embellishment in the second
Genesis description of the Creation, and of Man’s place in it, as

* Dec. 9th and 23rd, 1908.

— “

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 203

that of a being possessed (potentially or actually) of endowments
of a higher order than the rest of that Creation. We have
much yet to learn, no deubt, on this supremely interesting
question; but I doubt if we shall ever explain, by any
evolutionary theory, the possession by Man of “the Inner
Light,” the God-consciousness seen in its full development in
the Second Adham.

DISCUSSION.

On the conclusion of the paper the CHAIRMAN expressed the
thanks of the meeting to Mr. Irving for so ably supplying his father’s
place, and the great regret that must be felt by all that Dr. Irving
could not himself be present to take part in the discussion of his
extremely interesting paper. They all hoped that Dr. Irving would
soon be restored to health.

Dr. Woops SMytH.—We have listened to an able paper which
has been excellently well read by Dr. Irving’s son. With the
criticism of Canon Driver’s views I entirely agree, yet he mis-directs
the views of the great majority of the clergy and ministers of the
churches. Gesenius and Kalisch, rather than Wordsworth, are our
chief authorities for translating the word for “firmament” as an
expanse. Dr. Irving’s idea, that the writer of Genesis i, regarded
the Milky Way as the waters above the firmament is, I believe,
doubly untenable. The writer of the cosmogony did not write
from observation, but from Divine inspiration. ‘The waters above
the firmament are the clouds which are not vapour but true water.
They often lie in seas above the firmament, roll in waves and break
in spray upon mountain summits. The “firmament” is also used
in a more extended sense than this. The views of Lord Kelvin
which Dr. Irving adopts, were refuted at the Cambridge meeting of
the British Association—the folding of the crust of the earth render
Kelvin’s view, that the earth solidified from centre to circumference,
an impossibility. Professor Sollas has adopted Kelvin’s view, and
finds it necessary to regard the earth as having been a frozen
globe for about twenty millions of years! Now when the sun
would have gained sufficient power to melt this frozen globe, his

204 REV. A. IRVING, D.Sc., B.A., ON

fierce sunshine would have rendered the era of warmth, moisture
and dim light, of which Dr. Irving speaks, an impossibility. Again
the “directivity ” in which the doctor believes, is rejected by every
accredited authority on the doctrine of evolution. The idea of
interference in man’s evolution is not Dr. Irving’s, but is A. R.
Wallace’s, who considered that some ultra-natural interference was
necessary to complete the creation of man. Among our highest
authorities on man’s genesis, Wallace here stands alone. I regret
exceedingly in this nexus, that Dr. Irving has greatly misrepresented
my views, and in a form of words which I hope he regrets. I have
clearly taught that Evolution (a Ministry of God), was all-sufficient
for man’s creation, and to a degree of perfection not possessed by
any man living on the earth to-day (vide Victoria Institute
Transactions, vol. xxxvili, p. 214). But that evolution possessed
no means of satisfying man’s aspirations for endless life, and that
these aspirations were met by the revelation of God recorded in
Genesis. I was first enabled to perceive this important truth, and
to publish it 37 years ago, while yet a young man.

Rev. JoHN TuckKWELL, M.R.A.S.—Mr. Chairman, may I be
allowed to express my great appreciation of the paper to which we
have just listened. But with reference to the suggestion made by
yourself, sir, that the first verse of Genesis may be regarded as
separated by a wide interval of time from the second, J do not
think that can be sustained. The first verse is a general statement
of the whole creative work of God. The second verse takes up the
creative history of the earth from its gaseous or nebulous condition
just as one might say “Sir Christopher Wren built St. Paul’s
Cathedral,” and then proceed to give a separate account of the
building of the nave. The Hebrew verb hayah—‘ the earth was
without form and void”—is the substantive verb and cannot
correctly be translated “the earth became.” The LXX accordingly
translates it not by yivopa:, “to become,” but by «iui, “to be.”
Besides, if this story is only a superficial story of something which
took place in six solar days, then it is not the actual story of the
creation of our world at all, and scientific research has never found
any trace or shadow of any such creation. Moreover there are
certain forms of mammalian life indicated by the Hebrew word
translated ‘ cattle” which are found hundreds of feet below the
earliest trace of man in the geological strata which cannot possibly

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 205

have come into existence within only a few hours of man himself.
If on the other hand we take this story as a veritable story of the
creation of our world from the time when it was “without form
and void ”—its nebulous condition—it is one of the most extra-
ordinary proofs of supernatural knowledge communicated to man
which the whole Bible contains. It deals with events which
transpired ages before man existed, and there is not the slightest
evidence among all the Egyptian records or the myrisds of
Babylonian tablets that any of the most learned nations of
antiquity possessed knowledge enough to account for it.

With regard to Dr. Irving’s remarks concerning raqia’ and
firmamentum, he missed a point which should be noticed. The
expanse which divides the waters below from the waters above, 2.¢.,
the clouds, is called simply “the expanse,” but the expanse in which
the celestial luminaries are placed is called ‘‘the expanse of the
heaven,” and the form of the Hebrew word for heaven—shamayim—
suggests the idea of more than one heaven.

If I may venture a word of criticism, | think the writer of the
paper has fallen into a little confusion of thou,ht concerning the
presence of steam during the formation of the mineral deposits of
the surface of our globe.

Then with regard to the human race, I know no reason why we
should not suppose that other intelligent beings have existed upon
our globe as well as ourselves. In Gen. vi, we have the Nephalim
or “giants,” spoken of, the Hlohim and the Adham; these may
perhaps be regarded as three species of the genus Homo. The
Nephilim are only once mentioned after the Flood, and that is in the
lying report of the land of Canaan brought back by the spies. It is
very remarkable that in the Babylonian account of the deluge, the
gods are said to have taken refuge in the heaven of Anu. As to
the Elohim, we do not know who they were, but our Lord refers to
the word when, in vindicating Himself from the charge of blasphemy,
He says, “If He called them Elohim, unto whom the word of
Elohim came, etc.”—in post-diluvian times, therefore by our Lord’s
definition the word was applied to persons “unto whom the word
of Elohim came,” and that may have been one of the functions of
Elohim in antediluvian times. With regard to the expression,
“‘sons of God” (Elohim), the general idea, so far as I have been able
to make out, is that of beings deriving their existence immediately

206 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

from God. Hence the Christian—the regenerate man is called “a
son of God.” There are physiological reasons against the old idea
that they were angels whom our Lord says, “neither marry nor are
given in marriage.” I am glad Dr. Irving has brought up this racial
question also in the very valuable paper to which we have just
listened.

Lieut.-Colonel M. A. Atves.—Referring to a remark by one of
the speakers as regards “the sons of God” and the “ Nephilim,”
the former phrase seems to be confined to direct creations of God,
as ¢.g., Satan (Job i, 6, and ii, 1), Adam (Luke iii, 38) and regener
ated descendants of Adam (1 John iii, 1, 2); angels would be
among such; and, if they marry, they do not keep their first
estate. Jude 6 seems to be a reference to Gen. vi, 4, which, in my
judgment, teaches that some fallen angels formed alliances with
women, the result being the Nephilim, whose presence on the
earth is associated with violence. Og and Goliath appear to have
been of this stock; for “the Nephilim were on the earth in those
days, and also after that. . . .”

As regards the history of the creation in Gen. i, I think that
verse | alludes to an ordered state, followed in verse 2 by a fall into
ruin, the remainder of the chapter describing a restoration by a
series of miracles in rapid succession. I think so for a three-fold
reason :—

I. Gen. i, 2, says ‘the Earth was (or became) Tohu. . . .”
Now Isaiah says, “ He created it not Tohu. . . .’

II. The crust of the earth gives evidence of a long period in
the making.

III. Plant life appears on the third day, and sentient life not
until the fifth.

As all the higher plant life needs insects to fertilize it, the period
between the third and fifth days must have been short, and we
must therefore relegate the long geological period to the Ist verse
and not to the third and following.

I consider that Gen. ii, vv. 7 ff. is an expansion of Gen. i, 26-31,
and not a different story. Man is God’s great work; and, after a
general summary of all His work, it is only reasonable to suppose
that Man’s creation should be dealt with in more detail than the
rest of His creation.

Dr. THrrRTLE.—Adverting to a remark by Mr. Tuckwell, I call

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 207

attention to a historic interpretation of the expression “sons of
God,” as found in Gen. vi, 2. As is well known, in Codex A of the
Septuagint, the rendering is “angels of God,” which is in agreement
with the meaning accorded to 0’né-ha-Elohim (and b’né-Elohim), as
found in Job i, 6; ii, 1; xxxviii, 7, and elsewhere, and also to the
cognate Aramaic bar-Elahin in Dan. iii, 25. In other words, “sons
of God” is a periphrasis for “angels,” as is abundantly borne out
in subsequent Jewish literature. The statement that there were
Nephilim in those days (Gen. vi, 4), rendered, after the Septuagint,
“ giants”—has led to much speculation, and suggested that the
passage as a whole speaks of an illicit commerce such as recalls
familiar points in heathen mythology, as, indeed, a host of exegetes,
ancient and modern, have maintained (see 2 Pet. ii, 4; and
Jude vi).

Henry Proctor, Esq., F.R.S.L., M.R.A.S., writes :—I have been
deeply interested in Dr. Irving’s splendid paper on “ Light, Lumi-
naries and Life,” and desire to add to my former remarks on Genesis
to which he refers therein as interesting and suggestive. I have
for a long time held that the Book of Genesis everywhere assumes
the existence of Pre-Adamic Man, and that it actually mentions
them as the “ Nephilim,” which the Septuagint renders “ qiyav7es,”
and speaks of their race as “men of renown which were from
everlasting.”* We may note also that the signification of ycyavtes
from its root meanings (y) and yev®) would be “ earth-born-ones,”
indicating antiquity as much as stature.

In regard to the Noachic flood the Biblical evidence is generally
supposed to be on the side of its universality,t but this is only in
appearance, for the word translated “earth,” no less than nine
times in regard to the flood, is “adamah” in Hebrew, not
“ erets.” {

Now “adamah” implies a locality, and particularly that district
where Adam lived, as proved by Cain’s words, ‘thou hast driven me
to-day from the face of the adamah . . . and I shall bea
fugitive and a wanderer in the ‘erets’”

Again God is said to have set a mark or sign upon Cain, “lest any-
one finding him should kill him.”§ Of what use would such a mark

* LXX an’ aiwnos, of avOpwmot oi dvopacra, Gen. vi, 14.

+ Gen. vi, 7, 20. t Gen. viii, 8, 13, 21.
§ Gen. iv, 15; vii, 4, 8, 23; ix, 2.

208 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

be if there were no sentient beings who would be restrained by its
significance from killing him? It is clear from the narrative that
Cain had no brothers at the time, for Seth was yet unborn, and his
very name betokens that he was given to Eve in place of Abel; for
God, said she, “ hath appointed (sheth) me another seed instead of
Abel,” showing that no other children were born till after the death
of Abel.

In the second place Cain is said to have gone out from the
presence of Jehovah and to have “dwelt in the land of Nod,”
eastward of Eden, i.e., eastward of that tract of country called in
the Assyrian ‘“Idinu” where Yahveh Elohim had planted the
Garden or Paradise. In the land of Nod, Cain takes a wife, who
bears him a son who is called Enoch (Khanoch), and he then buiids
a city,* and calls it after the name of his son “Enoch.” Now to
build a city implies, first, a number of people to build it, and surely
a far larger number to inhabit it.

Again it is quite in accord with Genesis to believe that only the
Caucasian or so-called White Race sprung from Adam. ‘This is
proved by a study of the tenth chapter of Genesis, where, after the
flood, the earth is said to be repeopled— spread abroad—by the three
sons of Noah and their descendants.

For it can be fully demonstrated that all the nations named in
this great ethnological chapter are of the Caucasian Race. In
regard to two of them, Shem and Japheth, we have always under-
stood that their descendants are white, such as the Jews, for instance,
who are certainly descended from Shem, as were also the Assyrians,
Lydians, Syrians and others. From Japheth, among many other
nations, it is certain that the Greeks are descended, for in the
Hebrew Bible the word “Javan” is generally used to designate
Greece. Now Javan is the fourth son of Japheth. Kittim and
Dodanim also are the ancient names of Rhodes and Cyprus.t

The descendants of Ham are also of the Caucasian Race. “ The
sons of Ham were Cush, Mitzraim, Phut and Canaan.”

Cush represents Ethiopia (Abyssinia), Mitzraim, the ancient
Egyptians ; Phut, the Libyans ; Canaan, the Canaanites, etc., who
were all of the White Race. The Caucasian Race is thus divided

* Gen. iv, 17. + Gen. x, 2, 4.

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 209

into three groups or families corresponding to the three sons of
Noah, viz., the Semitic, Hamitic and Aryan.

All the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth being of the
Caucasian or White Race, they themselves must have been white, as
well as Noah their father, and he being only of the tenth generation
from Adam ; Adam was also white, and he being therefore the pro-
genitor of the Caucasian Race only and the Mongolian and Negro
Races not being descended from him, these latter must be the living
representatives of Pre-Adamite Man.

Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Turton.—With reference to Mr. Irving’s
paper, I think he could have strengthened his argument as to the
firmament meaning the atmosphere, and not a solid vault, by the
following considerations :—*

In the first place the firmament was called “ Heaven,” and the
upper waters, above the “heaven,” must mean the sources from
which the rain from heaven comes. And these sources are easily
seen to be clouds, and are continually spoken of as such in the Bible
(2.g., Judges v, 4; Ps. lxxvii, 17; exlvu, 8; Isa. v, 6). And no
writer could have thought that a solid firmament intervened between
the clouds and the earth; more especially as we read later on that
birds are to fly in this firmament, which are also spoken of as birds
of the aw (v, 28). And though at present the amount of water in
the clouds seems quite insignificant, it was probably much greater at
the time in question.

On the other side, may be quoted the expression about opening
the windows of heaven when it rains (Gen. vii, 11; 2 Kings vii, 2 ;
Mal. ii, 10). But this cannot be taken literally, any more than that
about the doors of the sea (Job xxxviil, 8-11); since, as just said,
every one can see that the rain comes from the clouds, and not from
any openings in a solid reservoir.

Secondly, the writer of Genesis omits to say (as he does in other
cases) that when God made the firmament, He saw that it was good.
Now if the firmament means the atmosphere, that is the (apparently)
empty space separating the clouds from the seas, this would be quite
natural: just as an artist, though he might examine each of his
pictures to see that it was good, would not examine the empty

* IT have touched upon these in my Truth of Christianity (seventh
edition, p. 114).

210 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

spaces between them. But it is difficult to account for, if it means
any material object, which would seem to require God’s approval
like everything else.

The only other instance in which God did not examine what He
made, to see that it was good, is man. And this is at once explained
when we remember that goodness in a free being must include moral
goodness or righteousness. And man could not have been created
righteous, using that word in its strict sense. He might have been
created perfect, like a machine, or innocent, like a child, but to be
righteous requires his own co-operation, his freely choosing to act
right, though he might act wrong. No doubt he was made in a
condition perfectly suited for the eaercise of his free choice ; but this
seems included in God’s final approval of the whole creation that it
was all very good.

Thirdly, this view is confirmed by the symmetry of the narrative,
for the six days are divided into two groups of three each, the first
set being clearly a sort of preparation for the second. Thus we
have light on the first day, and the light-giving bodies, the sun and
moon, on the fourth day ; and we have land and vegetation on the
third day, and animals and men, who live on the land and feed on
the vegetation, on the sixth day ; and therefore we should expect a
similar agreement between the second and the fifth day. Now on
the fifth day we have fishes that live in the water, and birds that fly
in the air; and if the work of the second day was the formation of
the water, and the air (i.¢., the firmament), then, and only then, is
the symmetry perfect.

REPLY BY THE AUTHOR.

Mr. Woods Smyth, L.R.C.P., etc., has been liberal in his
criticisms. On the points which he has raised, I will endeavour to
remark as briefly as possible, but the field covered is a large one.

(1) I must insist upon the observation of nature as a source of
knowledge, and even of primitive science in a crude way, to the
early races of mankind. Evidence of this is referred to in my
paper, and it might be greatly extended from the resources of
anthropology. My contention is, that the “ inspiration of selection ”
comes in here, as well as in dealing with prehistoric traditions.
One of the greatest Biblical critics of Germany (Professor Zittel of

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 211

Leipzig) tells us that “this much is certain: the Biblical con-
ception of the universe, which constitutes part of our faith, and in
so far as it does so, is for us, not a Babylonian conception, but
extremely ancient knowledge, partly the result of experience
[including observation of nature] and partly revealed by God to
man and preserved among His people.”* Philology and archxology
alike bear testimony to this.

(2) As to the Expanse, the old notion of the atmosphere con-
stituting the expanse (“firmament”) and the clouds “the waters
above the expanse ” will not work at all scientifically, and to import
“inspiration ” here is simply to “ beg the question.” Every student
of physics knows that the clouds are water, and my critic waxes
eloquent over the phenomena of clouds. But one wonders if he has
ever travelled for two or three hours together through an alpine
cloud, as through a vapour-bath, with the atmosphere, in which the
clouds float, above him as well as below him; or stood on an alpine
peak or pass, and gazed on clouds far below, as they appear (¢.g.) to
an observer on the summit of Mount Pilatus near Lucerne, when
(according to a local Spriichlein) that giant “wears his collar.”
I cannot help thinking that the writer of Genesis i was a better
observer of nature than my critic appears to be.

(3) The view of Lord Kelvin, to which he refers, did not need
refutation at the Cambridge Meeting of the B.A.,¢ at which I was
present.

He is mistaken in asserting—Dr. Irving adopts Lord Kelvin’s
view-—“ that the earth solidified from the centre to the
circumference.” On the contrary (following such masters of
geological science as Credner, Heim and Suess, of the continental
school), I have for more than twenty years advocated the opposite
view, as Mr. Woods Smyth may see for himself, if he will be so
good as to look into my geological writings. t

* Quoted by Dean Wace, D.D., in his lecture on “the Book of
Genesis,” Christian Apologetics, John Murray, 1903.

+ See Report for 1904.

t Such (e.g.) as—(a) “Chemical and Physical Studies in the Metamor-
phism of Rocks.” (Longmans, 1889); (0) “The Malvern Crystallines ”
{Geological Magazine, October, 1892) ; (c) “On the Consolidation of the
Earth” (Vature, May 25th, 1905), to which I specially draw his attention.

212 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

The notion of a “frozen globe” melted by “ fierce. sunshine ” is
one of which, as a geologist, I have never heard until now, and is on
physical considerations inadmissible. I have adopted the calculations
of Lord Kelvin, as a working hypothesis ; but we have it on his own
authority, that the ‘matter-of-fact foundation” for his conclusion
(that is to say, his primary data) is furnished by “the heat which we
know to be now conducted out of the earth yearly.”* Such observations
and measurements are as independent of the hypothesis of the
consolidation of the earth from the centre to the circumference, as
the use of the balance in the determinations of atomic weights (and
in quantitative analysis generally) is independent of the theory of
“electrons.” For my purpose “consolidation of the earth” need
mean no more than consolidation of the external crust. The
conclusion as to the age of the sun, in comparison with that of
the earth, based on “the well-founded dynamical theory of the
sun’s heat,” seems to me independent of such considerations.
However, I am obliged to my critic for giving me an opportunity
for putting this point more definitely.

(4) The notion of directivity is one which gives my critic much
trouble. Even if the consensus of “accredited authorities ” were so
one-sided as he asserts, the thoughtful student of science would not
be bound by their credo. To admit such an assumption would be to
put an end to scientific enquiry. Mr. Woods Smyth does not
attempt to answer the arguments adduced in my two papers: he
merely contradicts on the strength of his own summing-up of
“authorities.” That is rather the way of ‘“ Vaticanism” than of
either science or philosophy. I deny that ‘authority” on this
question belongs to the biologists exclusively, or even in any special
degree to.such men as Herbert Spencer (who was not a scientist) or
the prophet of Jena.t Men like Lord Kelvin, who speak of
“ Creative and Directive Power,” and look at these matters in a

* See his lecture on “the Age of the Earth,” to the Victoria Institute.
(The italics are Kelvin’s own.)

+ “Has the mantle of Infallibility been torn from the shoulders of
the Pope merely to be placed upon those of the Professor ?” sagely asks.
Mr. G. T. Manley in his splendid paper ou the “Old Testament in
Relation to Science,” read at the Church Congress in 1907. (See the
Guardian October 9th, 1907.)

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 213

broader perspective, have surely a right to be heard; and I should
reckon Professor George Henslow among “accredited authorities,”
as well as Professor A. H. Church, F.R.S., from whom he borrows
the word “ directivity.”

The only ultimate logical conclusion, to which evolution
without directive power can lead, is blank “determinism” (the
result of blind fortuity) which refuses to recognize that “working
for ends,” for which such “authorities” as Asa Gray have
contended, and which even Professor Starling tacitly recognizes,
as I have pointed out in my paper. If Mr. Woods Smyth is not
prepared to deny that the mind of the chemist directs the reactions
of the laboratory to synthetic ends,* how can he refuse to recognize
similar or analogous working of Creative Mind in the vast laboratory
of the universe? But his contention and that of his ‘‘authorities ”
really amounts to a negation of a Divine Providence and the
reduction of prayer to an absurdity ; and that is, I am sure, far
from what he intends.

(5) As to the idea of “ Interference in Man’s Evolution” (which
I hold to be special creation), lam glad to know that I have the
support of Wallace, as I most certainly have of the writer of the
early chapters of Genesis and of the Bible passim. But I do not
borrow from Wallace. I have held and taught it on scientific and
philosophical grounds for years past, as I stated a short time ago in
the discussion of Professor Orchard’s paper on “ Philosophy and
Evolution.” Seventeen years ago, as I wrote, “the projection of
life into the world of matter from ‘the unseen universe’ is the only
theory that meets at once the requirements of religion and science,”
so I wrote also, “ the catholic idea of the projection of the spiritual
life is after all but the logical counterpart of the projection of the
natural life into the world of matter, which (with its energy and
properties) has existed, and may exist again, without being

* Iam glad to find that Professor Church had anticipated me in the
use of this illustration in my previous paper, “ Evolutionary Law, etc.”
S$ ID).
Sn Fike Vict. Inst., vol. xl, pp. 186 ff. Some very sane and cogent
remarks for our present purpose were contributed to that discussion by
Professor George Wright of America, to which most of us would
probably subscribe.

214 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

associated with life at all.”* Ina paper on “ Faith and Science,”f
and again in a sermon, “The New Creation,”t I said, “‘ Anything
_ like a gradual development of the spiritual life out of the physical
life seems to be as untrue as the doctrine of the development of life
from non-living matter, with its energy and properties.

Each life has its place in guiding and controlling, to higher aude
properties and forces of a lower order than itself. As science can
tell us nothing directly of the intrinsic nature of physical life, so
can it have nothing to say for or against the spiritual life: for this
we must turn to the revelation of Jesus Christ” ; and (I may add
here) to the “inner light ” of that ‘‘God-consciousness,” which man
has, because man is a soul, a creature sui generis.§

The term ‘ Man” (in the highest sense) then must include this, the
central factor of his individuality (his self-hood) ; and carries with
it the refutation of Mr. Woods Smyth’s dictum, ‘“ Evolution is
sufficient to account for the whole chain|| of sequences from the
Protistze to Man in the highest sense.” Evolution has to do with
matters belonging to the lower grades of consciousness.

I thank Mr. Tuckwell for his appreciative remarks. As to the
rakia (expanse), his remarks, I think, tend to confuse what I find
actually stated in Gen.i. The author of that chapter even seems
to go out of his way to preclude that, by anticipation ; for in v. 8,
he expressly defines the “expanse” of vv. 6, 7, when he says—
“ God called the expanse heaven,” so as to make it quite clear that
in the succeeding verses, from which I have quoted, he is speaking
of the same thing three times over. I can find in the text no
countenance to the idea of more than one expanse.

* “Things New and Old”; asermon published in the Clergyman’s
Magazine (January, 1893) and referred to in my previous paper.

+ sbid., June, 1893.

- Written and preached on the occasion of the Meeting of the
British Association at Nottingham in 18938, and published in The
Churchman (August 1894).

§ Cf. the very able paper by Professor Caldecott, D.D., Litt.D., read
at the Victoria Institute on May 23rd, 1910, and the discussion thereon ;
also The Inner Light, by the Rev. Ar nold Whiteley, M.A. (Camb.), D. D.
(London), with Introduction by Dr. Caldecott.

|| The misprint of “claim” for chain must have been too obvious to
mislead anyone.

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 215

Mr. Tuckwell has, however, committed himself to a definite piece
of “criticism,” in which he questions my physics. He might have
been, I think, a little more cautious. He says there is a little con-
fusion of thought concerning the presence of steam, in what I have
for the last twenty years or more spoken of as the “ pre-oceanic
stage” of planetary development. There is some ‘confusion of
thought,” but the confusion is Mr. Tuckwell’s. He has confounded
two physical facts, which are entirely distinct, when he makes the
critical temperature of steam to mean the temperature of dissoci-
ation. The critical temperature of steam is that temperature above
which no pressure can coerce it into a liquid ; and that, as he says,
is about 773° Fahr., or a little above 400° C., about the melting-
point of zinc. But the steam remains a true dry gas of the
molecular composition H,O, as every student of physics knows.
The temperature of the dissociation of steam is far higher. Under
ordinary atmospheric pressure, the dissociation of steam is known
experimentally to begin at about the temperature of white-hot
platinum; but the temperature of complete dissociation is far
above the melting-point of platinum, which is about 2,000° C.
(=3,632° Fahr.) This is known from the fact that platinum
melts readily in the flame of the oxy-hydrogen blowpipe, in which
hydrogen and oxygen are entering into combination at a temperature
which of necessity is below the temperature of complete dissociation
of H,O. I have often demonstrated this in former years in lectures
to my pupils. Perhaps the best account of “ dissociation,” which
occurs to me, is that given in the Introduction to Professor
Wislicenus’s Lehrbuch der Anorganischen Chemie. He might also
possibly find of some interest my two papers on “ Dissociation,” read
before the British Association in 1886 and 1888, and published in
eatenso in the Chenical News. The electrolytic decomposition of
H,0 into oxy-hydrogen gas is of course a different matter.

“Sons of God.” Without attempting any definition of “ inspira-
tion,” though insisting upon revelation coming to mankind through
an “inspired race,” leading up to the greater Pentecostal Illumination
of the Church,* we may reason inductively from the use of this
expression in the Bible ; and it is only fair to claim that the fuller

”

* Professor Masterman’s little work, J believe in the Holy (Ghost, is
useful in this connection (Wells Gardner & Co., 1906).

216 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

light of revelation given to us by Christ and His Apostles in the
New Testament may be invoked to throw light upon the Old Testa-
ment use of it, assuming (as we are justified in assuming) that
Revelation was progressive, and that the same presiding Spirit
illuminated the organs of both Old and New Testament revelation.
Now the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews* speaks of God as
the ‘Father of Spirits” in such a way as to appeal directly to the
consciousness of the spiritual man, and he interprets all the discipline
of life as the chastisement of sons, Paternity necessarily implies
sonship ; and in the Introduction to St. John’s Gospel we are
expressly told that those who (from the earliest dawn of the
religious consciousness in man) received by a responsive faith the
illumination of the divine Logos, in whom was “ that life, which is
the light of men,” had given to them the “power” (A.V.) the
“right” (R.V.) (e£ovore) to become the “sons of God” (John i,
12). This I take to be the key to the whole teaching of the New
Testament, as the thought is developed in St. Paul’s own masterly
way in the eighth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, which
Dean Vaughan used to speak of as “the heart of the New Testa-
ment.” At the same time, standing as it does, this phrase seems to
me to link up the deepest teaching of the Old Testament (as that
was understood in the time of Our Lord) with the fuller teaching of
the New. It is moreover a favourite expression of St. John’s, and
Christ the Lord clinches it, when He teaches us to say “Our
Father.” The prophet Hosea (i, 10) uses the very expression when
he predicts the status of the spiritual man in the Church of the then
future, as St. John (I, iii, 1) applies it; and St. Luke expressly
speaks of Adam as “the son of God.” For such reasons I am
inclined to take the use of the term in Genesis to mean those to
whom the God-consciousness was imparted, as to “living souls,”

* In asermon published sixteen years ago I ventured to say that—
“ Regarded from a philosophical point of view, that Epistle is the one
supreme effort of Christian philosophy of the tirst ceutury in applying
the inductive method of reasoning out from the records of the Old
Testament the higher meaning, the heavenly interpretation, of the more
material and earthly facts which were to be found in the law and history

of Israel and in the Mosaic religion” (see Clergyman’s Magazine for
February, 1894),

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. PAN

which could hear the voice of God saying to them, “‘ The fear of the
Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding ”
(Job xxvin, 28); or (as St. Paul puts it) “as many as are led hy
the spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Romans viii, 14).

On anthropological grounds I go so far (pace the older exegesis)
as to apply all this even to the use of the expression ‘“‘ Sons of God ”
in Job i, 6 and xxxvii, 7; the former implying ancient and
primitive corporate worship outside the pale of the Abrahamic
Covenant—the latter the early and primitive conceptions of God as
revealed in Nature. (Cf also the heathen poet Aratus, Acts xvii,
28, quoted by St. Paul to the sharp-witted Athenians.)

It was surely a sound maxim of St. Augustine that “the Old
Testament prepares for the New, and the New explains the Old”;
and I see no valid reason for making an exception in this case.
That “light of men,” of which St. John speaks, has never been
entirely extinguished in the best human spirits, though much
obscured by sin, which consists essentially in the misuse (through
perversion of the Will) of those powers and faculties and instincts
with which God has endowed humanity. I have worked at this line
of thought in a sermon of mine, which was published in 1893, as
indeed also in many sermons.

To refuse to look at the early chapters of Genesis in the light of
the Incarnation and of the New Testament, is surely to go out of
our way to create Scriptural difficulties. Mr. Tuckwell does well to
refer us to the teaching of the Living Word Himself in John x,
34-36; although, if he will refer to Bishop Perowne’s learned
commentary on the Psalms (resp. Ps. Ixxxu), he will see that the
meaning of that passage is somewhat obscure. For myself I[
should interpret it in the sense of the remarks which I have
ventured here to make. Mr. Tuckwell is evidently more at home
in Bible studies than in physical science.

Mr. Henry Proctor has sent a most valuable note from a real
student. I am glad to have the opportunity of explaining away
what is said in my paper (p. 180) as to certain criticisms of his
former remarks which had reached me. On _ passing on the
criticism to Mr. Proctor I received such a full explanation of the
points raised as seems to me fully to meet the criticisms referred to,
and I thank him for the information. In a subject, which Mr.
Proctor (as a Hebraist) seems to have made his own, I feel that it

218 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON

would be presumptuous on my part to offer any criticism of what is
contained in his present communication ; but we must all thank him
for the light which that seems to throw upon the Genesis cast of
prehistoric traditions contained in chapters i-xi. I may be per-
mitted to add that his idea, as to the ‘ Nephilim” being impure
offspring of a previous race of Homo, of whose remote origin tradition
had lost all traces, seems to receive support from what I have drawn
attention to in the Presidential Address of Dr. Smith-Woodward,
F.R.S., to the Geological Section of the British Association last
year at Winnipeg.* The Homo (whether Neolithic or otherwise)
would seem to have developed the same tendency as some other
races of mammals, “ to store up mere dead mineral matter as bone”
before they became extinct. It would be interesting to have Mr.
Proctor’s idea, as to any possible correlation of the primitive Nadu of
the Eupbrates-Tigris region with the Neolithic men (of unknown
date as to origin), who were overmastered and superseded by the
“Bronze” men, as they, in their turn, were by the Achzeans, with
their use of iron, in Crete. (See Crete the Forerunner of Greece, by
C. H. and H. B. Hawes, Harpers, 1909.) The Genesis tradition (iv,
22) seems to point to such superior power of the forgers of
cutting “instruments of bronze and iron ” among the Cainites.

It is scientifically impossible to follow the gallant Colonel
Alves in his speculation. That Dr. Thirtle should attempt to
make the Genesis narrative carry the burden of such things as
he refers to in heathen mythology, is bad enough from the theo-
logical point of view ; but the idea of angels forming alliances with
women is such a physiological absurdity+ that it must be relegated
to the limbo of a pre-scientific age. It traverses moreover the
teaching of the Master of masters, when He tells us in effect that
the sexual function is something entirely outside the .range of
angelic existences (Matthew xxii, 30). Science here seems to me to
make a clean sweep with its besom of a great deal of rubbish,
which a fanciful exegesis has read into the sacred text, and the
recognition of a pre-Adamic race moreover renders unnecessary. I

* See the discussion of the paper on “ Darwinism and Malthus” by
the Rev. James White, M.A., read before the Victoria Institute on
April 4th last.

+ Despite even Hastings’ Dictionary (article ‘‘ Nephilim ”).

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 219

do not see that the substitution of Aryan for Babylonian myths
does much to clarify our idea of the “inspiration of selection” of
prehistoric traditions.*

That idea of Gen. iv, alluding to an “ordered state,” is an old one,
with which I have been long familiar. Something like it is put
forward in his Commentary by the great divine and scholar, Bishop
Christopher Wordsworth of Lincoln. But Wordsworth was not,
and never pretended to be, a student of science; though he main-
tained an open attitude of mind towards the teaching of science, as
I have reason to know.

Lockyer’s hypothesis of the meteoric origin of planets might
seem to favour the notion of a state of things brought about by the
collision of two bodies moving in space ;f but if Colonel Alves will
think the matter out, he will see insuperable difficulties in the way
of its application ; since it would have to account for each and
every planet of the solar system by a special event, instead of
regarding (as the “nebular hypothesis ” does) the whole series as
the result of the regular and simple operation of physical laws in
their evolution, as I have attempted to show in my two papers.

His remarks about insects and “ the higher plant-life” are beside
the mark. If he will study what I have put forward in my former
paper and the “analytical parallelism” there suggested, he will, I
think, come to see that, though a few insects did exist in the Car-
boniferous period, their agency was not required for the fertilization
of the eryptogamous flora, which was then predominant; nor even
was it wanted for the early forms of Conifer, which do not
depend upon insect fertilization.

Professor Driver’s Genesis will give him some useful information,
as to the reasons for separating the two accounts of the Creation.
I have long maintained that they are written from two different
points of view: the one may be regarded as a sequential account of
a continuous evolutionary process, while the other is a pictorial
grouping of leading and striking facts of creation about Man, as
the head and centre of it all. “ Image of God” in the one may, I

* Cf. Dean Wace, D.D., on “The Book of Genesis” in Christian
ilpologetics (John Murray, 1903).
+ Cf. Sir Robert Ball’s lecture to the Victoria Institute in 1901.

220 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A.. ON

think, be taken as the counterpart of “living soul” in the other.
I find it difficult to attach any clear meaning to the phrase, “the
long geological period.” On this point he will, I hope, pardon me
for again referring to my previous paper, to which the present one
is professedly supplementary. It is important not to overlook the
fact, that the second of the two accounts of creation is but the first
“ Act” of the drama, which runs on from chapter ii, 4, to chapter
iv, 24.* There is internal evidence of this. In all our studies of
these old Scriptures we must learn to “think orientally,’+ if we
are to get away from the bondage of what the late Sir Gabriel
Stokes, F.R.S. (a former President of the Victoria Institute), used
to call “a slavish literalism.” (See further on this point correspon-
dence in the Guardian in the autumn of 1907, on “Genesis and
Science.”)

Colonel Turton refers to his book, The Truth of Christianity,
which I procured and read with much pleasure on its appearance.
Though the science of it is weak in places, the book as a whole
is a valuable addition to the literature of Christian Apolo-
getics. Unfortunately he, like some others, has not been at the
pains to make a real study of my paper before criticizing it; and so
he has misunderstood that part with which he deals in his quasi-
criticism, consisting of little more than quotations from his own
book. If the Colonel would do me the favour of making a careful
logical analysis of Section II (B) of my paper, he will see that the
notion of the atmosphere constituting the “expanse” is one which
is entirely ruled out by the argument adopted. That argument is
based upon what the inspired writer actually says, and not in any
way upon what others have read into it. The word “expanse”
means an indefinite portion of extended space, and cannot possibly
mean a material substance, such as the atmosphere of this planet
undoubtedly is. If the gallant Colonel doubts that, it must be
because he has forgotten the laboratory-teaching of his Woolwich
days, which must have familiarized him with the air-pump and its
applications. My conception of the “expanse” is that of inter-
planetary space, on the assumption of the nucleate inception of the
planets, as separate centres of condensation in the nebula; and it

* See further Driver, Op. ecit., page 35 ff.
+t Mackinlay in his book, Zhe Magi, ete.

LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 221

was for the express object of demonstrating this, that the Greenwich
photographs of the ‘“‘spiral nebulze” were thrown upon the screen.
I regret that my enforced absence from the meeting on March 21st
prevented me from emphasizing this at the time. The difficulty
raised as to the winged creatures (v. 20) flying “above the earth in
the open firmament of heaven” is more apparent than real; as we
see at once if we follow the literal Hebrew (and we can hold the
author responsible for naught else), which says ‘on the face of the
expanse of the heaven” (margin), as they of course appear to do
to a spectator on the surface of the earth.

As to the points 2 and 3 of Colonel Turton’s criticism, I am unable
to follow him, nor do I see that they have any very cogent bearing
upon the point under discussion.

506TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.

MONDAY, APRIL 41x, 1910.
LiEuT.-Co.. G. MACKINLAY IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed.
The following election was announced :—
Associate : Colonel H. G. MacGregor, C.B.

The following paper was then read by the Author :—

DARWINISM AND MALTHUS.
By the Rev. JAMES WuirE, M.A.

MONG the many centenaries that marked the year 1909,
none have equalled either in interest or importance that
of Darwin. His discovery of the laws of evolution and survival
of the fittest, explaining the origin of species and the develop-
ment of life’s various forms, has been the most important and
wide-reaching since Newton established the law of gravitation.
And although we cannot be sure that the principles discovered
and elaborated by Darwin and by Wallace, are as far-reaching
throughout the material universe, as the law that matter
attracts matter directly as the mass, and inversely as the
square of the distance, yet the idea of evolution, development,
and the struggle in life, have affected more fields of thought,
and have more varied applications, than that great law which
governs only the relations of inanimate matter. Our ideas on
morals, religion, social relations, in almost everything that
concerns human life, have been influenced, and frequently very
largely modified by the principles for whose discovery and
exposition we are indebted to Darwin and to Wallace ; and
their application to animal life have not only been illuminating
but transforming.

DARWINISM AND MALTHAUS. pes

No apology is needed for coupling the two names. These
two great men have acknowledged their obligations to each
other with that noble chivairy w hich has so often distinguished
men of science. The pursuit of knowledge, the love of truth
for its own sake, have done more than make us acquainted
with the material world. In them also are learned some of the
highest moral qualities, pre-eminently justice and generosity.
Other names have been mentioned as having in some degree
anticipated the discoveries of Darwin and Wallace, but they
have done so only to a very limited extent. No one has been
more often mentioned and referred to in this connection, in the
numerous lectures, magazine articles, and essays, that have
been called forth by the centenary of Darwin than Lamarck ;
and yet his contribution has been very insignificant. The only
credit that can be claimed for Lamarck, is that he believed in
the possibility of the transformation and provress of species :
but he did nothing to explain how this was accomplished.
The principal cause he suegested for such transformation and
development was a “formative nisus,” but of this no trace has
been found in nature, nor has it in any way helped forward the
theory of evolution. This explanation was derived not from
observation but from imagination. It is true that the habit of
the bottle-nosed whale, of laying his nose upon a rock when
sunning himself, has been quoted as indicating an aspiration for
terrestrial existence. This suggestion has at least the merit,
rare in scientific work, of being amusing.

One name which has been very seldom mentioned, and
would seem to be almost of purpose ignored, is that which
stands at the head of this article, namely, that of Malthus.
His “Essay on Population” was really the living seed from
which all that is imphed in the word Darwinism has sprung.
Falling on the fertile minds of Darwin and of Wallace, there it
germinated and produced a rich and noble harvest. It was
Malthus’s “ Essay on Population” that gave them both the clue
to unravel the difficulties of the Origin of Species. The now
familiar ideas of the strugyle for existence, survival of the
fittest, natural selection, evolution and development, and all
that they imply are engermed in the thought of the Pressure
of Population on the means of Subsistence, of which Malthus’s
essay 1s an expansion though in a very different direction. To
anyone acquainted with that book, and the writings of Darwin
and Wallace, the connection is very obvious. It has been very
fully acknowledged by these distinguished philosophers them-
selves. In his Ori gin of Species, Darwin states in the

224 REV. JAMES WHITE, M.A., ON

introduction “the struggle for existence, is the doctrine of
Malthus applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdom ”
(4th ed., p. 4). In the life of Charles Darwin, published in
1887, we have the following :—

“‘T soon perceived that selection was the keynote of man’s success
in making useful races of animals and plants. But how selection
could be applied to organisms living in a state of Nature remained
for some time a mystery to me.

“In October, 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my
systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus
on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle
for existence which everywhere goes on from long continued obser-
vations of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me
that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to
be preserved and unfavourable ones destroyed. The result of this
would be the formation of a new species. Here then at last I had
got a theory by which to work.”

From this it is obvious that the theory of Darwin with all its
varied and far extending applications was the fruit in Darwin's
mind of Malthus’s principle. All that wide extending harvest,
which is briefly summed up in the word Darwinism ; a harvest
yet far from fully reaped, has sprung from the living seed of
this principle. Malthus observed the pressure of population on
the means of subsistence. Darwin took up this observation
and applied it in ways which its author never contemplated,
and probably could never have apphed it. Other causes no
doubt contributed to the production of Darwin’s Origin of
Species: other influences brought their aid to fertilize that
mind of almost unrivalled powers of observation and induction
which has been the chief agent in this great development of
thought, and for this is due to Darwin far beyond all others the
evatitude of mankind. But the living seed is Malthus’s
observation of the pressure of population on the meaus of
subsistence.

Dr. Alfred Russell Wallace in his very interesting and
valuable autobiography, has most fully acknowledged his
indebtedness to Malthus. Writing of his 21st year he records
on. p. 222, vol. i, as follows :—

“But perhaps the most important book I read was Malthus’s
Principles of Population, which I greatly admired for its masterly
summary of the facts and logical induction of its conclusions. It
was the first work I had yet read treating of any of the problems of

DARWINISM AND MALTHUS. 225

philosophical biology ; and its main principles remained with me
as a permanent possession and twenty years later gave me the long
sought clue to the effective agent in the evolution of organic
species.”

Referring to the same period on p. 240, after mentioning his
making the acquaintance of Mr. Bates, the eminent traveller
and naturalist, Dr. Wallace writes :-—

“the other equally important circumstance was my reading Malthus,
without which work I should probably not have hit upon the theory
of natural selection, and obtained full credit for its independent
discovery.”

Later on, beginning at p. 361, Dr. Wallace in a passage too
long for quotation, gives a most interesting account of the full
development of his theory, relating the whole process of the
flowering of the living seed that had been for years verminating
in his mind. The entire passage is well worthy of perusal;
for it exhibits the birth of a great thought in a great mind, the
birth of a living truth destined to enrich humanity. It begins
thus, “one day something brought to my recoilection Malthus’s
Principles of Pupulation.” It ends with these words, “ I wrote
it (the theory of natural selection) out carefully in order to
send it to Darwin.”

It is strange that with this ample acknowledgment of their
obligations to Malthus, obligations which are evident to anyone
acquaiuted with the works of these great philosophers, it is
strange that the name of the first should be almost ignored,
although he was the originatur of ail that followed. The other
two have fully confessed him as their fountain of thought and
suggestion. And it is not only by the general public but also
by really learned and scientific men in the numerous letiers,
addresses, articles, and speeches which have illustrated the
Darwin centenary that the name and work of Malthus have
been almost entirely ignored.

It is'a good thing to take a part however humble in the
cause of justice; to make an effort however feeble to give
honour where honour is due. And such an effort would, it is
to be believed, have the sympathy and approval of such men as
Darwin and Wallace.

There are other reasons too which make the consideration
of the debt rightfully due to Malthus of interest and import-
ance apart from the sentiments of abstract and _ poetic
justice.

226 REV. JAMES WHITE, M.A., ON

A prejudice has been long felt against Malthus which may
partly account for the manner in which he has been ignored,
namely, the impression that he is in some way responsible for
those practices which may be referred to as connected with race
suicide ; or that at least some sanction for them can be derived
from his writings and principles. This is a very great mistake,
and a very unjust slander on a man whose moral character was
as pure and high as his intellect was penetrating and exalted.
Malthus but slightly refers to these subjects, and then only for
his strongest reprobation. For the evils of over-population
Malthus knows only one remedy, viz., virtuous abstinence ; and
while quite aware of the evils of over-population, he is also
aware that there are other evils which are greater still. The
following is the principal reference to the subject; it is taken
from vol. ili, p. 391 of the fifth edition of his Essay on the
Principles of Population, published in 1817.

“J have never adverted to the check suggested by Condorcet
without the most marked disapprobation. Indeed I would always
particularly reprobate any artificial and unnatural modes of check-
ing population, both on account of their immorality and their
tendency to remove a necessary stimulus to industry . . . The
restraints which I have recommended are quite of a different
character. They are not only pointed out by reason and sanctioned
by religion, but tend in the most marked manner to stimulate
industry.”

The restraint on which Malthus relies is the sense of parental
responsibility. It is the only one which he advocates, and he
thinks it should be taught, fostered, encouraged and strengthened
in every way. It is the duty of parents to put those children
they have brought into the world in such a position by training,
care of health, education, ete., that they may have a reasonable
prospect of being able to maintain themselves in it. In fact,
the law of nature which Malthus seems to have discovered is
more serious than at first appears. It is this, that the right
to live is not inherent. It has to be acquired or imparted.
This is startling, we naturally shrink from its statement. but
if it is a law of nature it is no use attempting to resist it.
When applied to biology it has been the most fruitful: truth
that has ever entered into that science ; and this is a strong
presunption that it isa law of nature. Our duty to the Laws of
Nature is to obey them, however stern and severe they may be.
It is our higher duty to apply them. in accordance ‘with the
spiritual laws of justice and mercy, to administer them with

DARWINISM AND MALTAUS. 2AM.

justice and to mitigate them with mercy ; but to disobey them
means prolonged and extended suffering, a lengthened lesson in
the dear school of experience until we have learned rightly to
obey.

It is remarkable that the principles of Malthus were
discovered not in the study of biology, with which he
apparently had no acquaintance, but in the subject of poli-
tical economy. It was reflection on the causes that hinder the
progress of the human race to happiness that led him to
consider the principle of population as affecting this subject.
To apply it to the animal or still less to the vegetable creation
seems never to have occurred to his mind. Natural history
seems to have been quite outside his range of thought and
interest. Now if his principles have been so fruitful when
applied to subjects which are altogether outside the field of
their discovery, how much more fruitful may we expect them
to be if applied in that field in which they were discovered.

This consideration becomes the more important, when it is
observed that the whole trend of legislation, and of the thought
which lies behind legislation, and both is its cause and gives it
force, has been for a long period in a contrary direction.
Increase of the sense of parental responsibility was the check
on which Malthus relied for the evils of over-population ;
modern legislation has done much and seems likely to do
more to diminish the feeling of responsibility of parents for
their offspring. Free education has been given ; free meals are
being demanded, gratuitous feeding is to some extent given,
and demands for further relief from parental responsibility
seem likely to follow. All this is in direct opposition to what
there is strong presumption at least to believe to be a law of
nature.

The phrases “survival of the fittest,” and “elimination of the
unfit” were not invented by Malthus ; but they follow directly
from his principles of population. Modern legislation, and
indeed modern sentiment, without which legislation is power-
less, have sought, and are still seeking to preserve the unfit and
to encourage their multiplication. But the laws of nature will
prove themselves too strong even for the strongest radical
government, or the most plausible socialistic theory. The laws
of nature will assert themselves in the end, even it may be by
the destruction of our entire civilization. It is useless to
complain of their harshness and severity. Nature is full of
that which is harsh and severe. But we may do much, if we
recognize them as facts, we may do very much to mitigate the

228 REV. JAMES WHITE, M.A., ON

harshness and severity of their application. By ignoring or
disobeying the laws of nature, we only multiply and. prolong
suffering. Our truest mercy and our highest wisdom is to obey
them.

COMMUNICATION ON REv. JAMES WHITE’S PAPER.

By Proressor Epwarp Hutu, LL.D., V.P.

Read on the conclusion of the paper.

In thanking the author for his interesting paper I wish, in the
first place, to express dissent from the idea that there is any possible
analogy between Newton’s Law of General Gravitation, and the
inferential hypothesis of Darwin and Wallace, to account for the
succession of species of plants and animals. Valuable as this
hypothesis may be, and useful as a workable basis for naturalists to
build upon, it still remains simply an hypothesis open to discussion,
founded on observations more or less liable to error, and certainly,
limited in application; whereas Newton’s Law is of universal
application, mathematically true, and verified by astronomers in their
calculations regarding the mechanism of the universe. The analogy,
therefore, does not exist; the hypothesis of evolution and the law
of gravitation stand on different planes, and doubtless the author
is aware of this.

But in dealing with the “ Darwinian theory ” of evolution it should
not be forgotten that there are difficulties in its acceptance which
have to be overcome before it can be accepted by naturalists. As
yet no case of transmutation of species has been observed ; and the
curious fact remains, that most, if not all, plants and animals which
have been modified by domestication or culture exhibit a tendency
to revert to the original type when in a state of nature, and
Dr. Darwin’s own instance of the pigeons has always appeared to me
to be opposed to his views ; lastly, hybrids are not fertile.

Those of us who, like myself, have not read Malthus’s works, but
are only acquainted with this profound writer as the author of
what are called ‘“ Malthusian doctrines,” will be grateful to the
author for rescuing his memory from association with views which

DARWINISM AND MALTHUS. 229

most of us would consider objectionable, as well as for having
suggested to Darwin and Wallace their conceptions regarding organic
evolution. With Mr. White’s views regarding parental responsibility
I am in entire accord, and they require to be enforced at the
present time, when legislation, modern habits amongst the poor, and
mawkish sentimentality are tending to undermine the high moral
duty of parental responsibility. When the State steps in, and
removes the education, the upkeep, and the supervision of the child
from the parent to itself, the effect on both is disastrous ; it with-
draws from the parent one of his greatest incentives to industrious
labour, and from the child, the feeling of affection which has been
implanted by nature, and is an incentive to a virtuous life.
Scripture is absolutely opposed to this aspect of State Socialism,
which commands the child to honour his father and mother, and the
parent to provide for those of his own house, including his
offspring.

DISCUSSION.

Dr. W. Woops SmyTH said :—Our hearty thanks are due to Mr. J.
White for his excellent paper. I entirely differ from Professor Hull
and Dr. Irving upon their strictures on the Doctrine of Evolution.
It is not contended that one species has ever been transmuted into
another. We are a Christian Institute and as we believe and
reverence the Bible we must acknowledge, as the Scriptures say, that
the creative evolution of the several forms of life was finished ages
ago. This leaves no room for new species to arise to-day. But
when we glance into the past geologic ages we perceive symbolic
types in the fields of life. In one instance there is a creature
combining the formations of the deer, the hog, and the camel.
Now in the finished forms these have become differentiated into the
three familiar creatures known to us to-day.

The Bible is on the side of evolution, Haeckel acknowledges this
to its credit, and even Dr. Irving has contributed a paper to the
Institute pointing out evolutionary ideas in the creation story. I
have shown that the scriptural expression, “ Let the earth bring forth

230 REV. JAMES WHITE, M.A., ON

the living creature,” the verb being in the causative voice; Hiphil
presents to us more vividly the principles of evolution in the
influence of environment than are to be found in whole pages of
Darwin and Spencer. |

Again, all our learned Societies support the doctrine of evolution
and no scientific evolutionist of eminence believes in the idea of a
“directivity.” It would be entirely opposed to the great scriptural
principle (as I have shown in my writings) which makes life
responsible for its own conduct, and even in degree, for its own
organization. It would be repulsive to our mind to suppose that
God created creatures specially red in tooth and claw to riot in
raven. But I have shown that this vastly magnifies the moral
responsibility of man which has been accumulating through long
ages up to man’s estate at the summit of all life.

Lastly, I have contributed to the Victoria Institute the important
truth which it has been my privilege to urge upon the Church for
thirty-seven years, namely, that the destruction of the unfit was the
sacrifice of life for the evolution of living organisms. “Sacrifice ” is
the word used by Herbert Spencer in this connection; so that man
was created by a great ministry of animal sacrifice. Little wonder
that the type of his redemption is shown in the animal sacrifice of
the ceremonial law, and had its complete consummation in the great
sacrifice of the ineffable Life of our Lord Jesus Christ.*

Professor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD said :—While thanking the
Rey. author for his interesting paper, I am compelled to associate
myself with the dissent so generally expressed from some of his
conclusions. In the second sentence of the paper we read of
Darwin’s “discovery of the laws of evolution and survival of the
fittest, explaining the origin of species and the development of life’s
various forms,” etc. I fail to see that an imagination is a ‘‘ discovery,”
or how that which has no existence can have “laws,” or how such
can “explain” anything, or how it is advisable to use the term
‘development ” as synonymous with “evolution.”

I must protest against any attempt to compare Darwin’s untrue

* “The Bible and the Doctrine of Evolution. The Government of God,
1882. Evolution explained and compared with the Bible, 1883. Divine
Dual Government, 1899-1902-1905. The Bible in the Full Light of
Modern Science, 1907.” Victoria Institute Transactions, vol. xxxviil, 215.

DARWINISM AND MALTHUS. 231

speculation with the grand discovery by which Newton bound
together all parts of the material universe. To call by the name of
“science” an unverified conjecture—a conjecture negatived by
experience—is to dishonour science. To speak of an imagination
as a “fact” is not conducive to our progress in the knowledge of
facts.

On p. 224 Darwin tells us that favourable variations (in animals and
plants) are preserved, and unfavourable are destroyed. What does
he mean by “favourable” and “unfavourable” in a species with
regard to the other species into which he supposes it is being trans-
muted. The result, he says, ‘‘ would be the formation of a new
species.” What sort of a reasoner is he who thus piles up assump-
tions ?

Improve the breed of horses long enough, and at last you will
get something which is not a horse but another sort of creature—
shall we say, a gibbon? What led Darwin to write such nonsense ?
Was it that he possessed an elastic faculty for believing whatever he
wished to believe? This seems to have led him to first bamboozle
himself and then to try to bamboozle his readers.* Dr. Irving has
alluded to Darwin’s misapplication of Malthus’s theory. Henslowy
also points out that the “ individual differences,” relied on by Darwin,
can never transmute a species, for they lack hereditary constancy.

Darwinism has no doubt exercised a considerable influence over
many minds, but this has been owing not to ability or truth in the
speculation, but to the fascination of the subject with which it deals.
‘The author of the paper has, I think, proved his point that the
speculation is greatly indebted to the principles of Malthus; and
we shall concur with him as to the immense importance of recogniz-
ing parental responsibility, and of working with, and not against,
the laws of nature.

The SECRETARY said that he was sorry to have to protest once
again at the spirit of many of the remarks made. He was sorry to
see that instead of discussing the main point raised by the paper all

* Huxley says that Darwin’s style of writing is like “a sort of
intellectual pemmican—a mass of facts crushed and pounded into shape,
rather than held together by the ordinary medium of an obvious logical
bond.”

t Henslow thinks that Darwin was misled through not observing plants
-and animals in a state of nature.

232 REV. JAMES WHITE, M.A., ON

the previous speakers had turned aside at the mention of Darwin’s
theory of natural selection, and had raised once more that strange
spectre of evolution which it was so easy to drive away.

The speaker’s first protest was against that to him unrecognizable
caricature of the doctrines of Charles Darwin which had been once
more brought forward. in regard to this he contented himself by
expressing the hope that at some future time they might have the
pleasure of listening to and discussing a paper on evolution by some
one who was really in touch with the most modern development of that
theory, and who would be able to put before them the whole case,
and not merely the survivals of the views of that great Christian but
indifferent scientist Samuel Wilberforce.

The point of the paper which seemed to him to have been
altogether neglected was the Malthusian doctrine of which so many
misrepresentations were current. If, as Mr. White had said, this
doctrine had produced such great results when applied to the field of
Natural Science, what might not result if it were applied to the
field of political economy, and that science of which Malthus was a
true student though its name was scarcely heard in his time—
Sociology.

Every effort was being made by authority to secure better con-
ditions for the human race; yet as the learned author had pointed
out, the net result was the decrease of parental responsibility where
it was most needed.

The attempt to eliminate the unfit by raising the present gener-
ation and doing away with the conditions which led to another
generation growing up with stunted bodies and minds was having
one remarkable effect.

The increased burden was being thrown, and rightly thrown, on
those who were most able to bear it. But at the same time while
the responsibility of the wealthy and middle classes was being
enormously increased, little was done to increase the sense of
responsibility amongst the lowest and really unfit.

The diminishing birth rate of England was a real danger, because
there was little or no diminution amongst the least economically fit,
the unskilled labourers and the casual labourers, while among the
economically fit the decrease was very great indeed.

They were all faced by a tremendous economic problem, and by”
tremendous responsibilities which they had to take up.

DARWINISM AND MALTHUS. Zoe

For his part he thanked the reader of the paper for his illumi-
nating suggestion, and only wished that the discussion had not taken
the turn it had, but had been on the lines so clearly indicated in
the paper.

The Rev. A. IRvinc, D.Sc., B.A., writes :—

The author of the interesting paper on “ Darwinism and Malthus ”
seems scarcely to realize the crudeness of the Darwinian theory as
an attempt to account for the fact of evolution. As a theory it has
been most fruitful in the advance of thought and the enlargement of
our ideas of creation. It has gone a long way to raise Natural
History (both of plants and animals) from a science merely of
observation and classification to an inductive science; but serious
modifications of Darwin’s theory have to be recognized in what we
may call the ‘* Neo-Darwinism.”

Professor George Henslow, in his lecture on “Darwinism and
Present Day Rationalism,”* remarks (p. 9)—‘ Darwinism was a
theory to account for the process of evolution, as it is expressed in
the title of his book—The Origin of Species by means of Natural
Selection.” It is “based on two postulates—(i) the original creation
of a few or one primitive being ; and (ii) the existence of variations
without which selection can do nothing” (p. 7). “ Darwin’s first
and fundamental mistake was to introduce the element of structure
or form into the theory of Malthus. It has never been shown that
slight changes of structure or form, or what are called ‘individual
differences,’ have anything to do with the death or survival of
individuals. Darwin’s second mistake was to regard individual
differences as a source of varieties in nature.” The Law of
Adaptation is ‘the true and only interpretation of evolution, and
replaces the old argument of design”? (p. 20). This implies
(what Darwin assumed) that there is a power residing in the nucleus
[of a cell] which can respond to external influences ” (p. 18).

Here we can surely recognize directivity as an extension of the

* See Christian Apologetics ; London (John Murray), 1903.

+ To the Botanist ; and the latest pronouncement of the physiologist
(Prof. Starling) is—‘‘ Adaptation must be the deciding factor in the
origin of species, and in the succession of the different forms of life upon
this earth.”

rae

234 REV. JAMES WHITE, M.A., ON

same creative power, which gave existence to the protoplasm, with
its capacity for cell-building as the basis of all living forms. Though
“evolution” may not constitute a philosophy, since it fails as a
sufficient basis for the simplification of knowledge, the word
conveniently expresses a great law, which is something more than
the “ development” of the individual, as of a bird or mammal, from
its ovum. It expresses what is included under Lord Kelvin’s happy
phrase, ‘‘ Creative and Directive Power.”

When we speak of “ Evolution” as a term connoting a general
law, we of course use it to express the “subsumption” or gathering
up of many minor evolutions ; just as we use the phrase “the law
of universal causation” to connote the subsumption of minor
observed laws or uniform sequences of phenomena. ‘The fact seems
to be that we must recognize in nature many minor evolutions of
form and structure, which it is not always easy to correlate exactly
with one another. But it is fair to contend that in every case there
is the principle of directivity behind.* I fail to see how we can get
away from that, if we accept the fundamental axiom of the unchange-
ableness of the Creator. The one is as necessarily postulated in that
axiom as the other; and we may claim that this principle of
directivity working for ends by way of adaptation is the only
explanation for those variations which make for advance. These
must be the esse of such variations (as Darwin admits) before there
can be mutual reaction between them and environment leading
‘*from lower and simpler to higher and fuller harmonies” ; and thus
we come to see in “ Evolution” a divine method of working for ends
in accordance with those laws, which belong to elemental matter and
force. As Asa Gray puts itt “In each variation lies hidden the
mystery of a beginning.” From such a point of view we are
justified in speaking of the whole process of Creation as a “‘ continuous
flow,” but not as a simple stream nor as an uniformly continuous
flow, as seems to be contended by Professor Starling among the
latest contributors to the discussion, in his Presidential Address to

* In the discussion Mr. Woods Smyth asserted that “ directivity is
unscientific.” This is to “beg the question.” “Science” as limited to the
plane of “ observation and experiment” has nothing to say on this matter.
It is a question of philosophy, and is arrived at by inductive reasoning.
—A. I.

+ See Natural Science and Religion ; Scribner, New York.

DARWINISM AND MALTHUS. 235

the Physiological Section of the British Association at Winnipeg
last year. Far more helpful, because written in the light of a
broader perspective of facts, is the Address at the same meeting of
the President of the Geological Section.* “Dr. Smith-Woodward
discusses at some length (with a marvellous wealth of facts, which
paleontological research has brought to light in recent years both
in the Old World and in the New) the dual tendency (i) of changes
towards advancement and fixity as determinate in one direction ; and
(il) of changes towards eatinction (which are so commonly repeated),
as denoting some inherent property in living things, which is as
definite as that of crystallization in inorganic substances. All this
surely implies ‘‘directivity.” It is compatible with the doctrine of
evolution with its limitations, but it carries us far away from the
doctrine of “blind chance or blank fortuity.”

Dr. Woodward recognizes a “persistent progress of life to a
higher plane, which we observe during the succession of geological
periods.” But this had its checks, as with arrested development of
the cerebral function the more animal functions, with favourable
environmental conditions, expended their energy in the production
of a “superfluity of dead matter.” As examples of this we may
point to the megatherium, the mammoth, the glyptodon, the
dinornis, storing up useless encumbrances of osseous mineral
matter. We see the same principle illustrated in the Orders
Ammonitidae and Belemnitidae among Invertebrates ; both ending off
bluntly at the close of the Mesozoic age, while the former shows a
repetition of this tendency to produce asuperfluity of dead (mineral)
matter. Here one minor evolution seems to have run its course
parallel with the straight, chambered shells of the Nwu/ilide through
later Palzeozoic time, to come to an abrupt regional termination
with the disappearance of the magnificent Ammonites of the Alpine
Trias, which may be seen in the Vienna Museum. In other regions
a similar process of evolution seems to have begun at the incoming
of the Jurassic series, to culminate in extinction at the end of the
Mesozoic period. Space does not permit further quotations from
Dr. Smith-Woodward’s remarkably illuminating paper, or his
enumeration of ‘ strange cases of the rapid disappearance of whole

* Address to Section C (Geology) by A. Smith-Woodward, LL.D.

F.R.S., Keeper of the Geological Department, British Museum (Nat. His.),
South Kensington.

236 REV. JAMES WHITE, M.A., ON

orders of animals, which had practically a world-wide distribution at
the time when the end came.”

It seems to me, that if we apply these considerations to the
present discussion, they add redoubled force to the ideas, which in
the convluding paragraphs of his paper the author has put forward,
as deductions from the principle enunciated by Malthus. ‘“ The
right to live,” as conditioned by conformity with the laws which
make for the well-being of the community, is seen to be even more
strongly enforced by nature, when we see the law of direvtivity
working for the removal from the stage of organic life on this planet
of whole orders of creatures, whi h seemed to block the way for the
advance of the whole organic complex. The idea is even older than
Malthus ; for it is recognized in the simple dictum of the Apostle:
“Tf any will not work, neither shall he eat.” It supplements the
“parental responsibility ” of Malthus by the responsibility of the
State; and we have the double sanction of Nature and Holy
Scripture for interference by the State with the liberty of the
individual (i) to organize forced labour for those able-bodied people
who will not work and have no other right to live ; and (ii) to prevent
the imbecile and feeble-minded from propagating their species. We
shall all agree that such remedial measures should be tempered with
mercy.

Mr. JOHN SCHWARTZ, Jnr., wrote :—

I wish to protest emphatically against the caricature of Charles
Darwin depicted in this discussion, representing him as a huckstering
bully who ruthlessly forced his baseless theories ; whereas it is common
knowledge that he was one of the gentlest and most modest of men,
who held back his theories during many years of hard work, until
he could fully support them by thousands of experiments and
observations.

The primary object of our Institute is defined “to investigate
fully and impartially and reconcile any apparent discrepancies
between Christianity and Science.” To-day’s discussion is a fair
illustration of the bias and antipathy to modern thought expressed
by several members who generally monopolize the time allowed for
discussion. Broadly speaking, the excellent papers read by non-
members have been much more in sympathy with the main object

DARWINISM AND MALTHOS. Qa,

of our Institute than those read by members, who have often shown
both narrow prejudice and an entire lack of appreciation of modern
views. Professor Hull’s statement that the theory of evolution was
not backed up by facts as numerous and striking as were those of
gravitation is quite true, but I would point out that the slowness of
evolution, the impossibility to reproduce the conditions of past ages,
the difficulty of experimenting, etc., precludes such satisfactory
evidence.

Gravitation, like all scientific theories, is merely a working
hypothesis to help us to co-ordinate numerous experiences, and
evolution has also been accepted as the only adequate working
hypothesis by practically all biologists, and this appears to me all
that our excellent lecturer suggested.

Dr. Irving stated that he knew members of the Royal Society who
did not accept evolution ; surely F.R.S. does not imply encyclopedic
knowledge, and beyond their special object of study, their opinion
is of no more than that of the average educated man.

The Rev. J. TUCKWELL writes :—

The title of this paper gives no correct conception of its purpose.
The relations of Darwin and Wallace to Malthus are only of
academic interest. A better title would be ‘ How to prevent the
increase of population.” No one will doubt that as things are at
present there are evils arising from over-population. But the evils
arise not from an excess in the numbers of the human race, but from
other and preventable causes. The Divine injunction to man at his
creation was “ Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” This has
not yet been done, and it may be that the ultimate purpose of God
concerning humanity cannot be disclosed until it has. If I under-
stand the Malthusian principle aright it would check the process and
delay the purpose. There are better ways of meeting the existing
evils, one of which is by making more room. ‘There is room in this
country for two or three times the population without our jostling
one another, but millions of acres of the land are in the hands of
half a dozen landlords and hundreds of thousands of acres are kept
for hares, rabbits and deer instead of being used by the people.
Moreover, there are vast tracts of the earth not yet inhabited by

238 REV. JAMES WHITE, M.A., ON

man. Yet the writer of the paper has not a word to say about all
this. He tells us on the other hand that ‘it is the duty of parents
to put those children they have brought into the world in such a
position by training, care of health, education, etc., that they may
have a reasonable prospect of being able to maintain themselves in
it.” This is very plausible and right enough if rightly judged.
But under this specious pretence there lurks too often selfishness,
love of pleasure and an unnatural determination to shirk the
responsibilities of paternity.

Among the well-to-do classes also parents too often require that
their daughters, at all events, shall begin life with an affluence which
they themselves have only attained after many years’ industry. This
is pernicious and demoralizing. There is nothing more ennobling
than the success which is the fruit of honest toil.

But one of the most reprehensible sentences in the paper is the
following: “the law of nature which Malthus seems to have dis-
covered is more serious than at first appears. It is this, that the
right to live is not inherent.” The author does not make it quite
clear whether he himself would apply this to mankind. If he does,
I do not wonder that he should add “ This is startling.” It certainly
is startling in any case to find that any Christian should utter or
repeat such a sentiment. The writer says that “when applied to
biology it has been the most fruitful truth that has ever entered into
that science.” Well, no doubt our Creator has given man authority
over nature. The right of plants and animals to live is subject to
the will of man. But the right of man to live is subject to the will
of God, and the Divine decree has never yet been abrogated, ‘“‘ Whoso
sheddeth man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed.” If the right
to live is not inherent in human life are we to have Mr. Bernard
Shaw’s lethal chamber set up for the destruction of the unfit? And
by what tribunal is the unfitness to be determined? The author
certainly has laid himself open to the suspicion that he strongly
leans towards an approval of this diabolical doctrine, for he goes on
to express his disapproval of “free education,” “free meals” and
“ oratuitous feeding,” and threatens the “ strongest radical govern-
ment” with the revenge of nature for thus seeking to “preserve the
unfit.” What would he have his ideal non-radical government do
with the weak and sickly and underfed childhood of the nation ?
Leave them to suffer and die under the plea of the “elimination of

DARWINISM AND MALTHUS. 239

the unfit”? The Victoria Institute is not the place for the
expression of the spirit of party politics, but this would be sheer
brutality against which the Christian spirit among us would
energetically protest. Insanity, feeble-mindedness and other causes
of unfitness are largely due to drunkenness, immorality and the
excessive stress of life. Suppress drunkenness, make immorality a
crime in both sexes, overthrow the tyranny of inordinate wealth, give
the people room to live, and bring in the ethics of the Gospel of
Christ into our national life, and you will soon get rid of the wicked
and nonsensical talk about the “survival of the fittest,” and the
“elimination of the unfit,” so far as mankind is concerned.

AvutTHOoR’S REpty.

While thanking those who have done this paper the honour of
criticizing it a few deprecatory observations may be made.

The reference to Newton is merely an obiter dictum. No comparison
is made between the two discoveries so unlike in many respects,
but it is pointed out that Darwin’s theories affected a greater variety
of subjects.

The paper assumes Darwinism only so far as it is generaliy
accepted. That Darwin and Wallace pointed out some most and
important and unnoticed factors in the production of types of life
is unquestionable : but these are not all the factors, nor do they
explain everything.

Dr. Alfred Russell Wallace, in his book entitled Darwinism,
shows that there are gaps which Darwinism cannot bridge over ;
and there are other factors at work which have yet to be discovered
and explained. For example, there are subtle influences of climate,
locality, and environment that affect both physical and mental
characteristics in ways of which at present no explanation can be
given. To take acase. In the last three centuries a new type has
arisen in the human race—the North American or Yankee type.
This differs considerably in feature, which are marked, and in bodily
and mental characteristics, from its English or European ancestors.
And where the type does so differ it conforms to or takes after the
aboriginal inhabitants of the soil, and that without the slightest
admixture of blood. Here then there have been at work influences
whose effects may be observed, but whose mode of action has not
been explained.

240 REV. J. WHITE, M.A., ON DARWINISM AND MALTHUS.

This interest in Malthus and the obligations to him of Darwin
and Wallace are more than academic. It is of tne nature of a
moral duty to do justice to a man who has been so ignored and
misrepresented. Of all the essays and papers that the centenary of
Darwin has drawn out the only one I have seen which refers to
Malthus is that of Professor E. B. Poulton, F.R.S., of Oxford;
and it is much to be regretted that in the Report of the Committee
of Convocation on the diminishing birth-rate, it is implied that he is
responsible for theories and practices which he abhorred and which
he denounced.

But further the teachings of Malthus are of the highest practical
importance. When they entered, into the science of biology they
produced greater fruits of thought than any or all other principles
or discoveries have done. How much more fruitful might they be
if applied to the subjects with which they are more directly
connected, such as political economy and sociology.

It is rather a strange suggestion that the title of the paper
should be “ How to prevent the increase of population.” Except
the reference to parental responsibility there is no mention or
allusion to any means of checking population either in the paper or
in the writings of Malthus himself. The question Malthus discusses
is not whether any given country or the world itself could sustain a
larger population, but this, that as population tends to increase in a
geometrical progression and the supply of food in an arithmetical
progression the former must overtake the latter, and a certain amount
of misery and degradation must result. Malthus appears to have
established the law that the right to live is not inherent, but is either
imparted or acquired. The general and popular opinion is that the
right to live is inherent, that is, if a man cannot or will not keep
himself he has a right to make other people keep him. This is a right
that could not be universally, or by a majority, or even by a large
minority, exercised simultaneously.

a
igi iy ‘ ite isy v
re a 5] AM

Dy, Degrees of Den- 95°9—| |—100° Cent. Temp
7 sity. Boiling Wa
y ce
\
r *
Mae
\ »
ty
4h i
y iy al —60°
a
e
ce
, —a0°
ie
Ww fa —40°
“| | goe
98°9—
—20°
9 —
—10°
_
i Maximum Density 100—| |—4°
J 98—| |—2°
“ i ka
ZERO,
Density of Freezing Water (Ice).
f iy

Lah
ae Wee ay

After the discussion on Mr. White’s paper, the following paper was
read by the Secretary in the regrettable absence of the author :—

THE ABNORMAL CONDITIONS OF WATER; AS
EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE. By Professor
Epwarp Hutt, LL.D., F.R.S. ( Vice-President).

W* are every day brought face to face with phenomena of

which we are unable to understand the origin and

cause, and can only reason on their effects. An instructive and

closely reasoned paper was read before the Society recently on
the origin of species,* but I fear it left us very much in the
same position as did Darwin’s celebrated essay, dealing with
the same subject; in this case, however, the difficulty was to
define what was meant by ‘a species,’ while Darwin, if I
recollect right, assumes the existence of species.

The phenomena of nature may be conveniently arranged
under two heads; those which are normal, and those which
are abnormal, or appear to be so. The former are accepted by
us without question, and we have theories to account for them
which appear satisfactory when tested by experience. Thus
when the apple falls from the tree to the ground, we say it is
merely the effect of the law of gravitation by which all movable
bodies fall in the direction of the centre of the earth; this is
supposed to have suggested to Newton the question which gave
rise to the discovery of the great universal law: that all bodies
attract each other in proportion to their mass, and inversely
as the square of the distance. This seems very simple to us
now that it has been demonstrated by the great mathema-

* By Rev. John Gerard on February 7th, 1910.

244. PROF. EDWARD HULL, ON THE ABNORMAL CONDITIONS

tician; but those who have dipped, however slightly, into the
Principia, will find that the demonstration was not a very simple
matter.

But it is the abnormal conditions of phenomena that more
especially attract attention, and call for explanation, and I
propose in the following paper to deal with two conditions of
water which appear to be quite abnormal. These effects are of
transcendent importance, and influence the harmonious working
of the physical agencies around us; and yet have scarcely been
recognized as being very different from what are regarded as
the ordinary or normal results which we are acquainted with
when we see that water flows down an inclined plane; or that
when boiling it gives off steam. There are, indeed, many remark-
able effects produced by water which I should like to have
dealt with did time permit, such as its presence in the quartz
of granite, and its solvent action on minerals when at high
temperature and pressure, whereby these substances have been
introduced into mineral veins. But I pass on to the subject more
immediately before us, namely, the abnormal conditions under
which waters occur ; and by “abnormal” I mean differing from
those which we should be led to expect by comparison with
other natural objects ; these conditions resolve themselves under
two heads :—

(1) The temperature of water at its maximum density of
39°2° Fahr. (4° Cent.), and

(2) Its incompressibility by which it probably differs
from all other substances.

The consequences of these abnormal conditions in the
economy of nature are inestimable, and we shall consider them
in the above order.

(1) Maximum Density.—When water is at a temperature of
212° F. under normal pressure it passes into steam and has a
minimum density. Cooling down from this point it contracts or
becomes denser as it grows cooler, until it reaches a tempera-
ture of 39°2° Fahr. (4° Cent.) where the contraction is arrested ;
and from this point down to 32° F. (that of freezing) it expands,
producing ice, which being lighter than water, floats on its
surface. Here it is, therefore, that the abnormal conditions
arise, for the condensation might have been supposed to have
continued throughout the intermediate seven degrees (from 392°
to 32° F.) resulting in the formation of ice heavier than water,
and consequently sinking down to the bottom of the basin or
reservoir. Such, however, we know not to be the case, as eleven

OF WATER; AS EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE. 245

volumes of ice melt into only two volumes of water* at 32° F.
The water has, therefore, expanded (or become less dense)
between these two definite points of temperature. This is a
very remarkable and important fact; and we shall best under-
stand its importance by considering what would have been the
physical results had what we may eall “the normal law of
contraction of volume ” been continuous down to 32° F.

(a) We may consider the results as regards rivers and lakes
and other large areas where the annual mean temperature of
the air is below 32° F., such as the lands north of the Arctic
Circle—latitude 66°33° N.—especially those at some elevation
above the border of the ocean. North of the Arctic Circle the
rainfall, instead of flowing off the land into the ocean as rivers,
would have been permanent ice-streams ; while the lakes would
have been converted into solid masses of ice; because the ice
once formed would have remained as such, accumulating on the
bed of the valley without opportunity of melting. As this
process must have been in operation throughout long ages of
time it is impossible to imagine what would have been the
condition of these regions had ice as it formed at the surface
subsided to the bottom.

(b) Now extending our purview to the adjoining oceanic
regions, 1s 1b not clear that the effects would have been similar
in “kind, though vastly greater in result? The ice as it froze on
the surface, being by hypothesis heavier than the underlying
water, would have subsided, and this process having proceeded
throughout long ayes of time must have inevitably ‘resulted in
converting what i is now oceanic water into solid ice. Can we
conceive anything more lamentable than a solid Arctic Ocean ?
Only where the influence of the Gulf Stream extends, warming
the surface waters, and mollifying the climate so that the
surface does not freeze throughout the year, would the present
conditions have been permanent.

(2) We now come to consider the second abnormal, or
exceptionable, condition under which water exists, namely,
INCOMPRESSIBILITY and its effects in the arrangement of the
Cosmos. Water is incompressible ;_ and perhaps it is the only
object in nature that is so. Various experiments have been
tried in order to compress this liquid without success, and just
because it is a liquid. On the other hand, solids are compres-
sible; the contrast being due to the difference in arrangement

* Daniel, Principles of Physics, 3rd edit. (1895).

246 PROF. EDWARD HULL, ON THE ABNORMAL CONDITIONS

of the molecules in each case. In solids the molecules are not
in contact, and consequentiy pressure only forces them closer
to each other, “ but in liquids, the molecules are within the
spheres of each other's action; and each molecule is free to
adjust its mean position under the influence of surrounding
molecules.” This, at least, is Alfred Daniel’s interpretation of
the phenomena. ‘

3ut whatever be the true explanation of the difference
between fluids and solids as regards incompressibility and the
veverse—the experiments shown in Bramah’s hydraulic press,
and by Francis Bacon seem to confirm both the above state-
ments. In the former case a ball of iron was filled with water
at 3°9° Cent. and closed. It was then subjected to great
pressure; but the water forced itself through the pores of the
iron, and appeared on the surface as vapour. In the latter
case, a Shell of lead was filled with water and compressed ; the
water oozed through the lead in drops and beads on the surface
of the shell, showing that the iron and lead are porous; while
the water resisted compression, up to the bursting point of the
shell and ball.

But however the question of incompressibility might be
investigated by the aid of experiments in the laboratory it is
surely set at rest by observations in the region of physical
phenomena itself. It may be impossible to imagine that water
like other substances in nature cannot yield to any conceivable
foree—but for all practical purposes, the fact remains that it is
incompressible; as it remains fluid at the lowest depths of the
ocean yet touched by the soundings. Depths of 2,000 fathoms
and upwards have been sounded in waters of the North Atlantic
at a temperature of 2° to 3° C. (87° to 39° Fahr.)} and living
forms have been brought up from the bottom. What the
pressure on the lowest strata of the water may be I cannot
venture to say; it must be some thousands of tons per square
foot, but it is insufficient to consolidate the water even at a
temperature approaching freezing point. Now just imagine for
a moment compressible water. What would be the state of the
ocean under such conditions even were the degree of com-
pressibility of the slightest ? Evidently, that after the weight

* Principles of Physics, p. 254, 3rd edit.

+ Principles, p. 220; we are ‘not told the amount of pressure, or the
thickness of the ball and shell, but we may assume they were both
sufficient to satisfy the experimentalists up to bursting point.

t Wyville Thomson, Depths of the Sea, p. 322, Plate VI.

OF WATER; AS EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE. 247

of a few hundred fathoms of water added to the degree of
condensation reached at a rather low temperature, the water
would become solid; that is to say, a mass of ice throughout
a depth of several thousand feet from the floor. Throughout
this zoue life would be absent ; the currents of the ocean would
be restricted to the surface, and the whole physical arrange-
ments now working harmoniously, would be impossible. All
this has been rendered impossible owing to the incompressibility
of water, in which it differs from all other bodies, and is there-
fore abnormal.

As a digression for a moment, I may observe that it is owing
to this condition or attribute of incompressibility that the
flanges of a propeller are so effective in forcing a ship of the
largest size at a high speed through the water. When we
examine one of the beautiful models of our ocean liners, we are
struck by the diminutive size of the propeller at the stern with
the huge mass which by its rotation and the slight angle at
which the flanges ure set to the axis, it is capable of forcing
the ship through the ocean at a high speed. We have to recoliect,
however, that the water when thus acted upon is practically
a solid. There is not time for it to give way, and being invom-
pressible it cannot yield to the lateral pressure exercised
by the flange, any more than if the waters were solid or
nearly so. We shall now return to our subject.

It is to be observed, moreover, that these two attributes of
the maximum density and incompressibility work harmoniously
together in the physical system of the globe. It is owing to
this that the ocean at its profoundest depths is never frozen,
though it approaches within a few degrees of the freezing point.
The currents of warm water, such as that of the Gulf Stream,
which is constantly pouring water at a high temperature into
hizh latitudes, are necessarily replaced by cold polar waters
moving slowly in both directions over the bottom of the ocean
towards the equatorial regions. If the waters were compressible,
or if the conditions regarding density were otherwise from
those above described, this circulation of the warm and cold
waters would be rendered difficult, if not impeded because the
fruzen polar waters would not be able to rise to the surface.

As regards lakes ; for similar reasons the waters even in deep
lakes are never frozen at the bottom; the ice as it forms at the
surface owing to the cold of the air, constantly ascends; thus
tending to keep the underlying waters in a state of fluidity.
The soundings over the Lake of Geneva show that the lowest
waters are at a temperature above freezing point. From a

248 PROF. EDWARD HULL, ON THE ABNORMAL CONDITIONS

depth of 240 feet down to nearly 1,000 there is an unvarying
temperature of 349° F. (6°6° C.) throughout the year. In the
Lake of Constance a temperature of 40°1° F. (45° C.) prevails
in the deeper parts, and in that of Neuchatel of 41° F. (5° C.)
prevails. The slight excesses in some cases are probably due
to the heat of the bottom rocky floor.

I hope I have succeeded in showing that the two conditions
under which water exists are apparently abnormal—yet I do
not wish to assert that they are on a plane outside the range of
the Creator’s general work, or plan, in Nature. To my mind
the whole mechanism of the world is the outcome of supreme
wisdom and mind tending to the harmonious working of the
whole, and the instances I have adduced are only parts of the
general plan. These are amongst the most evident as indicating
DEsIGN, and we are therefore more able to investigate their
mode of operation.

DISCUSSION.

At the conclusion of the paper the Rev. A. IrvinG, D.Sc., B.A.,
said: Professor Hull’s paper on ‘‘ Abnormal Properties of Water, as
Evidence of Design in Nature,” deals with a very interesting
subject, and one which Canon J. M. Wilson of Worcester, who in
his day was a Cambridge Senior Wrangler, handled in a masterly
way in a lecture given many years ago to the Literary and Philo-
sophical Society of Nottingham.

(1) The fact that water has its maximum density at 4° C. is one
which admits of quite simple demonstration, and I have frequently
given the demonstration (by a modification of Hope’s method) to
classes in years gone by. But not only does water expand on
cooling from 4° C. to 0° C., it also further expands in the act of
congelation, a fact with which most householders have unpleasant
familiarity in severe frosty weather. The force of this expansion is
enormous. Some thirty years ago we obtained actual demonstration
of this at Wellington College, when a bomb-shell, 9 inches in
diameter, with walls of solid cast-iron 14 inches thick, was burst
into three large fragments by simply exposing the sbell (after being
filled with water at 4° C. and closed with the gun-metal plug) to

OF WATER; AS EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE. 249

the severe frost of a January night. The importance of this in the
economy of nature is pointed out by Professor Hull; but I wonder
that, as a geologist, he did not lay some stress upon the important
work which it does in the degradation of mountains and of sea-
cliffs as well as in pulverising the soil during frost, with beneficial
results known to every agriculturist.

(2) But another deduction follows from this law, and from the
converse fact, that pressure acting hydrostatically upon ice causes
it to melt or liquefy. This was splendidly demonstrated years ago
by Helmholtz and others.* Now, as pressure upon ice tends to its
liquefaction, so pressure upon water at 0° C. prevents its congelation.
This is the true explanation of the fact that water can exist in the
liquid state at ocean-depths at very low temperature ; and we cannot
therefore follow Professor Hull, when (in the second part of bis
paper) he attributes this fact to the incompressibility of water.
Pure water is compressible to only about one twenty-thousandth of
its bulk ; but most water, as it occurs in nature, holds atmospheric
or other gases in solution (a fact which is easily demonstrated), and
is rather more compressible accordingly. Still, for practical purposes
water may be said to be incompressible, and the important results
of this have been dealt with by Professor Hull.

(3) In connection with this subject there is however one point
which has not been touched upon in the paper, although it must be
of philosophical interest to many members of the Victoria Institute.
We can follow Professor Hull in pointing to the abnormal behaviour
of water in expanding from 4° C. to 0° C., with all its important
consequences, as one of the strongest evidences of Creative Design
which Physical Science discloses to us, because it is wnque among
liquids. But we must not confound this fact with the other fact,
that in the act of congelation it undergoes further expansion, since
in this matter it is not unique. Bismuth and cast-iron undergo
similar expansion ; and in the case of the former, the fact is turned
to account in using an alloy of bismuth and lead for casting type-
metal, the expansion of one metal compensating for the contraction

* Liquefaction under pressure and regulation is a most important
factor in the flow-movement of glaciers. See my paper on “The
Mechanics of Glaciers,” in the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society
(February, 1883).

R 2

250 THE ABNORMAL CONDITIONS OF WATER, ETC.

of the other. Failing to draw this distinction so good a physician
as the late Professor Tyndall went out of his way to deal (in some
of his writings) feeble blows at the teleologist. It was an instance of
dealing blows into the air, vires in ventos effundere (Virg.)

Professor HuLti’s reply.—That water ‘‘ further expands in the act
of congelation,” as Dr. Irving points out, is of interest ; though I
question whether the experiment at Wellington College proves more
than that at zero of Cent. the expansion had reached its maximum ;
and water being incompressible ex necessitate burst the bomb.

As regards Dr. Irving’s ‘‘ wonder” that as a geologist I did not
enter upon the agency of water in eroding mountains, etc., my reply
is that these were outside the range of my subject. My object was
to point out the abnormal characteristics of water, and their evidence
of Design in Nature. Until I received Dr. Irving’s criticism I was
not aware that this subject had been treated by a Senior Wrangler
of Cambridge, or any other writers; the advantage of this is, that
both essays, that of Canon J. M. Wilson and my own, are
original.

d07TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.

MONDAY, APRIL 18rn, 1910.
Proressor E. Hutu, F.R.S. (VICE-PRESIDENT), IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the 505th Ordinary General Meeting were read and
confirmed.

The following lecture was then delivered by the author :—

PrEATOS THEORY OF “PUBLIC. EDUCATION: IN.
RELATION TO THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
OF HUMAN NATURE... By. the. Rev. Hs" J. ki.
Marston, M.A.

HE acknowledged greatness of Plato as a writer and a
thinker, and his perennial influence upon thought,
especially in connection with education, justify me in approach-
ing what is, perhaps, the most interesting and thorny of
problems, through the great Greek thinker. Moreover, there
are in his opinions, especially as expressed in the Republic and
the Laws, certain phases on which he insists, which have
visible affinities with opinions of leading educationalists in the
present day.

This is specially true of the emphasis which Plato lays upon
the State. For weal or for woe during the last generation and
a half in England, in France, in Germany and in America it
has passed into an axiom, or at least, an assumption, that the
State has to have the first and the last word in education.

This subject has divided mankind always, and there are
incidental advantages in passing from the beat and din of
current controversy to the culm and the cool of the academic
grove, and in trying to gather first principles from one whose
voice has long been mute, although his spirit still rules ours
from his immortal urn,

252 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON

I will trouble my audience, for the sake of clearness, and of
what will come after, by indicating how this subject arises in
the Politeia. That wonderful dialogue begins by describing a
eathering, friendly and domestic, of Athenians. They are
discussing the nature of justice. And Socrates, who is amongst
them, suggests that they should study justice on a large scale—
in large letters, to use a favourite Platonic image: that they
should not seek for it in the individual man, but as expressed
and embodied in the State. They agree. They then proceed
to discuss what the State is, how it originates, how it works
itself out. They arrive at the conclusion that the principal
thing in a State is the ruling class.

The question then naturally arises—How is this ruling class
to be educated? They then proceed to discuss the nature of
the education of the guardians. Thus there are three great
subjects which alternate and interweave themselves through-
out the whole of the Politeia. The first is the nature and
office of the State. The second is the essence and the issues
of justice. The third is the scope and the method of education.
Thus it is that education, though only the third of the subjects
engaging the mind of Plato, becomes a permanent and striking
matter in the course of his meditations.

In the next place let me review what is in general terms
the ground and scale of Platonic education. It begins with
morals. It then proceeds to music. Music, however, we must
understand not in the limited and technical sense, but mowsike,
that is to say, the whole art of the muses. It involves elocu-
tion and general culture, XéEcs, a mode of diction and demean-
our proper to the guardians. From music he passes on to
gymnastic, which is to have the same effect upon the body as
Movov.xn has upon the soul. Gymnastic is to be followed, so
it appears, by arithmetic; arithmetic does not mean that painful,
mechanical form of study from which I have a hereditary and
an instinctive aversion. (Laughter.) But it means the whole
of the great science of number and of measurement, for which
I have a profound but distant admiration.

Foilowing arithmetic comes dialectic, which covers a great
deal of what we should call moral and mental philosophy.
Finally, the close and climax of the Platonic graduation of
knowledge, of the scheme of education, is philosophy itself.
Philosophy meant to Plato the power acquired by the highest
intellects of contemplating pure truth, a power which, unhappily,
he has at last to confess, is only attainable by the rarest and
most gifted of the intellects of mankind.

PLATO'S THEORY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. BAD IS)

I shall have to criticize at some length and with some
asperity a great deal that is contained in Plato’s theory of
education. I must begin by saying that the whole scheme at
once attracts and arrests us by certain admirable and striking
features. (Hear, hear.) In the first place there is displayed
throughout the whole of the Politeia immense, I might almost
call it a preter-natural, ardour for knowledge. In the second
place it exhibits a highly admirable belief in the value and
importance of educating the faculties of both mind and body ;
and in the third place it exhibits a breadth of view and
speculative freedom and grandeur which it may be said is very
far remote indeed from, and apparently but slenderly under-
stood by many of the most clamorous, and by many of the
most obtrusive, advocates of education in the present day.
(Hear, hear.)

This is the scheme of education which one gathers from the
Politeia. I would not have you suppose that it is categorically
set forth as in the Code proceeding from Whitehall. It is
mainly apparent in these parts: in the third book, in part of
the fifth book, in part of the sixth book, and in the tenth book,
where it divides with justice the honour of bringing the
dialogue to a magnificent climax.

This system of education which Plato here unfolds rests
upon one single thought, the exclusive supremacy of the State
in education. Education by the State and for the State is the
distinguishing conception of Plato’s theory. Nothing may be
allowed to interfere with that conception. That is the root,
and it is the centre, and it is the close, of all Plato’s cogitations.

It therefore now becomes my duty to describe Plato’s ideal
state. I will begin by describing it succinctly. Plato’s ideal
state is an aristocracy. That aristocracy rests upon a divinely-
made distinction of classes. That distinction of classes is
rigorously defended by a division of labour. It is an axiom
with Plato—one man, one job. This is again and again
insisted upon. A cobbler must cobble shoes in wternum. A
shepherd must do nothing but tend sheep. A soldier must
always be soldiering, and a guardian must always, from morn
till might, and again from night till morn, be occupied in pro-
tecting the State.

This view of the State necessarily involves that the State
should govern education. Accordingly, the whole question of
education for Plato is ruled by one consideration. Is this, or
that, a good thing for the State or not? Does this, or that,
tend to make a good citizen, or a better citizen than something

254 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON

else 2? If so, it shall be pro tanto incorporated in the scheme of
education. If not, it shall be peremptorily ruled out. That
must be carefully remembered as we are discussing Plato’s
theory of education and what follows from it.

There is another important, a painful element which it is
impossible to pass over in describing Plato’s ideal State. It
became necessary for Plato in constructing his ideal State to
enquire, how shall this State be preserved? It can only be
preserved, said Plato, by the perfection of its guardians. What
is it which the guardians of a State are most likely to be
corrupted by? It is, said he, “by discord.” All states
ultimately come to ruin through discord. Our State, therefore,
at least in its guardian class, must be wholly immune from
discord. But what are the things which cause discord ?
“Private property, personal ownership, ‘Mine and thine.’”
These terms, therefore, must be banished from our guardians.
They must never know the sound or the meaning of “ Mine
and thine.” They must, in short, be absolutely communistic.
With remorseless logic, he carries this out into every detail of
life; he sweeps away family obligations. To this he sacrifices
the purity, and the naturalness, of woman. Under this head
he sanctions sins from which modern legislatures would recoil ;
this is the sole test of what things are fit and not fit to be
enjoyed and practised by the guardians of the State. It is
melancholy, that we have to contemplate in the man whom
Dr. Jowett has called “ the father of idealism” and the greatest
metaphysical writer of the world, such a lapse from the high
standard of morality which has been introduced by the
Gospel.

But two things are to be borne in mind. First, that Plato is
only here arguing upon ideal conditions; and secondly, that he
was not acquainted with the sacred morality of the Old
Testament, still less with the more lofty and sacred morality of
the New. Those things must be said in mitigation of any
sentence which we pronounce upon Plato’s doctrine of com-
munism.

But, those things being said, do not prevent me from saying
this, viz., that the Politeia of Plato furnishes the most
illustrious proof in the world, that the theory of a proprietary
state is lovically inseparable from a communistic view which
endangers private property, personal liberty, sexual purity, and
intellectual originality.

Such, then, is Plato’s State ; and I now pass to enquire, what
is the influence of such a State upon education, even from

PLATO'S THEORY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. 255

Plato’s point of view? I answer, that it has two distinctly
disadvantageous consequences.

First, although it would secure to the guardians a thorough
education, it would make that education restricted in a marked
degree. The guardians may know and practise only such things
as by knowing and practising would make them better citizens.

Now that is good from the point of view of Napoleon. It is
odious from the point of view of Dr. Arnold. On the other
hand, while this Platonic State would give to the guardians a
thorough, though restricted, education, it appears tu leave the
lower classes wholly uneducated, or it passes them over.

In illustration of this statement I read the following extract
from the Politeia, “ All you who live in the city are brothers,*
but God in fashioning you mingled ingredients of gold in the
composition of those who were capable of ruling the State.
On that account they are to be the most highly honoured.
Those who are capable of becoming auxiliaries to the guardians
He composed with silver; while husbandmen and the working
class in general He mingled with elements of iron and of
bronze.”

Popular education could never flourish, could perhaps scarcely
exist, under such a theory of Society as that.

Passing now from the effect of Platonic education upon the
upper class and the mass of the community, | turn to consider
wherein a Christian system of education differs from that
expounded by Plato.

In order to meet that consideration I must trouble the
Society to allow me to examine the Christian doctrine of
human nature. I find that the word guaus, or nature, occurs in
the Greek Testament at least fourteen times. It occurs in the
writings of St. James, St. Peter, and St. Paul.

St. James uses it twice ;¢ St. Peter uses it once;t St. Paul
uses it eleven times.§ St. Paul uses it in the earliest of his
Epistles—that to the Galatians ; and in the Ephesians, one of
his latest Epistles. It is distributed through the New Testa-
ment in Gentile and Jewish scripture. This word and the
notion which it expresses runs through the teaching of the
Apostolic Age.

St. Peter uses it in connection with God. St. James uses it

* Book iii. Feige g Fini, ty 4.
§ Galatians ii, 15 ; iv, 8. 1 Corinthians xi, 14. Romans i, 26; ii, 14;
xi, 21, 24. Ephesians ii, 3.

256 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON

in connection with man—(though it is unhappily mistranslated
as “ Mankind” in the third chapter of his Epistle). St. Paul
uses it to describe nature neither in connection with God nor
with man, but as it is in itself if you examine the uses by St.
Paul you will find them valuable and instructive.

The Apostle appears to regard g@uavs as a Monitor,* where he
speaks of the Gentiles doing by nature the things which are
contained in the law; as a Zeacher,f where he says that
nature teaches the propriety of a woman wearing long hair, as
a Witnesst against idolatry ; as a Registrar§ of decrees of God
distinguishing Jew from Gentile; as a Recorder of God’s
displeasure with our sinful condition.||

A new conception of human nature, and with it of human
education, gradually possessed the minds of the best
Christian teachers. It flowed inevitably from such a view of
nature, that nature seen in man should be regarded as
dignified and splendid,—a something whereby man comes into
living fellowship with God both as his Creator and_ his
Redeemer. When once human nature, albeit fallen, was
realized as something redeemable, if not redeemed, thenceforth
the contracted notion of State humanity, and consequently of
State Education, began to wane.

On comparing Plato’s view of human nature with that
prevailing in the New Testament, we perceive that the two
views have features in common. Both are cast in gloomy
colours. There are passages in Plato more trenchantly inter-
pretative than the severest indictment framed by St. Paul.f
The philosopher and the apostle are alike remote from the
sickening self-complacency of Rousseau and his imitators. There
are in Plato no rosy-tinted illusions about the inherent
goodness of human nature, as it actually is.

But the Christian doctrine of human nature is, when com-
pared with Plato’s, felt to be tenderer, more liberal, more
profound. To Plato, indeed, human nature** meant little more
than Greek human nature. The Apostolic writers treat of
man as man. “There is no difference.” “What God hath
cleansed that call not thou common.” Such is the language of
the New Testament about human nature.

This language flowed from the knowledge that man, however

* Romans. + 1 Corinthians. { Galatians.

§ Galatians and Romans. || Ephesians.

“| Politeia, Book vii, Jowett’s translation, p. 214; Book ix, Jowett’s
translation, p. 280.

** See Luthardt, Moral Truths of Christianity, pp. 238, 239.

lard

PLATO’S THEORY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. 257

deeply fallen in fact, was originally good,* was capable of
renewal, might become a partner in the Divine nature.

And from this doctrine was derived an ideal of education
fruitful and indestructible, because co-ceval with man’s best self.
This ideal displaced that elder one of State humanity and State
education.

Now it is upon this conception of human nature that
Christian education took its stand. Upon this conception it has
ever remained.

What seems to me to be in danger is a reverting from the
Christian view of education resting upon the Christian doctrine
of human nature te a lower view of education resting upon
Plato’s ideal of human nature.

I now come to discuss for a few moments a definition of
education,t and then to ask a question. I venture to define
education thus :—It is a process of developing the faculties both
of mind and body by a method of collective tuition adapted to
the individual scholar and subordinated to the highest end of
human nature.

I have no doubt that the sting of the definition lies in its
tail, as in the case of the scorpions of the Apocalypse. What
is the highest end of human nature? It is here that the
conflict between the two ideals takes its rise. “The highest
end of human nature,” said Plato, “is to be a guardian of the
state. The mass of mankind can never fulfil that end, for they
can never be guardians of the State.

Christianity replies, “The highest end of human nature is
to glorify God.” In order to glorify God a man must become
what God designed him to be. He cannot be twisted and
tortured into any relations whatever, which are going to
supersede his essential freedom. Two things follow from my
definition of education. First there must be in every well
ordered scheme of education resting upon Christian principles a
liberty to specialize. We cannot be dragooned into something
to please either the Conservative or Liberal Party. Education
must be free. Schools must have their sovereignty. We must
respect the individuality of the scholars. We must reverence
the highest that is in human nature. This raises the great
question, which I hope the Society will take up and discuss

* Compare Bishop Butler’s preface to the Sermons on Human Nature
and Tertullian, translated by Gwatkin, Selections from Early Christian
Writers, p. 113.

+ Moral Truths of Christianity, p. 234.

258 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON

with its usual animation—what is the function of the State in
education? I cannot stop to elaborate, but I will close with
two suggestions. The view of education fuunded upon human
nature as disclosed in the New Testament requires first, that
the State must be the delegate of the parent, and secondly, that
the State must consent to be the partner of the Church.
(Applause.)

Additional Note—The English word “natural” which is read
in 1 Cor. ii and xv, is an unfortunate and misleading trans-
lation. It represents the Greek word “ psuchikos ” =“ psychic,”
or “sensuous.” It is wholly different from the Greek word
“ phusikos,” translated “natural” in Romans, and 2 Peter.

No text has done more harm to English Christianity than
this—‘“ the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit
of God.” The words sound as if nature were essentially
irreligious. A careful study of the language of the New
Testament leads to a very different conclusion.

DISCUSSION.

The CHAIRMAN.—Ladies and gentlemen, you have listened to a
most eloquent and clear lecture on the part of the gifted speaker
the Rev. Mr. Marston, which I am sure has been a great pleasure
and gratification to us all to listen to. Iam happy to say that
there are in the room gentlemen capable of taking up this subject
and dealing with it as it deserves, and I now only have to say that
the question is open for discussion. Perhaps any lady or gentleman
—hbecause ladies are not excluded—who wishes to speak on this
subject would kindly send up their names in case the unhappy
Chairman does not recognize them at once.

The Rev. J. J. CoxuEAD.—Much as I appreciate—in fact no one
in the room can more fully appreciate—the interesting address to
which we have listened, I do not feel quite certain whether the
leading idea of the Republic has been altogether grasped and
elucidated by the speaker. The object, as I conceive it, of the
Republic is to find out what justice really is—a term which would
be expressed in the New Testament by the word “ Righteousness.”
In order to discover what justice really is Plato desires to see it
written as the speaker reminded us, in large letters, that is to say,
in the State. Asa matter of fact, the State does consist of various

PLATO’S THEORY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. 259

classes, and to each of these classes a certain education is by
common consent given, and ought to be given. And it is a grave
question whether in departing from that principle we have not, to
a certain extent, made a great mistake ; because in endeavouring to
give as much culture as possible to those whom we regard as the
lower classes, we aim at giving them precisely the same education
that we give to those of the upper classes; and as the result of
that system it is a grave question whether we do turn out the kind
of citizens and the kind of persons who are most useful to the
State and most happy in themselves. (Hear, hear.)

Now Plato, as | have said, in the desire to discover what justice
or righteousness is, wishes to see it illustrated on a large scale, and
in that large scale he seeks to include an education even as regards
the lower classes, because he would consider that they had their
education in doing their work well. Even in the class of cobblers,
of whom he speaks in rather contemptuous terms, he makes
distinctions. There are good cobblers and bad cobblers; and he
assumes that in their cobbling they will receive that education
which will render them happy in themselves, and useful to the
community to which they belong. Is he doing altogether wrong in
that? Is it better that we should have good cobblers who can
cobble well, than that we should have bad cobblers who understand
Plato? (Laughter.) I think we shall all agree that we would
rather have the good cobblers who did not understand Plato
(Hear, hear) and have never heard of him.

But I think that if we catch the spirit of the Republic as it
ought to be kept, Plato’s object is to show that there is in human
nature a certain division of faculty and a certain division of powers
each of which must be subordinated to the highest of all the
powers, namely, reason

The question is whether in the exercise of reason we ought to
have husband or wife or child, or whether there should be any of
those distinctions in the inner nature which will induce us to act
contrary to what we conceive to be the principles of pure reason.

Now the Ancients always believed that the father acting as
judge, acted righteously, and acted as he should act, when he would
bring himself, though no doubt after a great conflict with the other
part of his nature, to give the sentence which justice requures.
And if we look into the New Testament we find that there are

260 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON

indications of something of the same kind to be found even there ;
because there, there is neither Gentile nor Jew; there is neither
male nor female, but all are one ; and Supreme Reason, the highest
reason of our nature, should teach us to trample under foot even
the natural desires of man for the sake of the Kingdom of the Lord.

Colonel ALvEes.—Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I was not able to
be here at the beginning of the lecture, so I do not know if
Mr. Marston gave a definition of the word “ Education.” Well,
education is not book-learning. Book-learning may be necessary,
or at any rate, very useful for education, but I have heard of great
warriors and great statesmen and kings who ruled ably and wisely,
who could not read or write, and who made their mark. We have
an illustration of that in pricking the roll where the king or queen
takes a bodkin and puts a prick against the name of one or two
who have been read out, and who are those elected for sheriff. It
dates from the time when great kings and other people could not
read or write. But they were not uneducated men ; they could set
the battle in array, and they could make wise laws and show
themselves men. Book-learning is useful because it helps a man to
do without his fellows; but I have found myself that what I have
learned through contact with my fellows is of more use to me than
what I read from printed matter in books. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. Coxhead alluded to cobblers, and I remember a little boot-
maker more than a score of years ago who could hardly read or
write. He was a sharp, intelligent man. He could make a pair of
boots from start to finish, and he could make the last on which
those boots were made, but he could hardly read or write, and his
complaint against the men who worked under him was this: that
they took no interest except in doing some little bit of a pair of
boots. They had no pride in doing their work; all they wanted
was to receive their pay. I have no doubt they could read and
write. We know journeymen bootmakers and journeymen tailors
are great politicians. One of their number is paid by them to read
the newspaper for an hour, and they discuss politics over their
work; but Iam not aware that they are highly educated men or
great statesmen.

Now we have to go to the Bible. Do we not find in the book of
Daniel mention of the element of gold, silver, or copper 4

The CuArrMAN.-—It does not apply to those degrees.

PLATO’S THEORY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. 261

Colonel Atvres.—It applies to Governments and forms of
government, and the people carrying on the Government, showing
that there are differences of quality ; and in the New Testament
we read of a man having five talents, a man having two talents,
and a man having one talent. There are great differences, and
there is no doubt if you take your walks abroad into various
neighbourhoods, you will see in the heads of the men and the heads
of the children vast differences between class and class ; that some
have higher qualities, and are capable of being educated to a higher
pitch than others. And after all, education only means leading out,
developing the faculties that a man already has, and not trying to
make him into something that he cannot be. We are born, I am
told, each one with a certain number of brain cells, and that
number cannot be added to all the days of your life, though you
live to the age of Methuselah.

So I think we find that there are those differences of classes, and
as most men have to live competitively, those of the highest power
rise up either to be kings or noblemen, or gentlemen of a humbler
rank, or lower middle-class, each class a social stratum. Yet even
in one class there are vast differences, because an artisan is far
higher than the bricklayer’s labourer ; his intelligence is greater, he
is a better man. He has either developed his faculties or his
forefathers have developed their faculties ; and the result has been
that they have had better offspring, so we cannot put mankind on
an equality. The old Feudal System had this in it at any rate ;
men rose to knighthood from the very humblest ranks of life, but
if a man rose into the higher class he had to leave the lower class
behind him. If a man has to go from the iron to the bronze class,
he leaves the iron behind him; if he goes from the bronze to the
silver he leaves the bronze behind him, and so on. There is no
mixing up classes. I will not say that Feudalism was right, but it
had the elements of rightness in it, and it is because the upper
classes do not treat the lower classes with consideration that there
has been the assumption that the upper classes are not fit to be
rulers because they are not just, and that therefore the lower classes
will be fit to rule. But they will not be any more just than the
others, and we know the final result of bringing up the lowest class
into power will be that eventually they will receive Antichrist.
That is the teaching of the Bible, so we cannot put men on an

262 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON

equality. The object of all our education and book-learning is to
develop the best and highest faculties of a man for the work for
which he is best fitted, and nine-tenths of the population must work
chiefly with their hands.

Rey. J. J. CoxHEAD.—May I say a word more ?

The CHAIRMAN.—Certainly.

Rey. J. J. CoxHEAD.—I do not think Plato for one moment ever
contemplated as a fact the composition, the construction of any
State exactly on the lines of a Republic, and I think that
Mr. Marston clearly said that: that his idea is ideal and not
actually practical.

Dr. TRENCH.—A very interesting question arises in connection
with all we have heard. Ido not know whether it comes within
the compass of the subject matter of the lecture we have, with
great interest, listened to, to consider ina more practical aspect,
and from the Christian standpoint, what ought to be the aim of the
State as an instructor in education.

The CHAIRMAN.—Oh yes, sir, quite.

Dr. TRENCH.—We stand on a common ground here in believing
that the State should give education to the members of the com-
munity. What form should such education take? The Christian
Faith, we know, recognizes the variety of social position which as
a community we represent. All do not stand on one dead level:
the mental and physical endowments of each individual obviously
vary. Jt seems an outrage on the liberty of the subject that, in
the name of the brotherhood of man, communities of men should
ever attempt to interfere with the liberty of the individual.
(Hear, hear.)

As education needs to be provided for the general community at
the public expense, it seems fitting that the aim should be to give
knowledge of an essentially simple and useful kind—the ground-
work for the future development of each boy and girl.

It seems right that knowledge of the three R.’s should therefore
form the main substance of such an education. In addition, that
the girls should be practically instructed in simple laws of hygiene,
in cooking and in sewing; that provision should be made for
gymnastic open air exercise for boys and girls. Further, as
I think, special attention should be given to inculcating on all the
duty of patriotism, and the nobility of showing respect for

PLATO’S THEORY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. 263

authority, whether in the family or the State. Military drill for
every boy in the land would be an excellent means for imparting
the sense of discipline.

All tuition should be distinctly grounded on the broad basis of
the principles of the Christian Faith which, as a people, we hold in
common, for on this basis alone is it possible to build securely and
with well-founded hope. All experience teaches that, and the
wisdom of our wisest men tells us it is so.

With such groundwork for the development of the moral and
the mental faculties, it seems to me that the State would essentiaily
fulfil its duty as regards Primary Education.

We look further for provision for Secondary Education, as is
already embodied in legislation and practice, whereby a broad and
more liberal education is provided for the relatively few who in the
Primary Schools have shown marked ability or zeal in their studies,
together with opportunity for gaining scholarships or other rewards,
and provision for such is rightly borne at the public expense.
I think the State should make provision for the establishment of
Continuation Schools for instruction in the evenings, making it
obligatory that, at these schools, every boy, on leaving the Primary
Schools, should Jearn a trade, that thus mind and body, through
study of a handicraft, should be together exercised. (Hear, hear.)
Such special education would prove of immense benefit in more
directions than in the manifest economic one.

Mr. Oxr.—Mr. Chairman, we have had a very interesting summary
of Plato’s views on Education contained in those ten Books of the
Republic of Plato which are such masterpieces in their way. It is
very interesting to those who can read them in the original. I
struggled through them a great many years ago, I am sorry to say
now, and therefore I do not remember entirely what was contained
in them, but if my memory serves me, the Guardians were to be
hereditary, were they not? Ifa man was born a Guardian his son
was a Guardian ?

Rey. H. J. R. MArston.—Not if his son proved unworthy. If
his son proved unworthy he was to be degraded to the class of
cobblers over which Mr. Coxhead has made so merry.

Mr. Oke.—It did not follow that gold was mixed up with the
composition ?

Rey. H. J. R. MArston.—It was not hereditary gold.

264 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON

Mr. Oke.—It was not hereditary gold—that is all-important,
and I think that is a point to be brought out: that gold that is
contained in people is only discovered through giving a modicum of
Education to all. That is the position to-day ; our State ensures
that a certain amount of Education shall be given, as far as the Law
is carried out, to all; and by not placing the standard too low, by
not confining it simply to the three R’s, it is possible that you may
bring out talents in those who have been living almost in the gutter
and find them at the Universities years hence. I can name at
Oxford and Cambridge men whose origin was so humble that perhaps
through the fault of their education they despised their relatives.
It was only recently that I was in the other end, in the slummy part
of London, looking to see where one of our Senior Wranglers came
from ; and when we think of such capabilities only needing the chance
of development, what may not education do for us in the future 4

I do not think we need limit ourselves to the three R’s. Give the
people something for which they may strive (Hear, hear), and remember
that in the New Testament we are told that all are to strive to do
their best in their different spheres. If then by Scholarships, and if
by helps in various ways anyone is able to rise in the so-called social
scale, surely it is best for us. But education must be directed in such
away that to the highest intellectual attainments there is added
the element of religion. Only here the difficulty, as it seems
to me, is to ensure that a right definition of the Church is given.

If you speak of the partnership between the Church and the State
one would like to take it in that widest sense of a Church that is
almost above the Creeds, of a Church that is based on the Bible, and
if you do that, you may be sure that your education, although it may
be somewhat ambitious in the end, will be for the benefit of all those
who form part of the community.

Rev. J. TUCKWELL.—I should like at this stage, especially after
the very excellent remarks we have just heard, to adda word or two
if I may. I think we have had before us this evening two rather
different subjects. We have had the ideal, and we have been
discussing the practical. Now I suppose an ideal State would not
be Plato’s Republic. It would be more after the nature of the State
which has just been hinted at by the previous speaker, where every
man had a fair chance ; where there would be nothing to repress
individual attainment, where the gold would come to the surface, and

PLATO’S THEORY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. 265

a man would find his rank according to his worth and according to
his abilities. That would be an ideal state ; but it appears to me
that at present it is impossible for us to realize it. We may aim at
it, and I think we should aim at it most decidedly. It is far better
to have high ideals—even though we may fall somewhat short of
them—than to be otherwise. Then we have had also the idea of the
Church. Well, it is exceedingly difficult in these times to put into
universal practice and to adapt universally any man’s ideal of the
Church or idea of the Church. Probably my idea of the Church
would be different, indeed, from that of the gentleman who has
addressed us this afternoon. I do not know. Possibly so. But
there is where your difficulty comes in. When you are going to
associate the State with the Church, what are you going to regard
as the Church teaching which is to be given to these children who
are to come under the education of the Church ? That is where our
controversy lies at the present time. I suppose that the great
majority of sober-minded people would be fairly well satisfied at all
events with the Bible; but there are some who are not content with
that, and they would have a catechism of some kind. I should join
issue with them at once. I desire most decidedly that every child
in the State should have a religious education, but there comes the
difficulty to define what religious education is. If youare going to
associate any particular Creed that has been drawn up for any
particular section of the Christian Church, that is not broad enough
for the State to apply, it appears to me. So that you require to
define your idea of what the Church is.

Then again, Mr. Chairman, I think it should be remembered, too,
that the church of the New Testament is no mere external organ-
ization. (Hear, hear.) There are men who are Christian men, and
who are members of the redeemed Church of Christ, who do not
belong to any of our organized Churches. Consequently when you
are associating the Church with the State, you cannot associate
merely one particular organization. You want, therefore, a much
more spiritual conception of the Church. When you take the
New Testament conception of the Church, it is the redeemed, the
regenerated, the true followers of the Lord Jesus Christ—no others,
whatever their profession may be. The virgins in the parable were
all, to external appearances, virgins, but there were those who had no

oil in their lamps.
s 2

266 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON

Then when you take the New Testament idea of the Church, how
are you going to get the State to adopt that idea, and to act on that
idea? If youhad a Churchand a State that were conterminous and
coincident, then you might do it, but at the present time you have
not. You have a State which consists of a majority of people that
are not really in the Church of the New Testament at all.
Consequently there arises your difficulty. You have tutors, teachers
of various ranks in all our schools that are not in the Church of the
New Testament. They may be registered as Christians because they
are not Mohammedans or belonging to some other heathen body.
But they are not members of the Church of Christ of the New
Testament. They are not regenerated. The consequence is, you
cannot at the present time carry out your ideals either in the Church
or the State. What you have therefore to do is to aim at something
that is practical. The State must always be below the Church until
the millennium comes, or until the new heavens and the new earth,
wherein dwelleth righteousness. At present you cannot bring the
State up to the level of the Church. The consequence is the Church
has to a large extent—and I am speaking of the Church of the New
Testament, not any organic body—to pursue its course alone, and
sometimes in antagonism indeed to the State, or rather, the State is
in antagonism to the Church. Our educational system then, it seems
to me, must be brought down to a practical level, and what is that
practical level? Well, to endeavour to make men good citizens in
the ordinary and common and lower sense of the term, and leave
the Church to permeate the State, as the leaven did the
mass of the meal which the woman inserted into it in the
parable.

If therefore, we aim at making men good citizens, instructing
them in their childhood sufficiently for every child to have an
opportunity to rise and to exercise whatever special faculty he may
have, it seems to me that at the present time is the most that we can
aim at. The State! Why, the State is not yet in its legislation up
to the level of the Ten Commandments. If you look into our
Statute Book you will see that there are acts and deeds permitted
by our statutory law that would be condemned by the Decalogue ;
and if the Statute Book is not up to the level of the Ten
Commandments, how can you bring the legislation of the State up to
the level of the regenerated Christian Church? So that we are at

ee ee ae a ee

PLATO’S THEORY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. 267

present at all events obliged to be content with something less than
the millennium, and pray that the millennium may soon come.
(Applause.)

The SECRETARY.—This is a subject that is of the greatest
interest to us all, especially when we consider the extraordinary
confusion that now reigns on the subject of education. It is one
of the most difficult problems with which we have to deal in this
country. I have been in touch with education, both State and
voluntary, for some time, and that must be my excuse for adding
to the cloud of words in which our subject is getting so involved.
There are some who consider that we should bring national
education down to the lowest level, that is to say, to give the
minimum to everybody, and not try and get beyond that minimum
without which no manhood can thrive at all. Then there are
those who go far beyond, and wish to give to all that advanced
education which, at present, is only within the reach of the few.
Between these there are all sorts of other ideals, and we all pursue
our ideals in different ways. (Hear, hear.) We have elementary
education, which embraces every child in the whole country from
the highest to the lowest, for none can escape education. Then we
have those various schemes for supplying the defects in our
elementary education. Some are worked by the State, and some
are worked by voluntary organizations. We have secondary
schools and evening classes for those who have availed themselves
of the primary education, and, therefore, are fit to go on to some-
thing better. But there are things really more interesting than
that. There are growing up all sorts of organizations which the
State is now beginning to assist, attempting to give education to
those of the masses whose primary education has been a failure,
and who must now attempt to make up for its blunders. Well,
the fact that that should be necessary points to something very
wrong at the beginning (hear, hear) ; so that we have to re-consider
our whole primary education. And it is a very large question
indeed, for, I suppose, after some experience in having examined
the educational systems of Germany, Austria, and France, that our
elementary education is probably the best that is given anywhere
by the State, although our secondary education is probably the
worst organized. And yet, with our splendid system of elementary
education, there are all these gaps that require to be filled up;

268 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON

and you may say there is a large part of the work which requires
to be absolutely undone. The fact that there are these gaps, and
so much that requires to be undone, has a great deal to do with
the confusion that exists as to the position of the State as a moral
and a religious teacher.

There is undoubtedly this terrible confusion, and yet, as
Mr. Tuckwell has pointed out to us, the whole question is one
with which we are not fit to deal at the present time, because of
the position of the State, which is so far behind our religious
organizations and our religious and moral ideals. It takes an
immense time for the State to develop a moral sense. We have
got to work at the practical side of the problem. One thing that
must be insisted on with regard to elementary education is that it
is no good having it all worked out on one pattern. Whatever
else happens, we must have differences in different places. There
must be acknowledged differences of capacity, and differences of
circumstances and economic needs.

Rey. H. J. R. Marston.—Liberty to specialize.

The SECRETARY.—There must be, as Mr. Marston has just said
to me, liberty to specialize, and also there must be that equality of
opportunity which is demanded so loudly by people who do not all
really know what it means. (Hear, hear.) I believe that we are
giving an equality of opportunity, only those who get the opportu-
nities will not recognize them.

If you would go round the corner, into Adam Street, you would
find there the office of the ‘“ Workers’ Educational Association.”
That Association is represented now on most University Boards in this
country. There are more than a thousand trade unions belonging
to it. Itis a great and a national organization of working people
to educate themselves ; to do for themselves what the State has not
been able to do for them, and what, so far as I can see, the State
never will be able to do. It is an organization of those people to
teach themselves, not how to work—they can be taught that by
the State—but to educate themselves into being citizens. And
how the State can really do that is quite beyond my comprehension.
Unless the people are going to take that upon themselves, and the
State is going to help them without restricting, I do not see how
it can be done. If the State sets out in the beginning to make
citizens, it is only too likely to attempt to make them of one

PLATO'S THEORY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. 269

pattern. It will try to make them according to the pattern
approved and sealed by the Government of any particular time,
according to the ideals of the moment. But if the State will
content itself with encouraging people to educate themselves into
being citizens, and let them lay down the lines, that will be a very
great work, and that is what we are trying to do all over
the country by the co-operation of the Universities and repre-
sentatives of the people and the people’s organizations all over the
country. Those who are doing this, you may say, are the successes
of our present system of education. Some of them, of course, are, but
more are failures, and they are all making themselves into citizens
through a system of education which has little to do with technical
education or the three R’s. It is an education in the civic
humanities, and attempts to make the cobbler not only a cobbler,
but a man who can use his privileges as a citizen because he realizes
what the State is, and what it means to him. And that, after all,
is most important from the highest moral point of view. Every
one has, as an individual citizen, an equal power in these days ; but
that is no good in itself: on the contrary, it is more likely to be a
grave ill, unless the citizens know how to use their power, and it
is a part of the duty of that great Church which stands outside all
creeds to look to the question of the citizen’s duties, and to assist
in that part of education, just as much as in the teaching of
religion as religion. In fact, it seems to me to be almost more
important, although even more difficult to effect.

I mention the Workers’ Educational Society because it does seem
to me to point out in a degree how we are going to get at this
question. It is not going to be solved through the State or through
the Church. It is going to be solved through the people, but the
Church and the State will both be needed to work with them and
help them as far as possible, not lowering their own standard, nor
yet attempting to force on the people struggling upwards an iron
rule, but always holding the highest ideal before those who are
striving after the best that they know.

The CHAIRMAN.—I think we must now close this interesting
discussion by calling on Mr. Marston to reply as far as he sees it
necessary.

I will just reply to one point upon which Mr. Tuckwell has laid
emphasis—the difficulty of deciding about the religious education

270 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON

of the child. I hold very strongly that it is the parent who is
responsible for the education, religious, moral and social, of the
child. Therefore, in whatever position they may be, the parent,
the father or the mother, or both, have the right of demanding
that their children shall be instructed in the form of Christianity
which they themselves consider best for them. If a system could
be inaugurated by which that principle could be carried out
throughout our vast community, it would solve a problem which
is now dividing class against class, party against party, and I am
afraid is likely to do so for a long time to come; but I hold that
if we maintain this principle, that the parent is the proper guardian,
then he has the right to prescribe the form of Christianity, or even
the form of religion other than Christianity, for we cannot neglect
other religions, and the child ought to be brought up as far as it
is possible in that form which the parent prescribes.

I shall now ask Mr. Marston to reply.

Rey. H. J. R. Marston.—Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,
I thank all those who have taken part in this discussion, and
particularly each one for the marked clemency with which they
have dealt with my address.

I am happy to feel that as I designed, though I hardly ventured
to expect quite so practical an application, that my lecture has
stirred the feeling and the thought of the Society to discuss the
greater problem of education.

I should like to say one or two things in reply.

First of all, I venture to say to my friend Mr. Coxhead that I
do not think that he has proved that I failed to grasp the essential
principle of the Policia. I know, of course, that the object of that
book is to ascertain what justice is, and I said so. I think I also
said that education was the third of three of the principal topics,
and I still retain that opinion, pace Mr. Coxhead.

As to the nature of education, and Plato’s teaching upon it, I
ought to add this, that Plato does say that the son of one who has
the gold admixture may prove to be silver, or even iron. In that
case, he must be degraded to the silver or the iron. Conversely,
one whose parents are of the iron class may be born with gold or
silver admixture. He then must be raised to the silver, or the
gold class. So that although there is a very rigid division of
classes ideally considered, he does make room for the transposition

PLATO’S THEORY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. 271

of one to the other. In other words, he allows for the great
principle which Mr. Oke dwelt upon, that where there is talent,
talent must have the scope to assert itself, to realize itself, and to
rise as high as the talent will go. (Hear, hear.) In point of fact,
there is no country in the world where that has been longer or
more liberaliy recognized than in England. England, with all
thine educational faults, I love thee still! (Hear, hear.)

To go to another subject. In my closing sentence I said that
according to the Christian doctrine of human nature it is impossible
for any educator with eighteen centuries of Christian history and
Christian consciences behind him, to allow that anything is really
education which violates the highest qualities of human nature.
We cannot tear up our New Testament ; we cannot falsify centuries
of Christian practice to please anybody. What I said was that
however you interpret that thorny word “Church,” according to
my thesis the Church in some sense or other must have not only
a say, but the say, the first and the last say in the matter of educa-
tion. If the Secretary who made that interesting and inspiring
speech cannot tell us better than this, that the State is so behind
the times, and the Church is so divided that we cannot give an
adequately Christian Education in Christian England, all I can say
is, God help us, and God help those that come after. (Applause.)

A vote of thanks to the lecturer, proposed by Mr. BisHop and
seconded by Dr. HEywoop SmiItH, was carried by acclamation.

The CHAIRMAN having given notice of the alteration in the date
of the Annual General Meeting from May 2nd to May 9th, and
having announced that the President, Lord Halsbury, would take
the Chair, the proceedings terminated.

508TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.
MONDAY, MAY 23rp, 4.30 P.M.

THE VEN. ARCHDEACON BERESFORD Porter, M.A.,
IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed.
Announcement was made of the Election of the following Associates :

Mrs. Lucy Isabella Bartholomew.

Miss Florence Mary Edensor.

James Peddie Harper, Esq., M.D., L.R.C.8.E.
William Sylvester Walker, Esq.

The following paper was then read by the author :—

HEREDITY AND EUGENICS.

By Rev. Professor A. CaLDEcorT, D.Litt., D.D., University
of London, King’s College.

AVE Christian believers, and men of religion generally,
any special interest in the question of Heredity ? Are
we by our religious convictions inclined towards hoping to
find that there is no heredity in the life of man, that each
individual comes perfectly fresh into the world? or towards
hoping to find that heredity is deep-reaching and comprehensive,
and that by far the major part of our nature is not at all new,
but is passed on to us from the generations which precede ?
A very high doctrine of individuality attracts us by the thought
that evil results would perish with the doer, giving every child
afresh start, an open course; while a very high doctrine of
heredity would commend itself on the ground that it would mean
that all good results are gathered up and passed on in unending
service to humanity, so that each child would start from a
higher level than its parents enjoyed.
Old Thomas Fuller saw this: considering the genealogy of
the Kings of Judah, he notes that in four generations a bad

HEREDITY AND EUGENICS. 273

father begot a bad son, a bad father a good son, a good father
a good son, and a good father a bad son: and his reflection is
put in his own witty way: “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.” Delightful filial regard and
personal modesty guide the choice of the old divine. But
taking a general view it would seem that we shall be inclined
towards one or other of the alternatives, firstly, according to our
estimate of the balance of good and evil in the world:
pessimists will welcome the fresh start, the clean slate;
optimists will welcome the passing on of trained faculties, of
good habits, of high emotions. And, secondly, according to our
estimate of the significance and scope of individuality. If we
endorse Newman’s view that religion is “a relation between
God and my soul, my soul and God,” then we shall expect each
individual to be a new appearance, with its own nature and
responsibility ; but if we are more impressed with the thought of
our common humanity, the social organism, the brotherhood, the
kingdom of souls, we shall not have any objection to a widening
of the scope of heredity if such should be suggested by enquiry.

Of course few people are likely to occupy either of the
above extremes, either to deny heredity or to make it so
comprehensive as to crush out individuality. But I think that
we must all of us look round with keen interest when we hear
on every hand that the evidence is increasing, whether the
effect is to be what we shall welcome or shall regret. With
this preface let me endeavour to set before you some reflections
on the present position of thought upon the subject.

Heredity is defined by a leading biologist as ‘ Genetic
continuity between succeeding generations” (Thomson
Heredity, p. 68). Every one knows that there is some such
continuity in nature: the determination of the more or the less
of it is one of the most interesting of problems.

I. In the sphere of physical life: the plant world, the animal
world and human nature in their bodily organisms.

In this respect the most important conception of recent
modern science is that of the Germ-plasm and Germinal
continuity, raised into the definiteness of a working theory
by Weismann. Organisms are understood to be constituted

274 REV. PROF. A. CALDECOTT, D.LITT., D.D., ON

fundamentally by a central core, the germ-plasm, which keeps
on reproducing itself; by simple reproduction in some low
stages of life, by intermixture of two germ-elements in all the
higher ranges. And around this germ-structure is a soma or
envelope, with some variety of which each germ will surround
itself. The importance of this lies in that it points to the
mechanism for transmission of qualities. In cases of simple
reproduction, the new germ nearly repeats the former one,
and continuity is, so far, complete: in the case of dual
reproduction, the elements of both constituents come into
operation, the new germ reproduces them both, in so far as
they can combine. And the outer soma or envelope is deter-
mined according to the inner, deep-seated, germ.

The course of the life-history of any plant, for example, is all
settled from the beginning; there is some little room for
variation in response to environment and the way in which
different environments would call into play reactions on the part
of the plant. But these variations are small; the life of a
spaniel in all its principal features will run on according to a
formula; he may be somewhat larger than usual, a shade
different from his tribe in colour, and by training or circumstance
may become a trifle more clever than his parents; but these
points are comparatively superficial, and it is quite likely that
they will not reappear in his offspring. For the mass of
qualities which is transmitted the theory of germinal continuity
professes to point to the vehicle of transmission.

Obviously this conception of modern biology lends support to
heredity by indicating the nature of the physical process which
connects two generations. By penetrating into the recesses of
organisms it indicates the mechanism of heredity ; transmission
of all important qualities seems assured ; it is only superficial
modifications which rise and fall within the compass of the
individual. I do not understand that it is claimed that the
Germinal theory is proved at all points; but for us it is
important to note that it holds the field, and subject to emenda-
tions and qualifications it must be regarded by non-biologists as
what we are called upon to take into account as the order of
nature in this respect.

So far for continuity, the transmission of like natures from
one generation to another. But the world is very complex, and
presents a spectacle of an almost unlimited variety of forms of
living beings, both plant and animal, all arising in course of
thousands, possibly millions, of years, from a few simple forms.
To the study of the rise of variations and the continuance of

HEREDITY AND EUGENICS. pase

them when they have arisen, the zeal and intelligence of
biologists are being devoted all over the world to-day. It is
highly imprudent for outsiders to commit themselves to taking
sides in the controversies which have arisen. But I think we
are bound to allow that the weight of authority seems to lie with
those who seek for the mechanism of variation and of the
transmission of its results in the germinal region. If this is so,
then the transmission of the superficial qualities acquired by
the individual is rendered improbable. This question is by no
means settled: long debates are conducted with multitudinous
pro’s and con’s; but at any rate I think that we must not set
ourselves in opposition to the view that such characters are not
transmitted, but must face the possibility of all transmission
being effected by what takes place in the germinal region.
In that region the situation has been brought to a clear issue by
Weismann’s application of Natural Selection. According to
this use of it, the gains or losses of the individual’s outer life
perish with the individual: the arena of the struggle is the
germ-plasm. There the variations which occur are preserved
by elimination of those inferior in power to struggle, and the
perpetuation of those which gain the victory. This is a
selection in which the fortunes of an individual life count for
almost zero: the change is due to processes prolonged over
centuries, over millions of successions of individuals.

Allowing that this is the extreme theory, and that some scope
for influences upon the individual and for the individual’s own
originality must be incorporated with the theory, still the
broad impression upon the mind is that the individual withers in
importance, and that man is a spectator of processes operating
in recesses beyond his control. This was, I think, the attitude
towards which we were being driven by Weismannism. Man’s
intervention in the selecting processes of nature was possible
only ina small way; something he might do by assisting to
eliminate forms of life which he did not value, and fostering
a few that he cared for, as when the waving corn-field
replaces the Canadian forest ; some slight varying he might
direct, as in the garden, the greenhouse, and the stockyard.
But his efforts were watched jealously by Nature ; ever she was
ready to take advantage of the slightest pause in his industry ;
to resume possession of the wheatfield by rank grasses and
weeds, to draw his garden back again to wilderness, and his herds
to the rougher animals of the prairie, the moor, and the forest.

It is just when we have come to this point that a new door
has been opened into Nature, an unexpected instrument for the

276 REV. PROF. A. CALDECOTT, D.LITT., D.D., ON

guidance of her processes has been placed at man’s disposal. The
keen sagacity of a Cambridge biologist in a happy moment
discerned the far-reaching significance of the forgotten labours
of an Austrian abbot, and has lifted Mendelism to the front
rank of biological interest to-day.

This is not the place for attempting a sketch of the Mendelian
theory as I understand it. I can only say that what seem to
me to be its salient features are (i) the ascertaining that there
are in organisms, in plants especially, certain qualities so
defined and so regular as to be called “fixed” or “ unit-
characters,” occurring either singly or in combinations; and
(ii) the persistence of these by hereditary transmission, in spite
of apparent disappearances or obscurations.

The importance of this knowledge is that when man has
ascertained the presence of such fixed characters he can step in
and can eliminate or foster them according to his own desires
and purposes. His function as selector is enlarged by this
knowledge, for he can learn what characters natural process has
brought to fixity and can be depended upon to transmit from
generation to generation. And more, he can manipulate the
organic processes, so as to bring together combinations of such
unit-characters, over and above those which Nature herself had,
so far, produced. And these can be varieties not of a fleeting
and precarious kind, but of a relatively high degree of stability.
Man’s range of control is enlarged from such violent changes as
the suppression of darnel in favour of wheat, of substituting
wolves by sheep. The empirical methods of guiding Nature
hitherto used by breeders of stock and cultivators of plants are
now placed on a scientific basis because we have penetrated
more deeply into the way in which characters are formed and in
which heredity transmits them from one generation to another.
It is no wonder that Mr. Bateson and his followers speak in
terms of animated expectation :

“The breeder may proceed to build up synthetically,
character by character, the plant or animal which he requires.”
(Punnett, Mendelism, p. 58.)

“ Mendel’s clue has shown the way into a realm of nature
which for surprising novelty and adventure is hardly to be
excelled. It is no hyperbolical figure that I use when I speak
of Mendelian discovery leading us into a new world, the
very existence of which was unsuspected before.” (Bateson,
Inaugural Lecture, p. 4.)

So far, then, from biology we have laid before us an increased
range of influence for heredity. The human interest lies in the

HEREDITY AND EUGENICS. 275

deeper scientific knowledge being such as to show man more
clearly than he ever knew before where he can himself come in
to control its operation in favour of his own desires.

Passing from plant and animal to the sphere of human life,
for man’s bodily organism the claim is, of course, made that
it falls within nature, and that the teaching of biology applies
to it in every respect. We, too, owe the form of our bodily
frames to operations which work by heredity according to the
germ-plasm process, and according to Mendelian law. This is
so, a priori, for all the reasons which lead us to consider that the
human body is of the same order as other living organisms.
Of course this should be verified by inductive process, and there
are many workers in the field of human anatomy and human
physiology endeavouring to find evidence for these great laws.
As to the Mendelic theory, I understand that not much verification
has yet been secured ; it seems illustrated in the iris, in certain
diseases of the eye, and in some physical deformities ; and not
much farther, at present. But we must remember that there are
special difficulties in the way of studying the biology of man ;
the successive individuals are so far removed that a century
gives, normally, only three generations, which compared with
the rapid production of successive generations of plants, where
Mendelism has been most abundantly exemplitied, is almost
prohibitive of success: experiments are out of the question ;
and material adapted for observation is difficult to secure; but
the study is only just commenced, and we shall learn more.

At the same time I think we must here put in a caveat
against the complete identification of the biology of man with
that of animals and plants. Man’s body is the seat of a mind,
and some of the changes which it undergoes are due in the
first instance to changes which take place in the mental sphere.
For example, while cancer is often caused by purely physical
irritations, a specialist assures us that “ by far the most common
cause” is mental ; “ depression, emotion, trouble, worry, anxiety,”
are the chief factors in cases which amount to the great
majority. (Dr. Snow of the Brompton Cancer Hospital, Lecture
at Birmingham, October 18th, 1908.) ‘The general influence
ef mind upon body is too far-reaching to be ignored.

But in the main we may acquiesce in the assignment of the
human body to the sphere of biological law, and for our present
study, to the influence of heredity as above indicated. From the
religious point of view I see no ground for our shrinking from
this. As soon as we have recognized that man’s physical frame
is not a special creation but a marvellous instance of the laws

278 REV. PROF. A. CALDECOTT, D.LITT., D.D., ON

of organic life, we have no interest in desiring its withdrawal
from any particular biological processes ; the laws of inheritance
which are good for organic nature generally may be held to be
beneficent at its summit.

Il. Mind.

A quite different field of enquiry opens out when we ask,
Does Heredity apply in the realm of Mind ?

The leaders in scientific enquiry are apt too readily to “jump
this claim,’—as the prospectors in mining districts say—and at
once to extend to mental nature what they have established in
the sphere of physical organisms.

But the standpoints as to the relation of mind and body are
at least these four :

i. We may be Materialists: holding that the body is the
reality, the mind a dependent and derived accompani-
ment.

ii. We may be Parallelists: holding that mind and body
are equal as to reality, but run precisely parallel
courses, never by any possibility interacting.

iii We may be Interactionists: holding that although
equal and different they are capable of mutual influence
or of so interworking as to form a single series of
processes.

iv. We may be Spiritualists: holding that there is a range
of mental life only indirectly connected with bodily
changes, running its own course according to its own
constitution and laws, but doing so within limits
arising from the physical organism.

These are fundamentally different philosophical views: they

have stood in opposition whenever men have endeavoured to

think upon the problem of mind and body, and they stand in
opposition to-day.

In reference to Heredity the Materialist makes no question
that the same laws prevail for mind as for body. He holds.

this a priori, from his view of the dependence of mind upon,

matter, and he proceeds to look for verification by observations.
as to inheritance with the same interest here as in the biological
sphere. The Parallelist and the Interactionist can also under-
take with zest investigations as to the facts of inheritance in
mind equally with matter, and will expect to find that they
prevail in both.

HEREDITY AND EUGENICS. 279

The Spiritualists will divide into two camps: (a) those who
hold that the lower ranges of mental life are strictly and closely
connected with bodily life will expect to find Heredity obtain
for them, reserving only a region of higher mental life into
which transference from the lower is inadmissible, and in which
the problem of Heredity must be examined quite de novo; and
(6) those who hold that all mind is essentially spiritual, the
lower ranges being dependent upon the higher, and who there-
fore can tind no ground for transferring to mental life any laws
discovered to be true for the processes of physical life ; for these
the whole enquiry is a new one, quite independent of any other.

It is open to all therefore to enter upon an inductive enquiry
as to the appearance of likenesses between successive generations,
and to all but the thorough-going Spiritualist to regard the
likenesses as due to transmission, 2.¢., to heredity.

That children resemble their pareuts in mental character is,
of course, matter of common observation, that they also differ
from them is also beyond controversy: but which is the
dominant thing, the resemblance or the difference ?

The evidence for the dominance of resemblance and the
probability of its being due to heredity is what strikes
attention most forcibly. Men are born in races in their mental
as in their physical nature: every member of a race has a fairly
definite ageregate of qualities which are repeated from father
to son: the wide contrast between Mongol aud Aryan; the
further grouping of characters as European or Hindu;
furtiier still as Frenchman or Swede, and so on. Whether or
not we may suppose anything in mind on a par with the
germ-plasm of physical organisms, to which we could attribute
the processes of transmission iu a similar way, psycholovists
have not yet investiyated: at present they are dominated by
the belief that the transmission is effected on the side of the
physical organism and that mental life follows upon that.
Further, that qualites of character become fixed, and fixed
in combinations, after the Mendelian manner is plain, but
whether or not they follow Mendehan principles in trans-
mission no one has yet had time to work out.

but whether the liws of mental heredity are either identical
with those of physical heredity, or similar to them, or not, the
strong meutal resemblance between parent and offspring, and
the formation of race characters, national characters, even
occupation-characters, is so wide ranying that ethnology seems
to give Heredity the principal function in the formation of
meutal character.

280 REV. PROF. A. CALDECOTT, D.LITT., D.D., ON

On the other hand when we consider human nature we see
that there is a larger scope for individuality than in the rest of
nature. There is the important fact of long life and slow
progress to maturity, during which each individual is the subject
of experiences so complex as to be, strictly speaking, unique.
True, the oak has a still longer period of youth, but its
“experiences,” so to speak, are not varied, and its range of
variation is very limited indeed. And the elephant has as long
a youth as man, with more range of variety in its experiences
than a tree has, and in so far as this is the case we see the
result in the differences of individual character.

But the principal difference lies in the extent and scope of
consciousness ; and the higher we look the smaller appear the
resemblances between successive generations and the more pro-
minently do the differences stand out. The variation of mental
character between individual dogs is greater than that between
individual sheep, and that between wild sheep which live by their
wits greater than the difference between sheep living in a flock
with all food and shelter provided and the minimum of demand
made upon individual intelligence. And in the human race the
differences between individual Negroes of the lower grades on
the damp coast is much less than between those living in the
exercise of more varied intelligence in the hinterland of the
Sudan. In India the low-caste occupations and dead level of
life exhibit almost identical individuals, as compared with the
differences possible to the people of high education and more
varied externals of life. But it needs no elaboration to support
the statement that the higher the call upon mental faculty the
greater the scope for individuality and the appearance of
differences and variations as compared with the resemblances
and identities of Heredity.

Hence it is that so little has been discovered for Heredity by
investigations such as Sir Francis Galton’s as to Hereditary
Genius. Sir Francis might have known that he was searching in
precisely the most unlikely part of the field, unless we take it
that his courage is so hizh that he prefers to lead a forlorn hope
and attack the problem just where it offers the smallest pros-
pect of successful result.

Need we who are concerned especially with the highest
experiences in the life of man, his religion, be averse to supposing
that the biological processes of inheritance are in operation
over the lower ranges of mind-life? or if not identical processes,
some others yet to be discovered but quite similar to them ?
As I said above, I do not find that Biologists or Psychologists

HEREDITY AND EUGENICS. 281

have yet given attention to this problem, but seem ready to
carry the laws discovered for physical life right over into the
sphere of mind. Mr. Bateson, the biologist, unquestioningly
places not only lower consciousness but intelligence and morals
side by side with physical characteristics in relation to trans-
mission (Genetics, p. 34); Dr. McDougall, the psychologist,
assumes heredity for mental qualities “in much the same sense
and degree as for physical” (Sociological Papers, III); and Sir
Francis Galton formulates as a leading article in the programme
of Eugenics “the fact that the laws of heredity apply to man
equally with the lower animals and plants, and that the mental
functions are subject to the same laws of heredity as the
physical ones ” (Programme of the Hugenics Education Society).
My own opinion is that in the lower ranges of mind the
contention for Heredity is plausible, and that it is gaining in
credibility apart from the suggestions of biology. There do
appear to be root-instincts, elementary tendencies to action,
primary feelings, which are fundamental as the germ-plasm is
fundamental, and their reappearance in successive generations
suggests the operation of transmission, and further, that there
are some relatively superficial masses of mental “stuff,” so to
speak, carried onward by these deeper elements. And it is also
certain that these tend to form fixed assemblages of qualities
after the manner of Mendelic fixed characters; so that the
process by which generation is linked to generation may be
that of inheritance of root-characters, and variations may be
perpetuated by selection for utility as natural selection indi-
cates, and by fixity as the Mendelic law describes. But the
field requires long and extended work if inductive verification
is to be added to these general conjectures, and the peculiar
feature involved in the intervention of higher ranges of
consciousness must be kept constantly in view, and be expected
to result in limits to heredity being drawn, which will cause
the mental sphere as a whole to present a very considerably
different view to that given by the sphere dealt with by biology.
For those who see nothing in mind but a stream of feelings,
activities, and operations of intelligence the problem ends here.
For these all is nature, and Heredity prevails wherever either
life or mind is found, as we have seen. But the very crux of
the problem stands yet unsolved for the Spiritualist, whether as
philosopher or as religious believer. These are concerned to
keep in view the conception of mind as in its essence
spiritual, and therefore not within the nature-process. For the
principal tenet of both philosophy and religion is that the
T 2

282 REV. PROF. A. CALDECOTT, D.LITT., D.D., ON

primary character of mind is its selfhood: that it is unitary,
and that it is centrally originative in thought, in action, aud in
feeling, controlling the lower ranges in so far as these are in any
way to be regarded as arising apart from the centre. In short,
Philosophy and Religion both stand upon a belief in Personality.

Here I need not do more than say that whilst here and there
a trained philosopher may be found to recard mental life
entirely as a process, or processes, of the naturalistic kind, the
main line of philosophical tradition adopts the conception of
Personality in something like the above sense. And it is plain
that for religion a doctrine of Personality is indispensable if
religion is to take high ground, to look out into a world beyond
the world, to see eternal things in things of time, to cherish ideals
of goodness, and to lift man into life with God.

As to Heredity in personality, Philosophy can simply point
to what she finds : explanation from deeper depths is impossible,
for deeper depths there are not. At this centre of mental life
every individual personality presents the appearance of being
a new and fresh seif: this is so for the individual, and it is sv
for the contemplator. We can find no way of conceiving how
one personality can be related to another which may succeed it
in time beyond the bare fact of succession. If there is
Heredity we have no means of seeing how it could be effected :
nothing corresponding to the germ-plasm and its reproductive
processes is shown to us in the region of personality at its
centre. Indeed, we may say that there is here no question of
resemblances carried forward, for the fundamental character of
every personality is the same. Each individual appears to
emerge into being fresh from the Eternal Consciousness, says
Philosophy ; fresh from the Divine Spirit, says Religion.

What we have to note is the embodiment of personalities in
physical frames, as the universal rule for man: and these |
frames, as we have seen, succeed one another by the connection
we call heredity: an analogy would be the equipment of a
number of musicians with instruments partly of different partly
of identical nature, so that their musical careers would be
affected by the nature and quality of the instruments severally
allotted to them: on this influence of heredity upon our
complex nature all are agreed. But some of us would carry
on the conception of the instrument of personality to include
lower ranges of mental life making these dependent to some
extent upon the bodily equipment into which the soul is born ;
others regard these lower mental provesses as themselves
affected by the way in which the higher consciousness operates

HEREDITY AND EUGENICS. 283

as it comes within the limitations imposed by the physical
framework. The former will hold that every personality enters
into connection with a preformed mass of mental dispositions,
instinets, and tendencies besides the settled peculiarities of his
bodily frame: a tendency to strong or to weak emotionality, for
example, a disposition for intellectual activity or an aversion
from it, an inclination to egotism or towards benevolence, and so
forth ; and that these may be brought under heredity and its
laws. The other view claims that every soul of man starts
fresh, and can enter upon a self-chosen and _ self-directed course
of life. One view would say that given the parentage and
ancestry, the stock in short, there is but small room for
individual personality to work out freely in, and expects to find
resemblance entirely dominating the characters of children of
the same stock. The other view consider that the similarities
we find are rather the result of similar environment, education
and opportunity, and is not surprised when novelty appears,
when individuals of high power stand forth and defy the
expectations which heredity raises. From this view it would
be said that grapes might be gathered from thistles in the field
of human character, only that the saying is inept, for the
reference to the realm of physical nature is quite out of place
as the ground of a comparison. And in support of it the
insurgence of individuals from the lines of development fore-
shadowed by looking at their stock or their environment
demonstrates the possibility of self-originality, self-directing
euidance of life ; and when the possibility is shown the situation
is revolutionized ; the course of heredity fails in these cases, and
suspicion 1s thrown upon it all over the field.

It I am to state my own view, | should put it briefly in this
way. It is impossible to account for consciousness as we know
it by reference only to the consciousness we know. Con-
sciousness is not self-explanatory as it appears in finite
experience; we nust perforce look beyond experience, and the
inference | stand by is to a super-finite consciousness from
which we come, which may be said to express itself in us. And
this finite consciousness is of the same nature in us all, but it
enters into our physical frame, settled largely by inheritance, and
is at once limited according to the peculiarities of that frame in
various ways. And I think that observation establishes a large
concomitance of mental dispositions. But there is also so
much inherent power of self-direction that the course of the
individual life may be either one of subjection to that frame or
of domination over it, in many degrees. And I regard education

284 REV. PROF. A. CALDECOTT, D.LITT., D.D., ON

as making an appeal to that inner self to come forth and take
command. Further, that the inner self is endowed with a
capacity of being conscious of the super-conscious spirit from
which it has its being; the finite becomes aware of the Eternal,
the imperfect of the Perfect; we can place the actual self in
the attitude of obedience, the emotional self in the attitude of
love and adoration. That this is the experience of reliyion is
claimed by all the higher forms of it; clearly, richly, and
pervadingly, in the experience of the saints; dimly and fitfully
in the experience of ordinary religious men and women ;
potentially in every personality.

Hence it is my contention that Heredity does not hold for
Spirit. I see no reason for thinking that soul succeeds soul in
the way of generation. Certainly I find no glimpse of a way in
which I can conceive it operating on the lines of physical
heredity, nor do I think that it can be conceived as resembling
the process of psychological heredity dependent as this is, as
appears at present at least, entirely on the continuity of the
physical basis of life; and I agree with Professor Henry Jones
that “the way of virtue, so far as internal conditions are
concerned, is as open to the child of the wicked as it is to the
child of the virtuous.” This is a hard saying to the man of
science, whether physiologist or psychologist, but I hold that
the philosophy of experience, fully worked out, endorses it;
and the religious man is compelled to say, Amen.

I decline therefore to endorse Euripides when he says :

“The offspring of good men themselves are good ;
Those of the base are like their fathers, base.”

ILI. Hugenics.

I have left myself small space for the highly important
practical issue which has arisen largely as a consequence o! recent
study of Heredity. The victories of Science in penetrating to
the recesses—or towards the recesses at least—of the physical
organism have inspired not a few acute and eager minds with a
sense of exultation in the increase of man’s power to direct the
course of the successive generations of plants, animals, and
men. By use of conscious selection, based on the knowledge
recently gained, successive generations are to be improved: the
human race is to be directed towards being better as a whole,
and to be composed of better individuals. And so we have the
newly named science or art of Hugenics, and Society is invited to
embark upon a definite course of producing better men. If it

HEREDITY AND EUGENICS. 285

be true, as Professor Dendy, for example, claims, that “ we can
produce at will new combinations of selected characters, new
forms of life which might never have appeared in a state of
nature at all” (Journal “of Society of Arts, May 14, 1909), it is
plainly time that we set ourselves in earnest on so noble an
enterprise. Professor Dendy was dealing only with physical
organisms, but, as we have seen, other workers have stepped
over into the mental sphere and are for pushing forward there
also, although at present their endeavours are mainly confined to
influencing the future by the improvement of the physical
stock.

I am not able here to enter upon an examination of the very
serious Claim that Society should undertake the conscious and
purposive guidance of its own future course. I can only
indicate the very grave character of the conflict of ideas and
of sentiments to which it gives rise: a conflict so momentous
that the future is bound to be very largely affected by the
clashing oppositions which must arise between its advocates
and its opponents. For example, we may all have fairly the
same ideas as to what constitutes a “ better” physical frame,
but can we say the same of the mental and moral character ?
There are some who advocate the fostering of modesty,
humility, and benevolence in character: but from the followers
of Nietzsche we have protests that self-assertion, and the full
employment of the energy of the strong in furthering their
own development are higher ideals: which side is Society to
take? Again, there are some who are convinced that anything
approaching other-worldliness is superstitious and pernicious,
while others find in it the very salt of the life of the soul. Is
Society to suppress either one of these in favour of the other ?
And are all the varieties of type of character to be reduced to
uniformity ? or is Society in possession of scales of values in
morals, in art, in emotional life, which are infallibly accurate in
some absolute way, and therefore to be applied without ruth in
the selective processes which are to be enforced? At present
Society in its most advanced modern forms leaves wide scope
for divergent ideals. If Eugenists confine themselves to
positive measures for advanciny such ideals of character as they
adopt, there is room for their action. It is the negative
methods which give rise to most serious concern.

For the methods of Negative Eugenics cannot be stated
without raising the problem of personality: and when Eugenics
is put forth solely on the basis of the heredity which is estab-
lished from nature, it cannot expect to be welcomed on the part

286 REV. PROF. A. CALDECOTT, D.LIYT., D.D., ON

of those who have such quite different views of individuality
and personality as those I have endeavoured to indict.

In the naturalist view, the imperfection or defect in a man
may be so radical that his right to live fades away ; certainly
the right to enter into domestic life and share the high
privilege of a family and a home of his own must be denied
him: the individual of to-day must be made to bow before the
claims of posterity and of society. Now the believer in a high
doctrine of personality is obliged to recognize that there is a
wide range of defect and of corruption in human nature, and he
has to allow that Society is right in taking away liberty
from the imbecile, the insane, and the criminal, possibly for the
whole course of their earthly life. But respect for personality
underlies the caution with which such restrictions are now
imposed, and it is one of the most prominent marks of the
advance of civilization that their application should be more
and more cautiously and reluctantly made, and that always
there should be anxious endeavour to remove the defect and to
reform the criminal so as to allow the restrictions to be removed
as soon as possible. But the lower regard for individuality
obviously tends to work in the opposite direction. To the forms
of insanity and crime disease is to be added as a reason for
segregation and enforcement of the celibate life: and the range
of insanity and of crime which are to be the grounds for
interference is to be indefinitely widened. It would be
different if the course taken were the making appeal to good
sense and public spirit and the virtue of self-sacrifice, as personal
motives in the individual for voluntarily renouncing family
affections ; but this appeal cannot be directed with much
prospect of success in the very cases before us, the imbecile, the
diseased, the insane, and the criminal. For the convinced
believer in the dominance of Heredity in human nature both
physical, mental, and moral, there is therefore no remedy but a
wide extension of forcible restriction imposed upon individuals
by society.

It is therefore an extremely practical issue which is raised by
the differences of conviction as to the extent to which Heredity
affects human character. The improvement of society which
all hope to see and all would endeavour to promote is under-
taken on quite different methods according to the Naturalistic
or the Personalistic view of human nature.

The Personalist, as I have said, holds that every child of man
comes into being with a central freshness and potentiality over
and above the inheritance which attaches to the physical trame

HEREDITY AND EUGENICS. 287

and, possibly, to the mental dispositions: the Naturalists urge
that by far the principal part of the whole nature is inherited.
The Personalist holds that the offspring of parents themselves
deficient or diseased or even immoral have an original and
central core in their mental nature which may enabie them to
shake themselves loose from such defects as are transmitted to
them and to develop eminent ability, healthy feeling, and high
moral character. The Naturalist says that the stock is all-
important, the limits of influence of training and environment
very narrow: the Personalist says that the inherited stock is
of much less account than is claimed because from the point of
view of mental and moral character it is superficial, that it is the
power of education, training, and opportunity for the inner soul
that is the important source of assistance to the formation
of high and happy character. The Naturalist, finding that
variations due to the individual perish with him, ceases to
regard lim as the principal end and object of social action; the
Personalist declines to relinquish the hard-won conception of
the infinite value of the soul, and holds that Society itself
depends upon the inherent sacredness of its individual members
being never subordinated to the supposed welfare of the
whole.

If we review the course of civilization we find that its
advance has been along the lines of an ever-growing respect
for Personality, an ever-increasing confidence in its inherent
powers, and a constant enlarging of its privileges and rehts.
Social evolution, or civilization, is not produced after the
manner of biological processes but by the conscious inter-
position of ideas and ideals, of which personality is the seat.
In so far therefore as Eugenics is advocated on grounds which
ignore personality, or at least reduce the ranve of its powers
and its rights, we have evidently before us an endeavour to
stem the tide of civilization as we know it, and to reverse the
course which it has taken by a resort to social action which
places a slight estimate on individuality, a resort which is in
many respects a recurrence to the methods of society in times we
thought we had passed through, in Europe at least. The senti-
ment of individuality so slowly formed is being challenged once
more; the claims of the race are being reasserted as supreme,
and the guidance of human life in its tenderest and most
intimate relationships is being removed from the range of
Personal to that of Collective wisdom and responsibility. So
ereat a revolution in moral and social policy must divide men
into opposing camps, and | can see sigus of an approaching

288 REV. PROF, A. CALDECOTT, D.LITT., D.D., ON

conflict which will dwarf into triviality many of the conten
tions which at present cause our differences and oppositions.

The believer in the higher religion is plainly committed to a
high doctrine of personality. For him religious education and
training constitutes a potent force, more powerful than inheri-
tance. Religion greets each soul as it appears and invests it at
once with an environment which shall be a matrix for its personal
development, knowing that even from unpromising “stock”
souls of pure lustre and high spirituality are possible because
they are found; and believing that the reason is that they
come not through lower ranges of being but direct from the
Eternal Spirit.

In reviewing from the point of view of the Christian believer
what I have attempted to sketch I would offer two reflections.
Let us on no account set ourselves in opposition to the evidence
that is offered us that an insight into the procedure of Heredity
has been gained such as was never before in man’s possession.
There is still much difficulty and much darkness, but it is for us
to acclaim whatever is brought into hght. The scope of
Heredity in the physical sphere, over the range of plant-life,
and the animal world, and of human nature on its bodily side is
widened or rather deepened, and conceptions of its operation
sketched out for us. These conceptions have been won by
arduous toil and acute intelligence on the part of our fellow-
workers in the field of knowledge, and we congratulate them on
their successes. In the area of the lower ranges of conscious-
ness, however, there is not any similar gain: most of the claims
made are of an a priori nature, and therefore there is no call
upon us, at present at least, to definitely take a side as to the
possibility in the scope of heredity in mind in its lower stages.
For myself I am prepared to accept it to a considerable extent.
But I hold that we are called upon to decline to follow
any attempt to claim heredity for the personal spirit of
man in its own central selfhood, and in its large power
of taking up and controlling the lower processes of
consciousness. In the Old Testament we see the gradual
advance towards a recognition of the value of the individual,
and the Gospel is based upon it, upon the infinite
value of the soul, as Harnack puts it, 7e., upon the incom-
mensurability of the soul with all else that is in the world we
know ; and this amounts to a protest against transferring to the
spiritual world laws which have been discovered and established
only in a totally different sphere. This does not assert
individualism in a way which opposes the corporate view of

HEREDITY AND EUGENICS. 289

humanity for religion ; it holds that the true corporate view is
attainable only by basing it upon the existence of souls of
infinite worth, who find their life in mutual societv and their
supreme end, on the tinite level, in common well-being. But
still more, only by standin» firin upon personality can we keep
secure a direct way of access for the soul to the presence of the
Divine Spirit in a way that can be truly communion of personal
man and personal God.

And for Eugenics, I am sure that the amelioration of society
must rest ultimately on appeal to the voluntary choice of the
individual: that it is reactiunary to think of sacrificing the
freedom of human action. Earnest effort may well be made to
induce persons of weak or diseased physical frames to adopt
celibacy as their vocation, and it may be that tbe Christian
churches have been too keen in their approval of universal
marriage to see that this exceptional vocation needed to be
highly commended. But even so, we do not share the depth of
the alarms and the anxieties as to the transmissiun of defective
stock which distress those who regard man as a purely natural
being of the biological order fast bound by heredity even in the
very centre of his character. The idea of personality and the
sentiment which belongs to it give to the Christian the hope and
conviction that in weak physical frames, in defective mental
equipments, and even in unpromising moral dispositions. the
soul may tind itself able, by the co-operating assistance of
Divine grace, to develop itself along paths of integrity, virtue,
and piety. It is not in physical robustness or in intellectual
vigour, but in the power of the spirit tu express the Spirit of
God, that we are to look for the secret of noble individual life
and the presage of the perfection of Society.

DISCUSSION.

The paper was followed by a discussion opened by Rev. CHAN-
CELLOR Liss, M.A., who said :—

It is, I believe, an acknowledged fact that the less a man knows
about a subject, the more easy he finds it to talk about it. This
may be one reason for my commencing the discussion this afternoon.
I know very little indeed of Heredity or Eugenics. But I may

290 REV. PROF. A, CALDECOTT, D.LITT., D.D., ON

indicate another reason for breaking the silence. There seems some
reluctance to commence our usual debate, and I should be sorry
if the formal thanks of the Chairman were the only notice taken
of the valuable paper of my friend Professor Caldecott. Little
as I know about the subject, I may at least be able to express
adhesion here and there, and to ask a few questions.

I do most emphatically associate myself with Professor Caldecott’s
objections to what he calls “jumping the claim.” It must be
confessed that in recent scientific investigation there has been
a great deal too much assumption. One feels that even the great
Darwin himself, in putting forward his conclusions, did not
sufficiently recollect how difficult it was for any one brain to
co-ordinate into a theory the countless millions of facts with which
he had to deal. And so it has come to pass that new schools have
arisen since his time, which have given them other explanations.
The wiser men of science are now complaining of as great
a tendency to dogmatism among scientific teachers as is even found
among theologians. Professor Caldecott has given us a startling
instance in the decidedly sweeping assumption by Sir F. Galton that
“the mental functions are subject to the same law of heredity
as the physical ones.” The fact is that science admits no such
thing as assumption. Guesses there may be, indeed must be, but
the induction is not complete until the conclusions of the assumed
laws have been compared with the facts. Not until their agree-
ment is demonstrated can the correctness of the supposed law be
regarded as proved. Astronomy is perhaps the most exact of the
inductive sciences on account of the extent to which its conclusions
have been verified. Circumstances are not so favourable for verifi-
cation in sciences which deal with such problems as heredity and
the origin of species.

I might venture to ask whether the condition of the low-caste
inhabitants of India of whose ‘“dead-level of life” Professor
Caldecott speaks, may not be attributable to their education, which
tends to cause their faculties to stagnate, rather than to any
transmission of acquired characteristics.

The writer of the paper introduces us to an old controversy,
commenced as early as the second century A.D., by Tertullian,
and warmly debated in medieval times. I refer to the controversy
between Creationism and Traducianism, that is to say, whether the

HEREDITY AND EUGENICS. 291

soul of each person brought into the world comes direct from the
Creator, or whether it is derived from the parent. Professor Calde-
cott declares for the former theory, and who shall gainsay him ?
At least, if there be any natural law involved in the transmission
of souls, it has not yet been discovered. Science, in that matter,
is rather in the position of Harold, whose alarm at the appearance
of Halley’s comet in 1066 is unmistakably depicted in the Bayeux
tapestry, than in ours since its orbit has been accurately ascertained.
It seems to me quite clear that genius is not the result of an
ordinary process of mental evolution, but that it has no demon-
strated connection whatever with the mental condition of its
possessor’s progenitors.

On only one more point in the paper will I venture to remark.
I desire to associate myself with Professor Caldecott in his opposition
to the extent with which collectivism is now being carried, and to
express my hope that we shall continue to leave the individual as
free as is consistent with the welfare of society. Some restrictions
on individual freedom there must be. But it will be a fatal blow
to the future of humanity if those restrictions are carried too
far.

Professor LANGHORNE ORCHARD said he had much pleasure in
seconding the vote of thanks so felicitously proposed by Chancellor
Lias. Indeed, they all seconded it. They thanked the learned
author of the paper for the marked ability and suggestive thought
with which he had assisted their consideration of a subject of special
interest and importance, and in these days very much to the fore.

They would all agree that whatever Heredity may, or may not,
do in the human body, it does not hold for spirit. What, in fact,
is Heredity? It is the inheritance of a peculiar nervous organiza-
tion, including in that term the nerve-centres of the brain and the
cerebro-spinal system. It has been shown by Dr. Hill of Downing
College, Cambridge, that nerve tracks vary in character, and that
will: mandates travel more easily and pleasantly along certain tracks
than they do along others where the way is less smooth or broad.
Therefore, since we are not usually fond of the difficult, we feel
tendencies to act in particular directions, and the will is solicited
to proceed along some line of least resistance. But such solicitation,
however strong, can never pass into command. The will always
retains its freedom, otherwise it were not will.

292 REV. PROF. A. CALDECOTT, D.LITT., D.D., ON

If we elide the phrase ‘‘a preformed mass of mental dispositions
... ,” from the first sentence on page 283 of the paper, the fore-
going considerations will to a large extent harmonize the differing
views there represented.

Every school of eugenics which ignores human free will is
doomed to failure. Realization in practice of the materialistic aim
would first degrade the unhappy subject of the social experiment
into a slave, and ultimately into a mere link in a long mechanical
chain. For true social amelioration the good of the individual and
the good of the race must be pursued concurrently, and work
together pari passu. To quote the concluding words of the paper,
“Tt is not in physical robustness or in intellectual vigour, but in the
power of the spirit to express the Spirit of God, that we are to
look for the secret of noble individual life and the presage of the
perfection of Society.”

Rey. A. Irvine, D.Sc., B.A., thought the paper perhaps the
most valuable from the point of view of philosophy of all the
papers read during the present session of the Victoria Institute.
The subject was dealt with by the hand of a master. While
recognizing inter alia the necessary place of evolution on the
scientific side, it seems to assign to it its proper limitations. The
speaker was glad to be able to claim from this paper the strong
support of such a high authority as Dr. Caldecott for his own
contention on scientific grounds for years past, and more especially
in the concluding paragraph of his paper read before the Institute
on March 21st, 1910, and during the last two or three weeks in the
Guardian newspaper. The speaker went on to quote Dr. Caldecott’s
words from his introduction to a recent work, The Inner Light, by
Arnold Whately* :—‘ Each man is a soul, not has one; and he
expresses his being in his activity, his thinking, and his feeling.
Such is the depth of his nature that in the greatest possible
expansion of his expression he is still but partially manifested.
Behind the rich variety of even a Shakspeare or a Goethe there
was an unmeasured personality still unexpressed, All that psycho-
logy can do is to take into account so much of personality as finds
manifestation in different men.” Such a position is far removed

* The Inner Light, by Arnold R. Whately, M.A. (Camb.), D.D. (Lond.) ;

Swan Sonnenschein and Co.

HEREDITY AND EUGENICS. 293

from those lower regions of form and physical life which are the
proper province of evolution, and in which that truly manifests
itself to the student of science. Within that region it is (as
Whately points out) “the true work of reason so to clarify and
systematize the various items of our belief that the God-conscious-
ness automatically draws them within its own circle ” (p. 207). Again,
“we need a philosophy that instead of subsuming religion under
evolution, shall subsume evolution under religion—a higher, deeper,
and broader doctrine of experience” (p. 222). So “the scientific
man who knows little of religion is not competent to criticize it
from the standpoint of science, any more than the schoolmen were
justified in deciding physical questions on grounds of theology.
The mere evolutionist is the victim of an arrested apper-
ception” (p. 224). Once more, “The discovery of our deepest
selfhood affords the only true reconciliation between the flux of
human thought and the need of the individual for a foothold
beneath his feet and an abiding object for his grasp. . . . Chris-
tianity is no product of evolution; for evolution itself has its
significance within the synthesis of Christian Theism ” (pp. 232-3).
We cannot study “heredity” apart from evolution; and the
above quotations from a deep thinker go a long way to strengthen
Dr. Caldecott’s rejection of Professor Bateson’s empiricism, when he
‘«jumps at” the opening which Mendelism seems to offer for making
evolution and heredity commensurate with the whole of that range
of Being which is comprehended in human life and consciousness.
They clinch Professor Caldecott’s contention (p. 288) that “‘ We are
called upon to decline to follow any attempt to claim heredity for
the personal spirit of man in its own central selfhood, and in its
large power of taking up and controlling the lower processes of
consciousness.” We are of course here in the region which belongs
to Volition, the essential factor of Personality. As a serious
student of science, who in the years that are past has become more
and more impressed with the limitations of natural science, and its
insufficiency of itself to serve asa basis for either philosophy or
religion, though it can and does throw much light on both, one can
go thoroughly with Professor Caldecott, when he says :—“ Con-
sciousness is not self-explanatory, as it appears in finite experience ;
we must perforce look beyond experience,” and conclude that “a
super-finite consciousness, from which we come, may be said to

294 REV. PROF. A. CALDECOTT, D.LITT.. D.D., ON

express itself within us.” That (it may here be added) was seen
long ago by even the scientist Tyndall, when in his Belfast Address
to the British Association he compared attempts to explain “ con-
sciousness ” to a man “ trying to lift himself by his own waistband ” ;
and the fallacy has been more recently put by the late Professor
Alexander Bain (to whose writings some of us owe much) when he
compares it to an attempt “to get sunlight out of the cucumber,”
which is itself a product of sunlight. One can join hands with
Professor Caldecott in his ‘‘ contention that Heredity does not hold
for Spirit,” though it may operate as a more or less powerful factor
in the lower grades of Being which belong to the environment
(physical, mental, and social) of the individual.

Rev. JoHN TuCKWELL, M.R.A.S.:—Mr. Chairman, I welcome as
an antidote to a paper which was read here a few weeks ago on
Darwinism and Malthus, the very valuable paper to which we have
just listened. That paper subordinated the rights of the individual
to the claims of society to a dangerous degree. This one restores
them to their place. But there are one or two expressions in it to
which I should like to refer for a moment rather in the spirit of
enquiry than of criticism. The professor says, “The inference
I stand by is to a super-finite consciousness from which we come
which may be said to express itself in us.” I confess this luoks
very like pantheism. If it means that that super-finite conscious-
ness continues all the way through our life and expresses itself in
all our thoughts and words and deeds, and in our whole conduct,
I do not see how that can be consistent with our separate indivi-
duality, and if we have no individuality separate from the definite or
super-finite consciousness from which we are supposed to proceed
then that 7s pantheism, and I should emphatically differ from the
learned professor.

I notice also a sentence on the following page at which I am
made to pause. The professor says, “I see no reason for thinking
that soul succeeds soul in the way of generation.”

This may involve very serious conclusions. If soul does not
succeed soul in the way of generation then each soul must be derived
immediately from the infinite. But life in the organism is continuous
from the moment when the two germ cells become one. Is there at
this moment a second life added from the infinite ? So far as I know
no biology or physiology or psychology has any evidence to give

HEREDITY AND EUGENICS. 295

concerning this second principle of life. But to my mind the
professor’s suggestion becomes still more difficult in view of the
Scripture doctrine of sin. If the soul be a super-added entity direct
from the Infinite then there can be no hereditary taint of sin or
tendency to it in the soul unless the Infinite Creator Himself be
sinful. To that conclusion I am sure the professor would not desire
to lead us. The only other alternative so far as I can see is that the
hereditary taint of sin is simply in the body and not in the soul at
all. Consequently the only real gospel for our sinful race is the new
science of eugenics. To eliminate sin from the world of humanity
all that is necessary is to quicken the action of the supposed process
of evolution and we shall have “the new earth” if not the “new
heavens wherein dwelleth righteousness.” I am bound to say also
that I do not see what reason there was for the awful tragedy of
Calvary, and why it should have been postponed to so late a period
in the world’s history when by a correction of the faulty physical
organization of the first generations of mankind, the whole sad story
of our race might have been avoided.

There is one other sentence to which I would refer. Four pages
further on I read, “ Religion greets each soul as it appears and invests
it at once with an environment which shall be a matrix for its personal
development, knowing that even from unpromising ‘stock’ souls of
pure lustre and high spirituality are possible because they are found,”
and in a little aside the professor spoke of the value of baptism. As
I heard it I could not help thinking of a visit I paid to the Peniten-
tiary at Melbourne when I was in Australia. I asked the warder
who took me round if they ever had any Roman Catholics there.
“Oh yes,” he replied, ‘“‘a good many.” ‘And do you ever get any
members of the Church of England here ?” ‘Oh yes, we get some
of them.” ‘ And do you ever have any Methodists?” “ Well, yes,
afew.” ‘“ And do you ever get any Baptists here ?” “ Oh no, we never
get any Baptists here.” I am afraid therefore that the ‘‘ matrix”
afforded by baptism as an entrance to the Church is too often a
failure, and that the only true matrix is that unto which we pass
when we enter into Christ by a living conscious personal faith. ‘If
any man be in Christ he is a new creature, old things have passed
away, and all things have become new.”

Dr. HEywoop-SmiTH said that Dr. Archdale Reid and others
had maintained acquired characteristics were not transmissible, but

296 REV. PROF, A. CALDECOTT, D.LITT., D.D., ON HEREDITY, ETC.

the difficulty was to determine what characteristics were to be deemed
acquired. A man got a certain trick or peculiar gait in his walk, and
one could recognize his son a long way off by his similar gait. So
too there was often a more pronounced likeness in the voices of a
family than in their features. A man becomes a drunkard or a
criminal—his children have a tendency to follow his steps; the
question arose whether that was from heredity or from their environ-
ment. The introduction of eugenics with Biblical philosophy was a
tacit acknowledgment that certain characteristics were hereditary,
and that by a proper selection we might obviate the degradation of
the race. But while such selection might be made with regard to
the lower animals, yet as long as free will and love existed as
attributes of humanity an election in breeding was an impossibility.
The science, therefore, of eugenics seemed to beg the whole question
and was, at all events at present, outside the range of practical
application.

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that while the lecturer stated in
clear terms his belief in the power of heredity in the physical
organism, and not in the mental, yet he admitted ‘“ that in the lower
ranges of mind the contention for heredity is plausible.” But how
can we distinguish between the lower and higher minds? Can we,
if we accept evolution, draw a sharp line between the two ? Are not
also the physical and mental so bound together that they interact so
that we cannot separate the two. An irritable man is so because of
physical weakness. So heredity may act at any rate indirectly on
mind through the body which ultimately affects the mind.

The lecturer having replied briefly, the meeting adjourned at
6.15 p.m.

509TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.

MONDAY, JUNE 6ru, 1910. 4.30 p.m.

D. Howarp, Esq., D.L., F.C.S., F.L.C. (Vick-PrEsIDENT),
IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed.

The Chairman announced that this was the last Meeting of the Session,
and congratulated the Institute on the success that had attended the
Meetings of the year, and the admirable quality of the papers which
had been read thereat.

The following paper was then read by the author :—

DETERMINISM AND FREE-WILL.
By Archdeacon B, Porrer, M.A.

NE cannot help feeling, notwithstanding the contrary view

of some German philosophers, that purely speculative
questions cannot boast of the same claim on our time and
thought as those which concern conduct. Conduct is the all-
important thing in life, and a man’s life is so short that it
seems wise to confine, as far as possible, our intellectual
investigations to questions which bear on its guidance. Now
the question of Determinism or Non-Determinism of the Will
on which I am asked to read this paper, is essentially a
practical one. On our view of it largely depends the line we
shall adopt in the conduct of our lives. If we have no power
over our wills, they being determined independently of us
by circumstances, by heredity, character and desire—then the
natural conclusion is to sit down and acquiesce in the
inevitable. If on the other hand the will is entirely uncon-
trolled, it becomes unnecessary to take any steps to influence
supposed controlling powers. So if we look round us and
observe the lives and actions of men who think, we shall find
that the goodness or badness of their ideals and conduct
depend to a very considerable extent on the intellectual view

u 2

298 AKCHDEACON B. POTTER, M.A., ON

they have formed for themselves on the question: “Is the will
free, or is it controlled?” You will find religious and anti-
religious literature much concerned with the subject. You will
find men excusing license or urging control of desires in
accordance with their view as to whether or not we possess
freedom.

But the second thought which arises in view of this subject
is whether the question is soluble. There is much that might
lead us to consider it not so. Because it concerns human
personality in the depths of its mystery ; and there is no doubt
that here we are face to face with a problem which eludes us
almost as constantly and rapidly as problems concerning the
Divine Nature, or the nature of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Mystery dwells not only in the infinitely great, but in the
apparently comprehensible. Still we have always this com-
forting reflection that even in the most abstruse questions,
where the intellect finds itself, as Kant described it, attempting
to fly in a medium of pure space, where for lack of atmosphere,
it cannot make any way with its wings; even here, there are
practical solutions of all the problems. And the practical
solution is usually arrived at by an admission of the incom-
prehensibility of the question in all its bearings. The human
mind naturally seeks to unify—to bring every phenomenon
into a mathematical system, which it can thoroughly com-
prehend. It is this tendency which has led, in philosophy and
theology, to so many errors, so much bitterness, so much strife.
In the free-will problem, men start with the assumption that all
the phenomena must come under one law, just as in theology they
have tried to reconcile Love, Mercy ana Omnipotence in the
Creator. But the effort fails; the solution lies in the admission
that we must accept contrary facts which we cannot reconcile ;
and yet which we know must both be true.

Now what I propose to do to-day is to place before you as
clearly and honestly as I can, the various arguments, so far as
I understand them, which have been and are being used, on the
two sides of this question. I shall then ask you to consider
whether these opposing theories can be reconciled; and if so,
what is the true method of reconciliation, and lastly, ask you to
bear in mind the practical results which are deducible from
the conclusion at which we arrive.

First then to take the arguments for Determinism, «e., for
the: doctrine that men’s wills are ruled by character, desire, _
circumstances, and outside influences.

The matter may best be dealt with by looking at it to

DETERMINISM AND FREE-WILL. 299

begin with from an &@ priori point of view, and then coming
more closely to the problem, and examining our consciousness,
and seeing what we find there in favour of this hypothesis.

The @ priori arguments may be divided into four—education,
religion, the science of government, and history.

There are few, if any, serious-minded persons who do not
believe in the importance of moral and religious education.
The battle has been raging in this country as to the form which
that education should take, whether it should be abstract and
undenominational, or definite and denominational. But few
have denied the value and the importance of some kind of
moral training. The reason is not far to seek. It is because
we believe that the life of the man is influenced by the training
of the boy. True education aims above all things at forming
character. We know there is innate character in every child.
But we also know this can be influenced and moulded. By
wise and careful teaching, combined with correction and
reward, a child may develop noble sentiments, high aspirations,
affection, conscientiousness, truthfulness, honour. As _ these
principles grow and become exercised, they become more strong.
The character is moulded by them, and the will responds to
them. There doubtless are exceptions where the desired
results are not attained, where the boy surrounded with moral
and religious advantages grows up a worse man than others
less advantageously placed. But this is because the lessons
given have not been assimilated. The character has not
improved, and so the life has not improved. But where the
education is effective—the result seems invariably to follow.
Where principles are instilled and imbibed, the daily conduct
answers to the helm; and you can feel assured that the man
will act as the boy has grown to be. On the theory of
free-will this would not be so. Ifa man is free to act inde-
pendently of character and influences, he probably will so act:
and if he did, our anticipations based upon the principles we
have instilled into him, would be disappointed.

Let us next take the question of religion. The main idea
in the minds of that large class of people who believe in
religion is that through its forms and ceremonies, and more
especially through prayer, and in the sacraments, an influence
or influences come from the spiritual world into the inmost
being of the person who prays, or who is prayed for, and
that this influence affects his will and actions. This is
certainly the main thought in Christianity. Our Lord promises
absolutely an answer to prayer which is directed towards the

300 ARCHDEACON B. POTTER, M.A., ON

gift of the Holy Spirit. Some Christians believe that Jesus
Christ lives in them, others that it is the Third Person of the
Trinity sent by the Father, and by him, others in the influence
of angels, others in the influence of departed saints. But all
persous who believe at all in religion believe in some kind of
influence which, in response to prayer, enters the heart of a
man, acts on his feelings, desires, and principles, and so con-
strains his will to act according to certain defined principles
approved by conscience, and in accordance with the will of
God. It is the belief in this influence which leads people to
use the ordinances of religion, and which comforts them, and
gives them hope regarding their future and the future of those
they pray for. Although they may feel an innate evil nature
ready to burst out at any moment, still they feel confidence in
this grace as a preservative of their will and conduct.

But on the hypothesis of free-will, no such influence could
convey any certainty. Man’s will at any time might and
would rebel against these influences, and the holy, pure, truth-
ful man find himself under punishment for vice, for hes, or
crime.

The third & priort argument is from the science of govern-
ment. :
There is no doubt that a large factor in the success of rulers
and directors of the world’s affairs is a clear perception of the
characters of men. The diplomatist must know the men with
whom he comes in contact. He must know their ambitions,
their ideals, their desires. His art is so to arrange affairs that
the persons, or groups or persons, from whom he desires to
obtain some concession receive in return for it something which
to them is valuable ; and he is not disappointed.

The same principle applies to the statesman, or general, or
organizer in any department of life. Men succeed not so much
by what they do themselves, as by what they can make other
men do. He who can pick his men, place the brave man
where courage is required, the honest where integrity is
important, the wise where judgment comes into play, such a -
man 1s invariably successful; he rides to the attainment of his
ambitions on the shoulders of the agents he has selected to do
his work. But all this would be impossible if the will were
free. You could not depend from one hour to another that
the person selected for a particular duty would perform that
duty. At any moment the most carefully laid plans might be
defeated by the exercise of the ungoverned will of a sub-
ordinate.

DETERMINISM AND FREE-WILL. 301

In fact, in every department of life we assume without
argument that men’s actions are determined by their character.
The man who is good at knowing character is a perfect prophet
in predicting action. The wise and shrewd man gets help or
money or sympathy with his aims, largely by playing on the
strings of human character, which he is clever enough to
understand.

If I am not wearying you, I will add one more argument for
determinism from the law pervading history. Every historian
traces law in the development of nations; so manifest, that
from the history of one nation you can predict that of another,
¢g., the Romans rose to greatness when surrounded by diffi-
culties; but when they attained luxury and power they began
to lose their energy, and to sink down to the position of a
decadent race. The reason is obvious: poverty and difficulty
are a stimulus to energy. When attainment comes, the
stimulus disappears. This law is universal, and from it we
can predict the fate of existing nations. But the law shows
that nations, like men, are determined in their actions by the
conditions amid which they are placed. And the historian
writes on this assumption.

Having endeavoured to show that men act on the assump-
tion that the will is determined, I will now try to grapple with
the question as to what the verdict of our intellect is when we
come to examine into our own nature. We may, I think,
divide all our actions into two divisions—first, unconscious
actions, secondly, conscious. But the conscious consist of two
kinds, impulsive and deliberate. As regards unconscious
actions, they seem to take place without any movement of the
will. One does not resolve to breathe or to blink with one’s
eyelids. But there are conscious acts which constantly pass
into the region of the unconscious. When a child begins to
play the piano, it consciously places each finger on a certain
note; but later on the action becomes instinctive; that is
unconscious. So that we may class both these kinds of action
as determined.

With regard to impulsive actions, these seem directly caused
by passion or feeling. The man who commits murder under
strong excitement which clouds his judgment and moral sense
is not usually considered so responsible as the one who plans
beforehand to commit the crime. There are instances of
temptation which seems too strong to resist. I have known
a prisoner say that if a certain temptation were before him,
and the gallows staring him in the face, he would be compelled

302 ARCHDEACON B. POTTER, M.A., ON

to yield. No other theory than that which allows that the
will is ruled by passion seems able to account for the fact that
after months and years of imprisonment men will immediately
return on release to the crime for which they were punished.

But, lastly, to take the case of deliberate action, here at any
rate we may say consciousness proclaims us free. I know I
can choose. I feel myself free, this is the verdict of self-
consciousness.

Let us take the case in which freedom seems most apparent.
A man resists inclination, conquers impulse, does something he
does not like to do. Surely this proves him free, and yet, if
he reflects, after his action, on the cause of his action, he will
find that a motive determined his will. We say a man has a
strong will who decides for duty against inclination. But we
must not forget that the action was due to a higher motive
being brought into prominence. There were in the man’s
personality feelings of honour, of duty, of affection. Passion
clouded these, and the will was giving way. But some influence
came to bear—a friend’s advice—a thought—a memory—a
suggestion from the spiritual world; and the higher motive
came out into prominence, and overcame the passion. If we
could recall any decision, which had not behind it a motive, a
reason—then we might deny determinism. But this is not so
in any single action of our life. Some philosophers have
ascribed this choice between lower and higher motives to
reason. But reason does not act immediately on the will.
Reason is simply the intellectual faculty which penetrates
into the meaning and results of actions, and makes it clear to
the self what will follow them. The self then decides. But in
its decision, it is determined by its character.

I will now notice two objections usually brought against this
doctrine. One is that responsibility imples freedom. But as
Riehl says, “a being whose actions do not depend on anything,
and therefore do not depend on the consciousness of responsi-
bility, cannot be responsible. A free unmetived choice is purely
accidental, and no one is responsible for an accidental occurrence.
A free being can have no definite character—the essential mark
of character is persistence.’ Again, “how can determinism
contradict responsibility, if responsibility is one of the deter-
mining causes of the will?” Fowler says, “I have said nothing
of reward or punishment or responsibility, which may be
explained as liable to punishment, because I think that all
these facts are equally explicable on the Determinist
hypothesis.”

DETERMINISM AND FREE-WILL. ; 303

Again it is objected, morality is inconsistent with determinism.
Here I must quote Riehl again. He says “morality stands, and
determinism is a scientific truth. As the result of a will acting
under law, morality is only possible in connection with deter-
minism. Morality is the ratio cognoscendi of determinism—
determinism the ratio essendi of morals.”

Let us now look at the other side of the question, and see
what can be said in favour of Free-Will. And the one great
argument, whose force is felt by every thinker, is the universal
fact of Consciousness of Freedom. As L[llingworth puts it,
“ Free-Will is a fact of immediate and universal consciousness,
i.¢., of my own consciousness, corroborated by the like experience
of all other men.” Fowler says, “we seem to be free, to have
the power of shaping our own acts.” Why should we praise or
blame others, or approve or disapprove our own actions, if we
regard others and ourselves as determined. Spinoza admits
that “men must regard themselves as free, because they are
conscious of will and of desire,” though he explains away the
meaning of this by the theory that it is ignorance of the causes
behind the will which makes men think themselves free.
Riehl admits our consciousness of Freedom, and explains the
reason of it as Spinoza does, only he advances a step further
and claims to show why men are ignorant of the causes which
move their will. He thinks that the causes of our actions
precede self-consciousness, and thus do not enter into it. That
is to say, we do not become conscious of self till the cause has
passed into an act of will. So the latter only is perceived—
and the former not. So he says: “It is easy to see why the
necessary ignorance of the proper causes of our actions must
produce the illusion that they are not caused.” Ladd says,
“They who urge the speculative tenet that all conduct is strictly
determined, practise as though they were, what they really are,
as free as the gods themselves.” He speaks of the consciousness
of freedom as, first, consciousness of ability—that is of the self
as active: and secondly, a consciousness of imputability, that is
of the self as responsible. Sedgwick says, “against the for-
midable array of cumulative evidence offered for determinism,
there is to be set the immediate aflirmation of consciousness in
the moment of deliberate action.” However strong may be the
rush of appetite or anger, it does not present itself to me as
irresistible.

And if we deny the reality of this belief of consciousness,
that I can choose between two alternatives, it would seem as
though we reduced the whole universe to subjection to material

304 ARCHDEACON B. POTTER, M.A., ON

law. If man is not free, God is not free. Consequently there
is no difference between mind and matter. All are under
necessity. In fact the great argument for belief in God
disappears. The world is not subject toa mindand heart. It is
under universal self-caused law. It is of no use for me to
exercise my will, or to try to do anything, for every action is
predetermined by a foree which cannot be resisted. I cannot
make my character, because in making it I am ruled by
motives, and these motives if not there, I cannot place there.
Is this then the result at which we are to arrive as a result of
deep-thinking on this mysterious problem ?

There are also strong feelings in man which imply freedom,
e., remorse. How can a man be tortured by remorse if in
sinning he had no power over his actions? Why should he be
condemned to punishment for sins he was bound to commit ?
Why should we feel angry with a person who has wronged us,
if in doing so he was the slave of character; and if in the
formation of that character he could have had no part ?

Let me now endeavour to place before you some of the
ways in which different thinkers have tried to reconcile our
consciousness of freedom with the apparent law that every act
is deterinined by character, or motive, or circumstance.

We may divide these classes of explanation into two heads.
First, those which try to explain away free-will and make it an
illusion ; secondly, the opposite line of thought which tries to
reconcile a real freedom in the will with the facts making for
Determinism. My own belief is, as I have said, that both
efforts fail; and that the real fact is that these apparently
totally opposed phenomena of human personality are both true,
and yet both irreconcilable by the human intellect.

Riehl claims to have solved the problem. His words are:
“Modern philosophy may claim to have discovered the laws of
motive for the will, and to have reached the true conception of
mind.” One agrees with Riehl in saying that “morality stands
and determinism is a scientific truth.” But one differs from
him in thinking that the combination is comprehensible to us.
If it be true, as he and Spinoza say, that the will only appears
free because the causes which move it do not come into
consciousness, can we understand the use of appealing to the
will, and of a person trying to exert will? If the will is
determined by character, how can the will influence character ?
In its motives to improve itself it is ruled by a pre-existing
condition. If that condition had not existed, it could not act
so as to improve its character. Riehl distinguished between

DETERMINISM AND FREE-WILL. 305

fatalism, determinism, and free-will. He says, “Fatalism is a
motive not to act—determinism the strongest motive of action
—indeterminism, a source of foolish complaint against oneself.
He says again, “the obedience to law which determinism
ascribes to action is not a blind, but a discriminating
obedience.”

I confess I cannot realize this distinction between fatalism
and determinism. If the will is really ruled by motives—then
the whole man seems the slave of the history which has
evolved his character.

Another objection to this explanation is that it makes
nature a deceiver. It is desirable that man should believe
himself free, because if he did not he would not exercise his
wil, and so would relapse into idleness and uselessness. It is
the belief that he is free that rouses him to action. If this
belief is a delusion, then nature deceives us, and the ignorant
man is a better member of society than the educated thinker.
The latter is aware of the deception, while the former is
ignorant of it. “Ignorance” in this case is truly “bliss,” as it
is essential to action. JRiehl’s argument regarding freedom
resembles Comte’s regarding prayer. The latter did not
believe in answers to prayer, and yet strangely was so alive to
its good effect on the subject praying that he advised his
followers to observe the practice. But such a theory is open
to the same objection as Riehl’s, that if this is so, nature
deceives, and ignorance of the reality of things is better than
knowledge.

Green in his Prolegomena to Ethics sums up his view in this
way :—“ Will, then, is equally desire and thought, as they are
involved in the direction of a self-distinguishing and _ seli-
seeking subject to the reaiization of an idea.” It must be a
mistake to regard the will as a faculty which man possesses
along with other faculties. The will is simply the man; any
act of will is the expression of the man as he at the time is.
The motive issuing in his act, the object of his will, the idea
which for the time he sets himself to realize, are but the same
thing in different words. Each is the reflex of what for the
time the man is; in willing he carries with him his whole self
to the realization of the given idea.

This certainly is a good description of what takes place in
the act of willing. But we can hardly say that it makes the
process less a mystery to us.

Ladd thus explains the phenomena: “That man is in some
sort the creature of circumstances, and that many men are

”

306 ARCHDEACON B. POTTER, M.A., ON

largely so, who would venture to deny. But that man is by
deeds of will also in some sort the creator of his own character
and the moulder of society and of nature who would venture
to refuse to admit.” Again he says, “the character of a self
always includes choices and the results of the choices, in
exercising which it has been self-determining. On a basis of
inherited potentialities, and under a variety of influences from
the total constantly changing environment and in a certain
subjection to the principle of habit the self nevertheless pro-
gressively determines its own character. Habit is strong, and
its bonds often difficult to be broken; but habit itself is itself
very largely a record of self-determining choices, a child of
moral freedom.’ This all seems true, but is it comprehensible,
for the original acts which produced habit were themselves the
result of habits and character then existing.

Illingworth puts it thus: “The freedom of the will does not
mean the ability to act without a motive. But it does mean
the ability to create, or co-operate in creating, our own motives,
or to choose our motive, or to transform a weaker motive into
a stronger by adding weights to the scale of our own accord,
and thus to determine our conduct by our reason.” Again,
“IT can present to my mind appetite, pleasure, utility, as
objects to be attained, and choose between them, nor is it to
the point to say I am determined by my character, for my
character is only the momentum which I have gained by a
number of past acts of choice.” Here this writer seems to
forget that these past acts of choice were influenced by
previously existing character and motive. Consequently, he
is as far as ever from a definite conception of real free-will.

Must we not then accept the position as the result of our
deliberation, that the will is in some mysterious way both free
and determined ; able to take part in shaping its own character,
and yet in a sense the slave of previously existing character,
and that although the truth of these apparently opposite facts
is incomprehensible to the human intellect, it must nevertheless
be accepted as a guide to human life.

Professor Fowler seems to fall in with some such conclusion
as this, when he says: “ Here then we seem to be on the con-
fines of human knowledge, and to be compelled to recognize
that in the sphere of human action, as well as in that of
metaphysical speculation, there are apparent contradictions
which we cannot reconcile. However unwillingly, we must
perforce acquiesce in the limitation of our faculties.” Male-
branche says: “La liberté est un mystere.”

DETERMINISM AND FREE-WILL. 307

Kant can only explain the problem by a distinction which
Schopenhauer calls “the most beautiful and profound which
humanity has produced,” between the empirical character, and
the intelligible character, which Schopenhauer compares with
his great philosophic distinction between phenomena, and
things per se. Man is transcendentically free, empirically, or
phenomenally determined. But this distinction amounts to
admitting our incapacity to understand the combination.

It may, however, be objected that this is a poor solution of a
great subject—simply to point out our ignorance of it. May J
ask you therefore to consider some reasons why it should be
the right, and only solution. Human personality resembles the
Divine, in its incomprehensibility. Our Lord constantly
reminded men that they were Sons of God. The ancient
philosophies of the East, equally with the writing of our best
moderns, have held that a belief in the pre-existence of the
soul is the greatest proof of future immortality. To live for
ever & parte post, and not to have done so @ parte ante, they
pronounce to be inconceivable. “Our birth is but a sleep
and a forgetting; the soul that rises with us, our life’s star,
hath had elsewhere its setting, and cometh from afar.” Our
birth and personality then are mysteries; who will say he
understands either? Does it not follow that the problems
connected with them must contain mystery? We cannot
reconcile evil and good, or understand how one omnipotent
Creator can rule in a world where both seem eternally existent,
yet we accept the incompatible facts. So with free will and
determinism, the two seem irreconcilable, yet both must be
believed. In fact, if we could unify our conceptions of per-
sonality and make these two opposite principles in us clearly
apprehensible to our minds, then we might assume that, as
there was no mystery in our human nature, we did not partake
of the Divine.

What then are the practical conclusions to be drawn for our
daily life from the solution I ask you to adopt? There are first
the conclusions to be drawn from the fact of freedom, and
secondly, those deducible from the tact of determinism.

We must always act as if absolutely free. We do so in many
affairs in life. If we did not, the world would come to an end.
Men and women would sit still and do nothing; it is surely
inconsistent to act as if free in certain relationships of life; and
to make belief in determinism an excuse for not acting in other
relationships; and this is what the practical necessitarian does.
If the house in which a man was living were on fire, would he

308 ARCHDEACON B. POTTER, M.A., ON

sit still and excuse himself from moving by saying his will was
determined, even if he called himself a determinist ?
Secondly, we must remember the lessons of determinism :—

(a) To cultivate character in ourselves and others, that
it may influence life. The very fact of doing this
involves both freedom and determinism. We must
believe ourselves free when making the effort to
improve. We must believe ourselves determined
when we aim at character as a necessary goal.

(6) We must conquer habit.

In each case the two beliefs must influence us.

Thirdly, I think the question of punishment is largely
affected by our view of this question. We should not punish
for vengeance. Many a criminal is really insane, others have
such inborn and developed proclivities that they cannot resist
acting as they do. When we punish a dog, we do it to teach
him to do some things and not do others. He learns by punish-
ment carefully administered. Vengeance and anger do not
enter into our feelings—nor should they when we punish
human beings.

The growing improvement in men’s notions on this subject,
and consequent alleviation of the hard lot of many half-insane
criminals may be looked on as a happy result of the deeper
study of the subject we have been considering.

Fourthly, we should avoid remorse. Repentance is useful.
Remorse is worse than valueless. As regards the past, we may
remind ourselves more of the results of determinist philosophy
than of the free-will doctrine. It isover. What has happened
must have happened. Now at any rate it has passed into the
region of consequences resulting on antecedent circumstances.
As regards the future, free-will is the important thing to
remember. On ws, depends our future. That is, we can, at
any rate, use circumstances to mould character, which will
secure future action.

“Thou seemest Human and Divine,
The highest, holiest manhood Thou,
Our wills are ours, we know not how,
Our wills are ours to make them Thine.”

DETERMINISM AND FREE-WILL. 309

DISCUSSION.

On the conclusion of the paper the CHAIRMAN called on the Rev.
Gregory Smith, M.A., LL.D., to open the discussion.

Dr. GREGORY SMITH, after thanking the lecturer for his very
able address, demurred to the opinion expressed, that it is
“impossible” on this vital question (because we have to accept two
propositions, each true, but the one diametrically opposed to the
other) to arrive at any logical conclusion. This would be so, if we
had to reconcile Free Will with Divine Omniscience. But our
question is narrower ; how to reconcile Free Will with Determinism—
an ambiguous word, used to mean, that people, who may seem to be
very ‘determined ” in the ordinary sense, are merely creatures of
circumstance. ‘To affirm that man is free to choose one motive or
another, when they clash, is not to deny that he is always influenced
by a motive.

There is no need now and here,* to comment in detail on the
arguments quoted by the Archdeacon against the freedom of the
will, “Solvitur ambulando.” For instance, in any misfortune the
sharpest pang is invariably if we have to blame ourselves.
Determinism is right, for instance, that heredity, environment, etc.,
etc., may put an almost overwhelming pressure on the will, but the
solid fact remains that, normally, one has to choose and to decide.
It is by this reiterated act, which begins with the beginning of
intelligence, of choosing the good or evil, that the will makes
itself, what it becomes, and forms the character. "E@os grows into
700s.

It is a question of psychology, on which subject our thoughts
are rather hazy. We must go back to “il Maestro di tutti chi
sanno,” keenest and closest of ethical philosophers. The advance of
physical science may demonstrate more and more positively, that
our mental and emotional faculties are mechanical ; but the “ spirit
in man,” the will, the self has to control these operations. The

* See What is Truth? (Murray) and Characteristics of Christian
Morality (Bampton Lectures, Parker and Co.), ete.

310 ARCHDEACON B. POTTER, M.A., ON

motor-car has its driver. It is noteworthy that Aristotle assumes,
not proves, the Freedom of the Will. It is assumed in the teaching
of our Lord.

The Rev. F. D. Morice alluded briefly to the difficulty of
combining a belief in an omniscience to which nothing further is
unknown, with a belief that will can ever be absolutely free, which
implies that it is an open question—a question not yet decided—
which of two alternative choices is in fact going to be made.

Rey. R. V. FAITHFULL DAvigs.—The subject is eminently one
on which clear definition of the terms used is essential. Do any
supporters of Free Will claim that the will is entirely uncontrolled ?
or that Heredity and Environment have no influence over its
decisions? Do many Determinists assert that man is entirely a
machine? Even Mr. Blatchford says, ‘‘I know that I can make
myself better or worse if I try.”

Substitute the word “influenced ” for “ruled” or “ determined ”
in the arguments which the Archdeacon, with characteristically
scrupulous fairness, brings forward on the Determinist side, and
you would have a large body of doctrines which would probably be
accepted by both sides in the perennial controversy.

The Archdeacon says (page 299), “If a man is free to act
independently of character and influences, he probably will so act.”
But why? Surely the probabilities are all the other way. It is
indeed possible that a man of high character may act, on a given
occasion, in a manner entirely contrary to his usual habits. But
the probability of his doing so is so slight that the possibility may
safely be ignored. May it not be the case that the whole subject
suffers from attempts at over-analysis? To quote the words of
John Caird (Philosophy of Meligion, p. 115), “In every part of
consciousness the whole is present; in all the phenomena of mind,
the ego or self is the universal and constant factor. You may
attempt, as has often been done, to apply material analogies to
mental phenomena, as when moral action is represented as the result
of the force of motives acting on the will. But the analysis here is
a purely fallacious one. . . . It is the mind that is moved which
constitutes or gives their constraining power to the motives that are
conceived to move it.”

The freedom then that we claim is not specifically the freedom of
the will, in isolation, but the freedom of the whole personality to

DETERMINISM AND FREE-WILL. ant

choose between the various motives, whether suggested from without
or self-supplied, to add to, or subtract from, the weight of each,
and then to follow the strongest.

Sir Oliver Lodge claims it as the distinctive character of man that
‘“‘he has a sense of responsibility for his acts, having acquired the
power of choosing between good and evil, with freedom to obey one
motive rather than another.” (Catechism, p. 24.)

I heartily join in thanking the Archdeacon for his careful and
instructive paper.

Rey. W. TEMPLETON KING, B.D., said that previous speakers did
not seem to realize the difficulty of the question.

He put forth as a possible solution the thought that the will
might have power not to act against overwhelming influences, but to
choose among contrary motives which it will yield to.

Professor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD.—I wish to join in thanking
the learned author of this paper for a thoughtful and suggestive
inquiry into a problem of such subtlety that leaders in philosophy
have taken views which have issued in contradictory solutions.

On some points in this valuable paper I find myself unable to
concur with the author as, ¢.g., in the statement (or belief) that the
will is at one and the same time both free and not free (see p. 304,
par. 4); and he seeks to justify this idea by asserting that, if it were
not so, “we might assume that, as there was no mystery in our
human nature, we did not partake of the Divine” (p. 307). Surely
there is enough “ mystery” in human nature, without adding to it
the insoluble complication that contradictory propositions are
simultaneously true. The paper omits what appears to me to be an
important argument in favour of Free Will, drawn from our
intuition of Causality. We may state the argument as follows :—
Every effect has a cause, 7.c., the power producing the effect. But
power is incompatible with the presence of constraint. Power
implies absence of constraint, implies, therefore, freedom. Cause,
then, is free. Consciousness gives the idea of cause in will; there-
fore, will is free.

Perhaps the strongest of all the arguments for Free Will is the
testimony of consciousness, held by Sir Wm. Hamilton to be decisive.
We know intuitively that we are free to will for or against, and to
choose this or that. To assume that our intuitions deceive us would
be to suppose God a deceiver. Further, since, in the last analysis,

312 ARCHDEACON B. POTTER, M.A., ON

the validity of all reasoning rests upon premises intuitively admitted,
an argument which denied the truth of the intuition would ipso facto
fail to establish its own validity. The testimony of consciousness is
in itself adequate to establish the freedom of the will.

Every argument adduced for “‘ Determinism,” or Necessitarianism,
is vitiated by the logical fallacy of “begging the question.” The
most plausible, drawn from government and history, tells us that
“in every department of life we assume without argument that
men’s actions are determined by their character.” To which the
obvious reply is that the fact that, in a given set of circumstances,
men usually* act in a particular way, does not prove them obliged to
act in this way. The fact that they sometimes do not, proves there
is no compulsion. And it is to be remarked that the will
frequently alters the circumstances.

May I again thank the author for the intellectual treat which he
has afforded us in this admirable paper.

Rev. C. L. DRAWBRIDGE said : The question is, are we merely the
creatures of heredity and environment, or has the self some power
of self-determination ? Every human action has a cause, but the
question is what is the nature of that causation. I maintain that
when alternative actions are presented to the mind, and rival
motives are present, we are partially free, not only to select between
those that are present but also to create our own motives. The
determinist, on the contrary, maintains that we have no alternative
but to follow the strongest motive, and that circumstances over
which we have no contro] decide which motive is the strongest. He
therefore contends that praise or blame are utterly out of place, and
that the word “ought” should be excluded from the vocabulary
of philosophy.

One or two speakers confused (God’s) foreknowledge with pre-
destination. The two are not identical. I may foresee a street
accident without causing it. My contention is that God has given
us a measure of free will—self-determination—and we are, and feel
ourselves to be, responsible for our use, or abuse, of our power of
initiative. God is responsible only for the gift, we, for our employ-
ment of it.

We have to consider the evidence of consciousness as compared

* See, on this subject, the Discussion on Professor Caldecott’s Paper,
“‘ Heredity and Eugenics,” read before this Society on May 23rd.

DETERMINISM AND FREE-WILL. 313

with the conflicting conclusions of abstract thought. The former is
the truer guide. All of us are conscious of some measure of freedom
of will, and we invariably act upon that consciousness in the affairs
of daily life. When we find an irresponsible person, we place him
in an asylum. A strong-willed man, who was arguing with me in
favour of determinism, suddenly beat his dog for its misbehaviour,
so I asked him why he acted on the assumption that his dog was
responsible for its action, if its master was irresponsible ? Of course,
heredity and environment are factors which do much to determine
the actions of the will, but the will also determines its response and
reaction to circumstances. The terms moral and immoral are mean-
ingless, unless the words can and ought are applicable to human
conduct, and according to Determinist philosophy our will is the
mere slave of circumstances. This applies to the community as a
whole—which is made up of individuals. All human achievement
is born of the conviction that we are justified in saying “I ought,
I can, I will.”

Rev. JoHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S.—At this late hour I will not do
more than add briefly one or two thoughts to this discussion. First
of all I fear we are too apt to confuse our wills with our personality.
Surely the will is the power of self-determination possessed by the
ego. All language recognizes this fact. We consider the course of
conduct we propose to ourselves and then we say, “I will.” We
must admit also, I think, that we have the power to choose from
what motives we will act, and that our character is formed by the
frequency of our choice from one set of motives. But it is impossi-
ble to get back to the beginning of the formation of character.
How it is that a child in the first dawn of its intelligence is prompted
to act from one motive rather than another we cannot tell. It tells
a lie, perhaps, and finds that it gains some advantage thereby. The
first success may become a motive for repeating the act until it
grows to be a liar.

If, however, we accept the view of the Archdeacon and believe in
the pre-existence of the soul, then it seems to me we are floundering
in a Serbonian bog. How can we tell with what impact from that
previous state we come into the world? And how can we tell to
what extent we are to be held responsible for our actions? The
Archdeacon says, ‘our Lord constantly reminded men that they
were the sons of God.” But He told certain of the Jews who

x 2

o1l4 ARCHDEACON B. POTTER, M.A., ON

rejected Him, ‘Ye are of your father, the devil.” Are we to
suppose then that some men have had a devilish pre-existence, and
others a divine? ‘These expressions surely were used to indicate
character and not pre-existence ; and the proof of our immortality
lies in our nature and not in any such hypothetical pre-existence.

Referring to the subject of punishment, he says that many crimi-
nals “‘ cannot resist acting as they do.” I remember my old theological
tutor dealing with that plea said that any man brought before a
magistrate who should plead it might with equal force be answered
by the magistrate, “I cannot resist punishing you, take six weeks’
imprisonment.” It is answering a fool according to his folly.

Then with regard to the advice given at the close of the paper to
“avoid remorse,” if he had said “avoid the occasion for remorse,”
the advice would have been sound. But remorse is the penalty
inflicted by the Moral Governor of the Universe upon wilful and
irremediable wrong doing, and to tell us to avoid remorse is
advising us to do what is impossible, and to fly in the face of our
Creator.

COMMUNICATIONS.

Professor J. KIRKPATRICK (Edinburgh University) writes :—

Although an old student of philosophy, I fear I am not at all
competent to grapple with the old problem of Determinism versus
Free Will. I shall therefore not presume to criticise Archdeacon
Potter’s very able address, except in a few very slight particulars.

On p. 299.“ He will probably so act” does not seem to me very
clear. ‘Free will” in this case appears to be used synonymously
with animal propensities or evil passions—the free will of an animal,
but surely not the free will of a man, however savage ?

A somewhat similar remark applies to a passage at the foot of
p. 300. An absolutely ungoverned will is surely not to be found in
human beings, except where a taint of hereditary insanity, or
preternatural craving for drink, or abnormal animal passions,
reduces them to the level or below the level of the lower animals.
There is therefore little probability of trust being reposed in such
persons by the statesman or the general.

I venture to think that a first step toward a solution of the
problem (if problem it be) would be to define ‘‘ Determinism” and
* Free will.”

DETERMINISM AND FREE-WILL. . og

Does not Determinism, in the usual and narrow sense, mean the
sum total of those influences and impulses which are absolutely
irresistible? In such cases freedom of will is nil, and the ego is
either an insane person, or an incorrigible drunkard, or a man-
animal. But in the higher and wider sense which you, I think, most
rightly adopt, does it not rather mean the sum total of ail influences,
including religion, education, art, science, taste, etc. ? In this case,
too, one’s freedom of will, though by no means nil, is morally
reduced to a minimum, one’s conduct being morally determined.

These are, of course, extreme cases, conduct in the one case being
physically, on the other morally determined. But the intermediate
cases seem to be those where the conflict between determining
influences and will really arises—the conflict of the will with all
influences, both good and bad, both physical and moral.

Professor H. WHITE (King’s College, London) writes :—

One of the chief points with which I was struck was that almost
all the writers quoted seemed to confuse between moral freedom and
what I may call philosophical freedom of the will.

We must all agree that action is the result of motives, and that
when we do anything it is because the motives which urged us to
do it were stronger than those which urged us not to doit. We
must all be determinists in this sense: we are all slaves to
motives.

But this is something in a quite different category from the
question of a man tecling within his better self that he ought to act
one way, and then being driven by passion to act another : he is
here a slave in a new sense, because he is not free to do what
conscience tells him he ought to do,

Then moral freedom does not mean uncertainty: if a man is
absulutely upright and has his feelings thoroughly under control,
he has freedom of the will in the moral sense ; and yet you can
calculate, sometimes with almost mathematical accuracy, and a long
way ahead, how he will act in certain given sets of circumstances.

Mr. A. C. CHAMPNEYS writes :—

It appears to me:

(1) That whatever arguments may be used in favour of Deter-
minism, the underlying presupposition almost always is that the will
must follow the analogy of material things, which appear (at all
events) to follow an unchanging sequence or “law.”

O16 ARCHDEACON B. POTTER, M.A., ON

If, however, the human will is something different from these, this
is merely false analogy.

(2) It is constantly assumed that if a motive is to be a cause at
all it must be an irresistible one. This is “begging the question.”
[This fallacy seems to be present on p. 299, and in other places in
the paper. ]

(3) The immediate consciousness of freedom (especially when it
is supported by the whole practical experience of the human race, as
shown in praise, blame, repentance or remorse) must be infinitely
less liable to error than any roundabout calculations of probability.

(4) As to some details :

(a) On p. 299. “ But where the education is effective,” etc.,
appears to be obscurely thought out. There is no mark of
a thing being effective except that it acts. So that the
sentence appears to me equivalent to ‘‘ When the result
follows, the result does follow.”

I do not think that those who have had much to do
with boys will feel that there is any certainty as to the
eff ct on them of their (moral) education. This uncertainty
is thought by ordinary persons to depend on their choosing
or not chvosing to go the best way. And this really does
not seem an unreasonable explanation.

(>) Judgment of character (p. 301) is not really an exact science
at all. I know no one who has not made or does not
make mistakes in judging it. [There is here, one would
think, an indication of the presence of an incalculable
element. |

The argument from history is not really sound at all.
If one person chooses energy and another one slackness,
the choice of one neutralises the choice of the other, and
thus the choice is eliminated, leaving the balance of other
causes to act in the nation asa whole. But in any case
prediction in history has been so often wrong, and is so
uncertain that it appears quite too unsound to contribute
to the argument.

(c) I do not think that the criticism of Illingworth on p. 306
issound. It would only be necessary for Illingworth to go
back a step or steps further. It is quite possible to contend
that the man’s character is formed at various points, by

DETERMINISM AND FREE-WILL. ay

acts of choice, though of course the character, so far as it
is formed at each stage, predisposes the child or boy or
young man to particular lines of conduct and makes the
opposite choice increasingly difficult.
If the proofs of Determinism were stronger and sounder, I should
agree with the Archdeacon’s conclusions.

THE LECTURER’S REPLY.

Aristotle doubtless, as Dr. Gregory Smith states, assumed that
the will is practically free. But Dr. Gregory Smith in his Ethics
of Aristotle, p. 16, states the latter’s view in the following
terms :—‘“ Will,” he says, “with all its arbitrary changefulness may
indeed be subject to laws as unvarying as those which govern a
chess board. But so long as these laws lie beyond his cognisance,
man is practically free.”

Dr. Gregory Smith admits ‘‘an almost overwhelming pressure as the
will,” but claims still for the will the power to decide. Mr. Faithfull
Davies says much the same thing, ‘Substitute the word influenced
for ruled or determined,” and it would be accepted by both sides.
But when, under strong passion, the will is overborne, the word
“ruled” seems more applicable than “influenced.” Take the case
of the man who constantly goes to prison for the same offence.
When his will is debilitated by yielding to passion is he free to
resist the passion? If so why does he not do so, when he knows
the inevitable consequence. A man’s best chance is to get into his
nature other and higher influences, which may serve to conquer the
force of the temptation which his will is unable to resist. More-
over, In my paper I showed, that even if the will succeed in
resisting the passion, it is ruled in this resistance by higher
principles, such as a sense of duty, love, honour, so that even when
we prove the will to have been victorious over passion, we have not
got rid of Determinism.

The Rev. W. Templeton King seems to have got as near the
solution as it is possible for us to reach, when he says :—‘‘ Possibly
the solution of the mystery lies in a power in the will to choose
between motives which are both seeking to influence it.” Possibly
there the solution lies, but it is still a mystery, because when the
will makes its choice as to which influence shall rule it, in making
that choice, it is influenced by inherited and created character

318 ARCHDEACON B. POTTER, M.A., ON

The mystery resembles the old problem: Which existed first, the
hen or the egg? or again: Did the soil formed from decayed
vegetation or the vegetation which produces it, first exist? The
point of my paper was that a mystery exists—not that the will
is not free. I believe it to be free. I also believe it to be deter-
mined, but I cannot reconcile the two things. They seem entirely
incompatible. Professor Orchard objects to a solution which “adds
the insoluble complication that contradictory propositions are
simultaneously true.” But that is the very position we are forced
into as regards many problems in philosophy, ¢.., the love, power,
and justice of God.

If God be all powerful and all just, is not even momentary
injustice inconsistent with these attributes ? The apparently con-
tradictory may not be contradictory, owing to our limited know-
ledge, just as real miracles—I mean those that actually happened
—only seem at variance with law, because our knowledge of law is
limited.

Professor Kirkpatrick finds a difficulty in my saying that if the
will is absolutely free, a man will probably sometimes act in oppo-
sition to his training and character. But absolute freedom implies
this. If you toss a penny a hundred times, it will at least once fall
head downwards. So that if the will is not in any sense ruled by
motives or character, it must sometimes act contrary to character.
But it never does: because when it apparently does, there is at work
some ruling principle which hitherto unseen is now at work.

Professor White agrees with my view. We are practically free.
But clearly as he puts it, this freedom still remains incomprehensible.
I do not think Mr. Champneys realizes the difficulty of the question.
He says Illingworth need only have gone back a step or two further.
But he did not, and if he had, he would have come to law, cause,
determinism. Illingworth in the passage I referred to distinctly
overlooks the crux of the whole question, viz., that the “ acts of
will,” so called, which go to build up character, are themselves
determined by pre-existing character.

Mr. Champneys does not seem to understand what I mean by
“education being effective.” I mean that when a boy is really
influenced by moral education, so that it forms and improves his
character, then in his after life the result invariably follows, viz., his
conduct responds to the character so formed.

DETERMINISM AND FREE-WILL. 319

It may be open to argument whether or not the boy in imbibing
moral teaching so as to improve his character is exercising free will,
or being influenced by pre-existing character. But I did not refer to
this in the passage referred to, my point was that when the character
is formed the after conduct answers to the helm.

Mr. Champneys states that arguments in favour of determinism
almost always presuppose that the will must follow the analogy of
material things ; but in my paper there was no such assumption, and
no reference to material law, nor was there any assumption that a
motive to be a cause must be irresistible—only the bare statement
proved by examples that motives do influence the actions. At
the same time it must be remembered that although
history and judgment of character may not be exact sciences,
the reason of this may be the infinite number of causes, many
unknown to the actor, behind the human will. Mathematics is an
exact science, because its scope is limited.

Professor Kirkpatrick seems to put the matter very clearly. He
sees that I do not use the word determinism in its narrower sense :
but in its “higher and wider sense,” in which as he says it means:
“the sum total of all influences including religion, education, art,
science, taste, etc.,” and in this case he admits that “ our conduct is
morally determined.”

Mr. Tuckwell thinks we are ina “ Serbonian bog” if we believe in
the pre-existence of the soul. Has he noted that the great mass of
the arguments in the Phedo for immortality depend on the belief in
pre-existence? If we came into existence at birth, does it not seem
probable that we pass out of existence at death? How can there be
an immortality & parte post, if not & parte ante %

As regards punishment, even if a man could not resist temptation,
he still should be punished, because the fear of further penalties will
act as a deterrent, by bringing the motive of fear into play.

Os
bo
CS

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE LATE REV;
GEORGE FERRIS WHIDBORNE, Member of the
Council,

Rev. GEORGE FERRIS WHIDBORNE, M.A., F.G.S., F.R.G.S.,
late of Hammerwood Lodge, East Grinstead, son of the Rev.
George Ferris Whidborne, who was descended from Sir Richard
Whidborne, one of the men of Devon who provided ships to go
to fight the Spanish Armada, and a founder of Newfoundland ;
born at Plymouth, in 1846; educated at Clifton College, and
late Schoiar of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge; B.A.,
(Senior Optimes and 3rd Class Classical Tripos), 1868; M.A.,
1872. Ordained Deacon, 1881, and Priest, 1882, by the Bishop
of London; formerly Curate of St. Pancras, 1881-86;
St. Paul's, Onslow Square, 1886-88; Vicar of St. George,
Battersea, 1888-96; succeeded to The Priory, Westbury-on-
Trym, Gloucester, 1894, and resided there for seven years,
during which time he took a prominent part in Bristol church
work; was a Life Governor of the Church Missionary Society ;
a Hyndman Trustee ; member of the Islington Trust and of the
Church Trust ; one of the founders and for many years Hon.
Secretary of the National Protestant Church Union, and took
great interest in the work of its successor, the National Church
Union ; was well known as a geologist, and since 1876 had
been a Fellow of the Geological Society, and for many years a
member of Council; also member of Council of the Paleonto-
graphical Scciety, and several times elected Vice-President ;
member of the Victoria Institute, and member of its Council ;
contributed papers to the Geological Society’s Journal, aud
published between the years 1888 and 1898 three volumes on
the Devonian fauna of the South of England.

EIS), Os re

VICE-PATRONS, MEMBERS, ASSOCIATES,

a&C.

VICE-PATRON.
A. McARTHUR, ESQ., D.L., J.P.

*,* The Qualification of a Vice-Patron is a Contribution of not
less than Sixty Guineas to the Funds of the Institute.

COUNCIL AND OFFICERS.

President.

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE EARL OF HALSBURY,
DC.L., WARS:

Uice-Presivents.

SIR T. FOWELL BUXTON, BART., K.C.M.G.

DAVID HOWARD, ESQ., D.L., F.CS., F.L.C., f.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.GS.
REV. CANON R. B. GIRDLESTONE, M.A.

Wonorary Correspondents.

SIR DAVID GILL, K.C.B., LL.D., F.R.S.
PROF. MASPERO (Paris). PROF. WARREN UPHAM, DSc.
PROF. E. NAVILLE (Geneva). SIR ROBERT 8. BALL, F.RB.S.
PROF. A. H. SAYCE, D.D., LL.D.
HIS EXCELLENCY HERR FRIDTJOF NANSEN, D.Sc.

Wonorary Auditors.

LIEUT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, | E. J. SEWELL, ESQ.
LATE R.A.

Wonorary Treasurer.
EDWARD S. M. PEROWNE, ESQ., F.S.A.

Secretary and Evitor of the Hournal.
FREDERIC 8S. BISHOP, ESQ., M.A., J.P.

Council.

(In Order of Election.)
VERY REV. H. WACE, D.D., Dean of Canterbury (Trustee).
EDWARD STANLEY M. PEROWNEH, EsQ., F.S.A.
MARTIN LUTHER ROUSE, ESQ., B.A., B.L.
REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A\S.
LIEUT.-COLONEL GEORGE MACKINLAY.
GENERAL J. G. HALLIDAY.
ARTHUR W. SUTTON, ESQ., J.P., F.LS.
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.
ALFRED T. SCHOFIELD, ESQ., M.D.
HEYWOOD SMITH, ESQ., M.A., M.D.
REV. CHANCELLOR J. J. LIAS, M.A.
REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A.
E. WALTER MAUNDER, ESQ., F.R.A.S.
THEO. G. PINCHES, ESQ., LL.D., M.R.A.S.
VEN. ARCHDEACON BERESFORD POTTER, M.A.
VEN. ARCHDEACON W. M. SINCLAIR, M.A., D.D.
REV. J. H. SKRINE, M.A.
E. J. SEWELL, Esq.
J. W. THIRTLE, EsQ., LL.D., M.R.A.S.

323

* Members of Council.
t+ Life Members or Life Associates.
t Specially Elected.
I Distinguishes those who have contributed Papers to the Institute.
F Foundation Members or Associates (elected before Dec. 31, 1866).
f.c. Finance Committee (Six Members).
i Those through whom legacies have been received.

1876
1895
1901

1882
1869
1901
1903
1873
1910
1879

1908

1907
1884
1889
1907
1896

1891

1894
1904
1890

VEMBERS.

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.

+Baring, Rev. F. H. M.A. Camb. F.R.G.S.
+Barker, John L. Esq.
+Bell, Colonel Alexander W. C. (late Indian Army).
Bermuda Library, Trustees of.
Bevan, Francis A. Esq. D.. J.P.
Bishop, T. B. Esq.
*Bishop, F. S. Esq. M.A. Oxon. M.A. Cantab. J.P.
(SecREevARY. )
Bowles, Edward Augustus, Esq. M.A. Cantab. F.L.S.
F.E.S.
Braun, Mrs. Annie E. von.
Brown, Rev. Cland, M.A. Oxon.
Browne, John, Esq. C.E.
Bruce, Rev. John Collingwood Gainsford, M.A.
*Buxton, Sir T. Fowell, Bart. K.C.M.G. F.R.G.S.
(VicE-PRESIDENT).

Carr, Rev. Arthur, M.A., late Fell. Oriel, Hon. See.
Cent. Soc. Higher Relig. Educ.

Chapman, Geo. John, Esq. M.A. 8.C.L. F.Z.S

Clough, G. Benson, Esq.

Collins, Brenton H. Esq. J.P.

324

1889 Cooper, 8. Joshua Esq.

1271 +Coote, Sir A. C. P. Bart. M.A. Camb. F.R.G:S.

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.

1871 +Day, William, Esq.

1903 Deacon, J. F. W. Hsq. M.A. J.P. D.L.

1889 TDodge, Rev. D. Stuart, M.A.

1910 Drawbridge, Rev. Cyprian L, M.A.

1899 Drummond, Mrs. J. M. A.

1903 Ducie, Right Hon. The Karl of, F.R.S. F.G.S.

K.
1882 +Ellis, Alston, Esq. A.M. Ph.D. LL.D.

1878 Fairfax, Sir James R.

1904 Finn, Alexand»r, Esq. F.R.G.S., British Consulate,
Chicago, U.S.

1902 Foote, Robert Bruce, Esq. F.G.S.

1875 Fox, Rev. Prebendary H. BE. M.A. Camb.

1876 Freeman, Miss F. H.

1892 Fremlin, R. H. Esq.

1904 Galloway, Professor William, F.G.S.

1892 *Geary, Lieut.-General Sir H. L. K.C.B. R.A.
(Vicre-PRESIDENT.)

1908 Gerard, Rev. John, B.A.

187749 *Girdlestone, Rev. Canon R. B. M.A. (Vick-
PRESIDENT. )

1875 +Godson, HE. Probyn, Esq. B.A. Camb.

1896 +tGregg, Rev. David, D.D. LL.D.

1899 *Halliday, General J. G.

1888 Hatspury, The Right Hon. Hardinge Stanley Giffard,
Earl of, K.G. P.C. F.R.S. (PResIDENT.)

1901 Harrison, Edgar Erat, Esq.

325

1882 Head, J. Merrick, Esq. F.R.G.S.

1893 Heath, Captain G. P. R.N.

1890 Hellier, Rev. Henry Griffin, Balliol Coll. Oxon.

1906 Hershensohnn, Joshua R. Esq.

1879 +Hingston, C. A. Exq. M.D. B.Sc. Lond.

1895 Hooper, George Norgate, Esq. F.R.G.S. F.S.S.

1906 *Horner, William J. Esq.

18739*Howard, David, Esq. D.L. F.C.S. FIC. (Vice-
PRESIDENT.)

1873 Howard, R. Luke, Esq. F.R.M.S.

1873 Howard, Theodore, Esq.

1873 +Howard, W. Dillworth, Esq.

1888*+ Hull, Professor E. M.A. LL.D. F.R.S. F.G.S.; late
Director of the Geological Survey of Ireland,
Acad. Sci. Philad. Corresp. Svc. Geol. de Belg.
(VicE-PRESIDENT).

1901 Hull, Edmund C. P. Esq. J.P.

1880 Ince, Rev. Canon W. D.D. Reg. Prof. Div. Oxf. Chap.
to Bishop of Oxford.

J.
1891 +Jex-Blake, The Very Rev. T. W. D.D. Dean of Wells.

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.B.1.

L.
18914+Lansdell, Rev. Henry, D.D. Memb. RI. Asiatic Soc.
F.R.G.S:

1898 Laurence, Miss M. A.

1875q*Lias, Rev. Chancellor J. J. M.A. Hulsean Lecturer
1884.

1887 Loveday, Miss L. H.

1909 MacEwan, Miss Madge D.

189747*Mackinlay, Lieut.-Colonel George, late R.A. (Hon.
Auditor).

1885 +Marshall, Rev. C. J.

1907 Martin, George H. Esq. M.D.

326

1901 Matthews, Ernest R. Esq. A.M.I.C.E. F.G.S.

1872 Matthews, John T. Esq.

1908 *Maunder, E. Walter, Esq. F.R.A.S.

1909 McLarty, Pharmacist Colin, U.S.N.

1898 Molony, Edmund - Alexander, Esq. (Indian Civil
Service).

1905 +Mortimer, Rev. Alfred G. D.D. Philadelphia.

1881 +Mullens, Josiah, Esq. F.R.G.S.

1878 Newson, The Right Hon. The Karl.
188] Newton, Rev. Preb. Horace, M.A. Camb. Prebendary
of York.

OQ:

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*+4 Orchard, H. Langhorne, Esq. Prof. of Logic, M.A.
B.Sc. (Gunning Prizeman 1909.)

RP;

1881 {Patton, 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.

1894 *Perowne, Edward Stanley Mould, Esq. F.S.A. (Hon.
TREASURER. )

1896 +Petter, Rev. W. D. H. M.A. Camb.

1872 +Phené, J. S. Esq. LL.D. F.S8.A. F.G.S. F.R.G.S.

1882 +Pogson, Miss H. Isis; F.M.S. Meteorological Reporter
and Assist.-Govt. Astronomer, Madras.

18989* Potter, Ven. Archdeacon Beresford, M.A. T.C.D.

1888 +Powell, Sir F. S. Bart. M.P. F.R.G.S.

1880 Rivington, Rev. Cecil 8. M.A. Hon. Canon of Bombay.
1909 Roget, Professor F. F.

18994 *Rouse, Martin Luther, Esq. B.A. B.L.

1872 Rowe, Rev. G. Stringer.

1882 +Scott-Blacklaw, Alex. Esq.
1904 *Sewell, Ebenezer J. Esq (Hon. Auditor.)

327

1909 Shelford, Rev. Prebendary L. HK. M.A.

1889 Simpson, Prof. Sir A. R. M.D.

1893 Smart, Francis G. Esq. M.A. M.B. F.L.S. F.R.G.S.
FS.A.

1873 Smith, Philip Vernon, Chancellor, M.A. LL.D.

1892 +Stilwell, John Pakenham, Esq. J.P.

1885 +Strathcona and Mount Royal, Lord, G.C.M.G. LL.D.
F.R.G.S. F.G.8. (Vicr-Presmpent.)

19039 *Sutton, Arthur W. Esq. J.P. F.L.S.

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.

tT:

1908 *Thirtle, James W. Esq. LL.D. M.R.A.S.

1906 Townley, Rev. Charles F. M.A.

1897 Townsend, Rev. Professor L. Tracy, D.D. LL.D.

1899 Tremlett, James Dyer, Esq. (Barr.-at-Law) M.A
Camb.

1889 Tritton, Joseph H. Esq. F.R.G.S. F.S.S.

18944|*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.

VU.

1889 Urquhart, Rev. John (Gunning Prizeman, 1905).
1880 Usherwood, The Ven. Archdeacon T. EH. M.A.

1875 {Veasey, H. Esq. F.R.C.S.

Wie

18769 * Wace, Very Rev. H. D.D. Dean of Canterbury ; Hon.
Chap. to the Queen; late Principal of King’s
College, Lond. (Trustee).

1873 Walters, William Melmoth, Esq.

1878 +Watson, Rev. A. Duff, M.A. BD.

1903 +Whidborne, Miss Alice M.

1910 Whidborne, Mrs. G. F.

1899 +Wigram, Rev. HE. F. E. M.A.

1894 Williams, Colonel Robert, M.P.

328

1879 Willis, Right Rev. Alfred, D.D.

FF Wright, Francis Beresford, Esq. M.A. Cantab. J.P.
¥.R.H.S.

1907 Wright, Rev. Professor George Frederick, D.D.
LL.D. ¥.G.8.A.

Y:
1876 Young, C. HE. Baring, Esq. M.A. F.R.G.S.

329

ASSOCTATES.

1878 Adams, Rev. Canon James.

1894 Adams, Rev. Wm. W. D.D.

1896 Anderson, Sir Robert, K.C.B. LL.D.

1888 +Anprews, Rt. Rev. Walter, M.A. Bishop of Hokkaido,
Japan.

1869 +Armacu, The Most Rev. W. Alexander, D.D. D.C.L.
Archbishop of. Primate and Metropolitan of all
Ireland.

1905 Arnstrom, Rev. D. A.

1887 Arrowsmith, KE. M. Esq.

1887 Ashby, Robert, Esq.

1888 Ashwin, Rev. C. Godfrey, M.A.

1909 Ashwin, Rev. Edward Godfrey, M.A. Camb.

1906 Ashwin, Rev. Forster, B.A.

1909 Ashwin, Rev. Hamilton, LL D. T.C.D.

1891 +Atkinson, Rev. Edward, D.D. Master Clare Coll.
Cambridge.

1876 Badger, Rev. W. C. M.A.

1906 Baker, Lt.-Colonel W. W. R.E.

1893 Barlow, Rev. C. H. M.A. Oxon. Chap. Bengal.

1910 Bartholomew, Mrs. Lucy Isabella.

1902 Barton, Rev. Professor G. A. Ph.D.

1909 Beachcroft, Miss Mary.

1906 Bent, Mrs. Theodore.

1887 Berry, Rev. Canon D. M. M.A. Oxon. Demi of Magd.
Kllerton Prizeman.

1894 Bevan. Ven. Archdeacon H. EH. J. M.A. Camb.
Gresham Prot. of Divinity.

1890 +Bigelow, Professor Meiville M. Ph.D.

1888 Bird, Arthur, Esq. F.R.G.S.

1904 +Birkett, Rev. Arthur Ismay, M.A.

1905 Blandy, Miss Grace.

1900 Bolton, Miss Elsie H.

1890 Bomford, Rev. L. G. M.A.

1902 Boord, Miss Eva J.

1891 Y Boyd, Rev. T. Hunter.

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.E.

1900 Brown, J. Walter, Esq.

1893 +Bryan, Joseph Davies, Esq.

1894+ Bullen, Rey. R. Ashington, B.A. F.L.S. F.G.S.

y 2

330

1893 Buswell, Ven. Archdeacon H. D.

1892 +Butt, Rev. Canon G. H. B.A.

1889 +Cain, Rev. John.

1910 Candy, Charles Harrison, Esq. B.A. LL.M. Camb.

1907 Carus-Wilson, Henry, Esq.

1894 Carroll, A. Esq. M.D. D.Lit. Ph.D. D.Sc.

1889 +Caudwell, Eber, Esq. M.R.C.S.E. L.R.C.P.

1890 tCaudwell, Paul, Esq. B.A. Solicitor.

1894 Chambré, Very Reverend A. St. J. B.A. M.A. D.D.
Dean.

1906 Chambré, Colonel 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.

1888 Clyde, Rev. J. C. A.B. A.M. D.D.

1891 +Cobern, Rev. Prof. Camden M. B.A. 8.T.B. Ph.D.

1893 Cockin, Rev. J.

1906 Collett, Sidney, Ksq.

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.

1895 Darling, Rev. John Lindsey, M.A. T.C.D.

1884 Daunt, The Ven. Archdeacon W. M.A.

1905 Davidson, Rev. D. C. 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 Italian Army.

1908 Derr, Andrew F. Esq. 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.

1907 Dixon, Rev. Edwin Church, M.A. S.T.B.

1897 Drake-Brockman, William Drake, Esq., late Sup.
Engineer P.W.D. India; late A.I.C.E.

1888 DunueatH, The Rt. Hon. H. L. Lord.

1885 Dcuruam, The Rt. Reverend H. C. G. Moule, D.D.
Bishop of.

1883 Ebbs, Miss Ellen Hawkins.

1891 Eckersley, Rev. Jas. M.A.

1889 +Eddy, Mrs. Mary B. G.

1910 Edensor, Miss Florence M.

18859 +Elwin, Rev. Arthur.

1880 Escott, Rev. Hay Sweet, M.A

331

1909 Evans, George, Esq.

1886 Evans, Mrs. James Joyce.

1896 Evineton, Right Rev. Bishop H. D.D. late (Bishop in
Kiushiu. 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 +Ftoripa, The Right Rev. E.G. Weed, D.D. S.T.D.
Bishop of.

1897 Flournoy, Rev. Parke Poindexter, D.D.

1894 +Forster, Miss H. J.

1882 tFox, C. Dillworth, Esq.

1904 4 Frost, Udward P. Esq. D.L. J.P.

1900 Gardiner, EH. J. Esq.

1873 +Gardner, Mrs. Ernest L.

1897 Garnett, Thomas, Esq.

SF +Gedge, Sydney, Esq. M.A. F.R.G.S.

1899 Gibbon, Lt.-Colonel J. Aubrey, R.E.

1908 Gilbertson, Francis W Esq.

1908 Given, J. C. M. Esq. M.D. M.R.C.P.

1903 Goodridge, Richard E. W. Esq.

1881 Gray, Charles, Esq.

1877 Greenstreet, Colonel W. L. R.E.

1897 Greer, Mrs. Thomas.

1902 Gregg, Ivo Francis Hy. Carr, Esq. M.B.A.A.

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

1892 Hall, Hugh Fergie, Esq. M.A. F.G.S.

1903 Hamlyn-Harris, Dr. Ronald, D.Se. F.G.S. F.L.S.

1896 Hanna, His Honour Judge Septimus J. LL.D.

1899 Harlowe, David, Esq.

1901 Harmer, F. W. Esq. J.P. F.G.S.

1878 Harper, The Ven. Archdeacon H. W. M.A.

1910 Harper, Jas. Peddie, Esq. M.D. L.R.C.S.E.

1904 Heaton, James Esq. Memb. Soc. Arts.

1909 Hechler, Rev. Prof. W. H.

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 .Hsa. B.A. L.R.C.S. L.R.C.P. J.P.

332

1882 Hicks, Rev. Edward, M.A. D.D. D.C.L.

1891 Higgens, T. W. E. Esq. A.M.I.C.E.

1892 +Hildesley, Rev. Principal A. H. M.A. Sanawar.

1901 Hodges, Rev. Albert H.

1908 Hodgkin, Miss Alice Mary.

1897 Hodgson, Rev. William, M.A. Oxon.

1902 +Hogarth, Rev. Oswald J. M.A.

1883 +Houstoun, G, L. Esq. F.G.S.

1902 Howard, Sir Frederick, J.P.

1888 Howard, Joseph, Esq. B.A. Lond. F.R.G.S.

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.1.E. Jaipur.

1898 Janvier, Rev. Cesar A. Rodney, M.A. (Princeton).

1904 Jenkins, J. Heald, Esq. M.A.

1902 Jessop, Arthur, Hsq.

1907 Jewett, Rev. Professor Frank L. B.A. B.D.

1907 Job, Rev. Charles Robert M.A. Camb.

1891 Johnson, C. R. Esq. H. Sec. Brighouse Ch. Lit. Club.

1896 +Johnstone, Miss J. A.

1879 Kaye, The Ven. W. F. J. M.A. Oxon. Archdeacon and
Canon of Lincoln.

Kemble, Mrs. Stephen Cattley.

1895 FKidd, Walter Aubrey, Esq. M.D. B.S. M.R.C.S.

F.Z.8

1884 Kimball, John E. Esq. A.M. Yale (Sup. Pub. Sc.).

1883 Kimm, Rev. W. F. M.A. late Fell. Cath. Coll. Camb.

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 lLach-Szyrma, Rev. W. 8. M.A. Oxon.

1905 Lampe, Rev. Joseph L. D.D.

1873 Lawrence, Ven. Archdeacon C. D. M.A.

1873 Lea, Miss G. E.

1905 Lees. Rev. Harrington Clare, M.A.

1901 Lerroy, The Right Rev.G. A. D.D. Bishop of Lahore,
India.

1873 +Lewis, Rev. J. S. M.A.

1897 Linton, Rev. EB. C. M.A. Camb.

1901 {Lobley, Prof. J. Logan, F.G.S. F.R.G.S.

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.

1908 Longdon, Miss Caroline Mary.

338

1901 lLénnbeck, 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. S. T. M.A. D.D.

1908 Lupton, Sydney, Esq. M.A. F.C.S.

1910 MacGregor, Colonel Henry Grey, C.B.

1882 Maitland, Rev. H. F. M.A. Oxon.

1902 Manwaring, George A. Esq. C.E.

19099 * Marston, Rev. Herbert J. R. M.A. Durh.

1893 +Martineau, A. KE. Esq. (Ind. Civ. Serv.).

18929 +Masterman, E. W. Gurney, Esq. F.R.C.S. F.R.G.S.
DPPH:

1909 Maunsell, Rev. F. W. M.A. Dub.

1888 Maxwell of Calderwood, Lady.

1894 Mead, Rev. Charles Marsh, Ph.D. D.D.

1892 FMello, Rev. J. Magens, M.A. F.G.S.

1879 Methuen, Rev. T. Plumptre, M.A.

1889 Millingen, J. R. Van, Esq.

SF Ss Milner, Rev. W. M. H. M.A. Oxon. F.R.G.S.

1903 Maurcuinson, Right Rev. Bishop J. D.D. D.C.L.

1899 Moffat, Rev. J. S. C.M.G.

1892 +Molony, Major Francis A. R.E.

1907 Moore, Rev. Henry N. M.A.

1882 Moule, Ven. Archdeacon A. EH. B.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. (Hd. ‘‘ Mouktataf”?), Cairo.

1887 Norbury, Inspector-Gen. Sir H. F. K.C.B. M.D.
F.R.C.S. R.N.

1880 Nursey, Rev. Percy Fairfax, M.A. Oxon.

1879 +Oake, Rev. R. C.

1886 Oates, Rev. Alfred.

1880 O'Dell, Professor Stackpool E.

1908 +Oke, Alfred William, Esq. B.A. LL.M.

1899 Orr, Major Walter Hood, I.M.S.

1891 Oulton, Rev. Richard Charles, M.A. B.D.

1898 Parker, Rev. Alvin Pierson, D.D.; President, Anglo-
Chinese College, Shanghai.

1905 Partridge, Deputy Surgeon-General W.P.

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.

1908 Peirce, Harold, Esq.

1887 +Penford, Rev. E. J.

334

1908 Perkins, Walter R. Esq.

1894 Pike, Rev. Sidney, M.A. Camb.

1884 Piper, F. H. Esq.

1881 Pippet, Rev. W. A.

1896 Plantz, Rev. President Samuel, D.D. Ph.D.

1881 Pratt, Rev. J. W. M.A. D.D. ;

1880 +Priestley, Rev. J. J. S.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.

1894 Reed, F. R. Cowper, Esq. M.A. F.G.S. Asst. to
Woodwardian Prof. of Geology Camb.

1876 Rendell, Rev. Canon A. M. M.A. Camb.

1899 Revie, Rev. Dugald, M.B. C.M. Glas. Univ. late Free
Church of Scot. Medical Mission.

1877 Rhodes, Rev. D.

1882 Ridley, Rt. Rev. Bishop W. D.D.

1885 Riggs, Rev. J. F. B.A. M.A. D.D.

1899 4 Robinson, Rev. Andrew Craig, M.A.

1895 Robinson, Maj.-General C. G. R.A.

1894 Rogerson, Rev. Geo. M.A.

1906 Roscoe, John Henry, Ksq.

1884 +Ross, Rev. G. H. W. Lockhart, B.A.

1908 Rouse, Miss Ellen.

1881 Royston, The Right Rev. Bishop P. 8. D.D.

1903 Ryan, Hugh 8. K. Esq. M.A. Camb.

1883 St. Andrew’s University, Court of; Stuart Grace, Esq.
Factor.

1891 St. Johns, New Brunswick Free Pub. Lib. J. R, Reul,
Ksq. Chairman.

1903 Salmensaari, Herra Sulo, B.A. Finland.

1881 Sandford, H. Esq.

1895 SaskatcHewan, Right Rev. J. Newnham, D.D.
Bishop of.

1891* 4 Schofield, Alfred Taylor, Esq. M.D.

1908 Schwartz, John, Esq. Junior.

1906 Searle, Malcolm W. Esq. K.C. M.A. LL.B.

1876 +Seeley, Rev. E.

1910 Shann, William Arthur Esq. M.B. Cantab.

1875 Sharp, Rev. J. M.A. Queen’s Coll. Oxon.; late Editorial
Superintendent, Bible Soc.

1882 Shepherd, Mrs. F. Wolfskill De.

1901 +Sherard, Rev. Clement EK. M.A. Camb.

1882 Shore, Captain the Hon. H. N. R.N,

1906 Sidebottom, Colonel W.

18769 *+Sinclair, The Ven. Archdeacon W. Macdonald, M.A.
D.D. form. Sch. of Balliol, Oxon.

1902 Sharpe, W. E. Thompson, Esq. M.A.

1903 Stncarorr, Right Rev. C. J. Ferguson Davie,
Bishop of.

305

1969 *Skrine, Rev. John Huntley, M.A. Oxon.

1907 Smith, Mrs. Aline Gerard.

1892 Smith, Hon. Sir Charles Abercrombie, M.A. Fell.
St. Peter’s Coll. Camb.

1901 +Smith-Bosanquet, Miss Ella.

1873 Smith, Major-General HE. 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.

1906 Smith, Richard Tilden, Esq.

1891 Smith, S. Ashley, Esq. M.D.

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. Hsq. C.H. A.L.C.E.

1879 +Stewart, Alex. Esq.

1872 Stewart, Sir Mark J. McTaggart, Bart. M.A. M.P.

1890 +Stokes, Anson Phelps, Esq. Vice-Pres. XIX Cent.
Club U.S.A. Memb. Council, 8.S. Assoc.

1894 Stokes, Jumes, Esq. Officer of the Legion of Honour.

1887 Stokes, Rev. W. Fenwick, M.A.

1903 Stovin, Mrs. Caroline.

1902 +Strong, John Alexander, Esq.

1902 +Strong, Rev. Rupert 8S. M.A. Camb.

1895 Swinburne, Hon. George, C.E.

1899 Symonds, Hon. J. W.

1899 +Talmage, Professor James H. Ph.D. F.R.M.S. F.G.S.
F.R.S.E. 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. Gniffith, D.D. late Principal
Wycliffe Hall, Oxford.

SF “Thornton, the Right Rev. Samuel, D.D. late Bishop
of Ballarat.

1906 Tindall, Miss Caroline.

1910 Titterington, Edw. J. G. Esq. M.A.

1908 Treanor, Rev. Thomas Stanley, M.A., T.C.D.

1871 Tremlett, Rev. Dr. F. W. D.D. D.C.L. Hon. Ph.D.
Jena Univ. F.R.G.S. Chaplain to Lord Waterpark,
Eccles. Com. for American Prelates and the Univ.
of the South.

1907 Trench, Mrs. Charles Chenevix.

1909 Trench, F. P. Esq. M.B. F.R.C.S. Edin.

1902. Trumbull, C. G. Esq. Philadelphia.

1908 Turnbull, G. L. Esq. M.A. M.D. Oxon.

1909 Turner, Arthur Charlewood, Esq. M.A. Camb.

1903 FTurner, Rev. F. Storrs, B.A.

1908 Turner, Rev. Ralph Charlewood, M.A. Camb.

1882 Turrie, Right Rev. D. 8. D.D. Bishop of Missouri.

1902. Twigg, John Hill, Esq. late India Civil Service.

336

1898 Tydeman, HE. Esq. B.A. F.R.G.S. Lawrence Military
Asylum.

1887 Uhl, Rev. L. L. D.D. Principal A.E.L.M. College,
Guntur, India.

1907 Ussher, W. A. K. Esq. F.G.S.

1876 Watrarc, Right Rev. William Leonard Williams, B.A.
Bishop of.

1910 Walker, William Sylvester, Esq.

1893 Waller, Rev. C. Cameron, M.A. Camb. Principal of
Huron Coll.

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.

1882 +Warrington, Miss E.

1895 Way, the Right Hon. Sir Samuel James, D.C... LL.D.
Chief Justice S. Aust.

1895 Weaver, George M. Esq.

1879 Webb-Peploe, Rev. Prebendary H. W. M.A. Camb.

1898 Weightman, Miss Ialice.

1893*+WeELLDoN, Right Rev. Bishop J. E. C. D.D. Dean of
Manchester.

1889 +Wexuincton, Right Rev. Frederic Wallis, D.D.
Bishop of.

1887 Wherry, Rev. E. M. D.D. Lodhiana, Punjab, India.

1907 White, Rev. G. E. M.A. D.D., Dean of Anatolia
College.

1882 F White, Rev. J. M.A. T.C.D. Hon. M.A. Maed. Oxf.

1894 +Whitehead, Rev. George B.A. Lond.

1881 Whiting, Rev. J. Bradford, M.A. Camb.

18709 +W hitmee, Rev. 8. J. F.R.G.S. Cor. Mem. Z.8.

SF =—- Whitwell, Robert J. Esq. B.Litt.

1910 Wilkinson, Rev. Samuel Hinds, F.R.G.S.

1881 +Williams, H. S. Esq. M.A. F.R.A.S. A.C.

1882 Willis, The Ven. Archdeacon W. N.

1896 Wills, Harold Temple, Esq. M.A. B.Sc.

1910 Wilson, Henry, Esq.

1907 Winfield, Rev J. Abbott.

1885 Winslow, Rev. W. C. D.D. D.C.L. LL.D. L.H.D. D.Sc.
S.T.D. Ph.D. Amer. Vice - President Egypt
Exploration Fund.

1889 +Winter, The Ven. Archdeacon G. Smith.

1877. Wood, Rey. Canon A. Maitland, M.A.

1893 Wood, Peter F. Hsq. F.R.G.S.

1899 Wood, Walter James, Esy. 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.

SF Young, Rev. Charles, M.A. Camb.

1894 Zimmerman, Rey. Jeremiah, M.A. D.D. LL.D.

337

ASSISTANT SECRETARY.

1884 Montague, Mr. A. EH.
77, Hungerford Road, Camden Road, N.

338

LIBRARY ASSOCIATES.

Adelaide Public Library, South Australia.

Berlin Royal Library (per Asher & Co.).

Birmingham Free Library.

Boston Public Library (per Kegan Paul & Co.).

Chicago 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.

t Melbourne Public Lib. and Museum, Melbourne, Victoria.
Michigan, University of Ann Arbor.

. Mitchell Library (F. T. Barrett, Esq.), 21, Miller Street,

Glasgow.

Newecastle-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.

Sydney Free Library, New South Wales.

m Texas University, Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
Worcester Public Library, Mass., U.S.A.

339

HON. CORRESPONDING MEMBERS.

HOME.

1902 4 Ball, Sir R. S. LL.D. F.R.S. Prof. of Astronomy, Camb.
The Observatory, Cambridge.

1890 9 Geikie, Prof. James, D.C.L. LL.D. F.R.S. F.R.S.E. F.G.S.;
Prof. Geo. and Min. Univ. Hdin. 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 Gill, 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.IL.E. 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.

1903 “Petrie, Prof. W. Flinders, D.C.L. 18, Well Road, Hamp-

stead, N.W.
1889*@Pinches, Theo. G. Esq. LL.D. 38, Blomfield Road, Maida
Hill, W.

1878 {Rassam, Hormuzd, Esq. F.R.G.S. 30, Westbourne Villas,
Hove, Brighton.

1889 YSayce, 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.Sc. F.R.S.
Prof. Anatomy, Univ. Edin. 6, Hton Terrace, Edinburgh.

1905 Woodward, Dr. Henry F.R.S. F.G.S. 129, Beaufort Street,
Chelsea.

FOREIGN.

1895 His Masesty Kina Momotu Massaquor, West Africa.

1881 Abbe, Professor Cleveland, M.A. Assistant in the office of
the Chief Signal Officer of the Weather Bureau, U.S.A.

1895 Hilprecht, Rev. Professor H. V. D.D. Univ. of Pennsyl-
vania, U.S.A.

1893 Hommel, Prof. Fritz, Ph.D. LL.D. Prof. of Semitic
Languagesin Univ.of Munich, Leopolds Strasse 81 Munich.

1889 d’Hulst, Coun Riamo, Cairo.

1895 Lugard, Brigadier-General F. J. D. C.B. D.S.O.

1896 {{Macloskie, Prof. G. D.Sc. LL.D. Prof. Biology (Princeton),
U.S.A.

340

1883 {Maspero, Prof. G. K.C.M.G. D.C.L. Oollége de France, Cairo,
Lgypt ; 24, Avenue de lV Observatoire, Paris.

1904 Nansen, Prof. Fridtjof, D.Sc. LL.D. D.C.L. Lysaker, Norway.

1883 FNaville, EK. D.Lit. Ph.D. Malagny, Geneva, Switzerland.

1895 Sabatier, Professor Armand, M.D. Montpellier, France.

1898 Stosch, Rev. Prof. D.D. 24, Lutzow Street, Berlin.

1904 JUpham, Warren, Esq. M.A. D.Sc. F.G.S. Amer. See.
Minnesota Historical Society.

1898 Zahn, Rev. Prof. T. H. Hrlangen.

SPECIAL.

1883 Beckwith, The Right Rev. J. W. D.D. U.S.A.

1878 Haiti, The Right Rev. J. T. Holly, D.D. Bishop of, Port-au-
Prince, Haitt.

1884 Herzog, Right Rev. E. D.D. Bishop of the Old Catholic
Ch. of Switzerland, Berne.

1878 Jaggar, Right Rev. Bishop T. A. D.D. Bishop of 8S. Ohio,
Episcopal Rooms, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.

1892 Lucknow, Right Rev. A. Clifford, D.D. Bishop of, Allahabad,
India.

1886 Mylne, Right Rev. L. G. D.D. Alvechurch Rectory,
Birmingham.

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.

1880 Vail, Right Rev. T. H. D.D. Bishop, U.S.A.

1890 Wakefield, Right Rev. G. R. Eden, D.D. Bishop of.

341

HON. CORRESPONDENTS.

Adams, Rev. Richard, M.A. T.C.D. 87 Burntwood Lune, 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, Schiedain, 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.

Clarke, Rev. J. M. M.A. 2, Hims Park Terrace, Ramsgate.

Corbet, Frederick H. M. Esq. Barrister-at-Law, F.R.C.L. F.IInst.
Hon. Executive Officer for Ceylon at the Imperial
Institute, 42, Kenilworth Avenue, Wimbledon.

Davies, Rev. R. V. Faithfull, M.A. Beckenham.

Davis, Rev. W. B. M.A. Lupton, Torquay.

Dixon, Prof. J. M. Washington Univ. St. Louis, Mo. U.S.A.

East, Rev. H. HK. Leithfield, Christchurch, New Zealand.

@ Hells, Rev. M. M.A. Union Ovty, 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 (ZF).

Foster, Harry 8. Esq. J.P. F.R.G.S. Consul for Persia, 82, Victoria
Street, S.W.

Gissing, Admiral C. EH. R.N. (ret.) F.R.G.S. United Service Club,
S.W.; Homestead, Queen’s Park, South Drive, Bourne-
mouth.

Gubbins, Surgeon-General W. L. M.D. Army Medical Staff, War
Office, 18, Victoria Street, S.W.; St. John’s, Worcester
Park, Surrey.

Harris, A. H. Esq. c/o I.M. Customs, Shanghai, China.

Harrison, Rev. A. J. B.D. LL.D. Magdalen Lodge, North End,
Newcastle.

Hassell, Joseph, Esq. Brittany Lodge, London Road, St.
Leonards.

Hetherington, Rev. J. St. Peter’s Vicarage, Hull.

Hudson, Rev. Canon J. C. M.A. Vhornton Vicarage, Horn-
castle.

Hutchinson, Rev. A. B. Fukuoka, Japan.

Kydd, Robert, Esq. 164, Stobcross Street, Glasgow.

McLeod, Rev. R. F. Walsden Vicuruge, Todmorden.

Nutt, Rev. George, The Rectory, Liwidas Vale, Jamaica.

‘Oates, Rev. W. Somerset Hast, South Africa.

tO’Donel, G. H Esq. Mission School, Seoni Chappara, O.P. India.

Oliver, Rev. T. D.D. 118, Hampton Road, Southport.

Painter, Rev. W. Hunt, Stirchley Rectory, Shifnal, Salop.

@ Parker, Prof. H. W. 47, 7ih Avenue, New York, N.Y. U.S.A.

842

Rev. Stephen D. Ph.D. Editor ‘“‘ American Antiquarian,”
5817 Madison Avenue, Chicago, Ill. U.S.A.
Petherick, Rev. G. W. B.A. Hawksleigh, 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.

tRobertson, 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.

+Taylor, Rev. Canon R. St. Stephen’s, Newtown, Sydney, N.S.W.

Thomas, Rev. James, British and Foreign Bible Society,
146, Queen Victoria Street, H.C.

Thomson, Robert, Esq. Asst. Sec. Christian Evidence Society,
Craven Street, Strand.

@Tisdall, Rev. W. St. Clair, M.A. D.D.32, Kimbolton Road, Bedford.

Tyndall, Mrs. Colepark, Twickenham.

Walter, Rev. J. C. B.A. Langton Rectory, Horncastle.

Weidemann, Professor Alfred, Ph.D. 2, Konig 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.

Zwemer, Rev. S. M. M.A. D.D. F.R.G.S. Bahrein, Persian Gulf.

345

MISSIONARY ASSOCIATES.

Bomford, Rev. Trevor, M.A. Tarn Taran, Punjab.

Byrde, Rev. Louis, B.A., Nagoya, Japan.

Carpentaria, Right Rev. Bishop of, Thursday Island, Queensland.
Carus- Wilson, H., Esq. Woodlea, Barnet, N.

Elwin, Rev. W. H. 7, Sasuyaya Cho, Koishikawu, Tokyo.
Moore, Rev. E. A. L., Royapet House, Madras.

Joseland, Rev. Frank P. Amoy, China.

Moule, Rev. W. S. B.A. Ningpo, China.

Mylrea, Rev. C, Stanley G. M.D. Buhrein, Arabia.
Reade, Miss F. Theological Library, Cuddalore, S. India.
Robinson, Miss L. G. Berhampore, Bengal

Turner, Rev. G. Reynolds, M.B. Hwet-an-hsein, S. China.
Woodley, Rev. E. C. The Parsenage, Danville, Montreal.

SOCIETIES EXCHANGING TRANSACTIONS WITH
THE INSTITUTE.

American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
American Archeological Institute.
American Geographical Society.
American Geological Society.

American Journal of Archeology.
American Journal of Philology (Johns Hopkins Press).
American Philosophical Society.
Anthropological Society, New York.
Anthropological Society, Washington.
Canadian Institute.

Colonial Museum of New Zealand.
Geographical Society of the Pacific.
Geographical Society of California.
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 Colonial 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.

Soe. 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.

OBJECTS, CONSTITUTION, AND BYE-LAWS

Che Victorin Institute,

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 and 1910.

~ = 5 H -

§ I. Objects.

1. Tue Victoria Institute, or PHILosopHicaL Society oF GREAT
Britain, 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 brmging 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.

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.

§ IL. Constitution.

1. The Society shall consist of Members and Associates, who in
future shall be elected as hereinafter set forth.

il
Honorary Treasurer, one or more Honorary Secretaries, 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
ex officio Members of the Council.

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 Ist in any year. The Council may also
nominate for vacancies, and all nomimations 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.

7. Application for admission to join the Institute being made as
before laid down, such application shall be considered as ipso facto

iv
pledging all who are thereupon admitted as Members or Associates to
observe the Rules and Bye-laws of the Society, and as indicative of their
desire and attention 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.

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 1st day of January in each year, 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 ietter, addressed to one of the
Secretaries ; 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

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, Hon. Treasurer, and Hon.
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 the Honorary Treasurer
and Honorary Secretary.

18. The accounts shall be audited annually, by a Committee, con-
sisting of two Members,—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.

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,
f not paid on or before 3lst March in each year, or within
three months after election, as the case may be.

4, Should any annual subscription remain in arrear to the 30th June,
or for six months after election, the Treasurer shall cause to be forwarded
to the Member or Associate from whom the subscription is due, a letter,
Form D, in the Appendix, 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 till the 30th September.

5. If any arrears be not paid within twelve 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 foreigu works or other books
as are published under the auspices of the Society in furtherance cf
Object 6 (§ L).

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 half, price.

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. Each Membert shall be allowed to borrow books from the
Library, and to have not more than three volumes in his possession at
the same time; pamphlets and periodical publications not to be kept
above fourteen days, nor any other book above three weeks.

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, Ordinary, and Intermediate Meeting).

* For the use of Members and Associates.—See 7th Object.
+ Members only are allowed to take books away,

vill
of the Council on the state of the Society, and to deliberate thereon ; and
to discuss and determine such matters as may be brought forward

relative to the affairs of the Society ; ‘“ Also 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.”

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, shall take the chair at the time fixed for the commencement
of the Meeting, the minutes of the last Ordinary or Intermediate Meeting
shall be read aloud by one of the Secretaries, 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 communications 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.

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 5th Object
of the Society (§ I).

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.

§ V. Bye-Laws (Council Meetings).

1. The Council shall meet at least once every month from November
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
majority 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 one of the Secretaries,
or, in case of his absence, by some other Member present, whom the
Chairman 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

* So arranged when the “Intermediate Meetings” were commenced.
16th January, 1871.

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
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 shall 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 contidential, 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.

§$ VII. Bye-Laws (General).

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
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 not being Members of the Council, nor Members or
Associates of the Institute, 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.

xii

‘OM ‘uopuory ‘puvsyg ‘osnoy eovasey, 1ydjepy ‘T
‘ALOLILSNY VINOLOIA OY} Jo Auejyoroag Luvtouozy

ay} 02 qUas aq Of sr wwof sry, parry way

‘paynys away aq finw sy.1om / "OPUOOREY GFE]
ea Sajpprpuny ey, fo aumnu ay? ‘soyynp uv fT AO
‘ayelo0ss VT
ssauppy LO
‘Taq ula, AFIT
UOYIUYSY LaY}0 LO > 10
“99 ‘aatbap hpsiaauyQ ‘uorssaforg ‘27747, ‘Taqueyy
2 ‘ LO
‘hanssaoau fr ‘awou ‘U0.138q-90T A
yinf pun ‘ainyoubry fisourpso s ayppypunp J JLOSUL AMAT y

VIUOLOTA 947 fo

‘NIVIING LVAD AO ALAINOG IVOLHAOSOTIHG UO SALALIISNT

xD paj]j]OMue aq 0} a1’sap hiqasay df

6b = :

ayy fo sajpwosspy 40

=—1 (9a)
‘HLALILSNI + VIYOLOIA

‘swaquayy ‘suoung-a4 fo uossupp ay2 “of NOILVOIIddy dO WOT

‘Vv Wdod

FORM B.
Str, 19
I have the pleasure to inform you, with reference to
your application dated the , that you have
duly been elected a of the Vicroria Instrrure, o8

PHILOSOPHICAL Sociery oF Great Britain.

I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your faithful Servant,

FORM C.

(Bankers) Messrs.

* Please pay Messrs. Barciay & Co., 1, Pall Mall East, S.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,

Tf this Form be used, please add your Signature, Banker’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 ‘‘Onr GUINEA.”

X1V

THE JOURNAL OF THE TRANSACTIONS

ISSUED DURING PAST YEARS.

Since the Inauguration of the Society, the following Papers have been read :—-
The Quarterly Parts of the Journal are indicated by the numbers prefixed. (The
volumes are sold at One Guinea to Non-Members; Half-a-Guinea to Members and
Associates ; those issued during the years of subscription are not charged for.)

FIRST “SERIES: VOLES. 1) TO %3;

VOLE: OE

1. A Sketch of the Existing Relations between Scripture and Science. By the late GEORGE
WARINGTON, Esq., F.C.S.
2. On the Difference in Scope between Scripture and Science. By the late C. MouNTFoRD
BuRNETT, Esq., M.D., Vice-President V.I.
On Comparative Philology. By the Rev. Roprnson THornton, D.D., Vice-President V.I.
On the Various Theories of Man’s Past and Present Condition. By the late JAMES
REDDIE, Esq., Hon. Sec. V.I.
3. On the Language of Gesticulation and Origin of Speech. By Professor J. R. YounG.
On Miracles: their Compatibility with Philosophical Principles. By the Rev. W. W.
ENGLIisu. M.A.
Thoughts on Miracles. By the late E. B. Penny, Esq-
On the General Character of Geological Formations. By the late E. HorK1ns, Esq., C.E.
4. On the Past and Present Relations of Geological Science to the Sacred Scriptures. By the
Rev. Professor JoHN Kirk.
On the Lessons taught us by Geology in relation to God. Rev. J. Bropix, M.A.
On the Mutual Helpfulness of Theology and Natural Science. By Dr. Guapstong, F.R.S.
On Falling Stars and Meteorites. By the late Rev. W. MircHett. M.A., Vice-President V.I.
(The above Papers, with the Discussions thereon, and with “ Scientia Scientiarum: being
some Account of the Origin and Objects of the Victoria Institute,” with the Reports of
the Provisional Proceedings, and the Inaugural Address by the late Rev. Walter Mitchell,
M.A., Vice-President, form Vol. I. of the “ Journal.”)

VOL. II.

5. (On the Terrestrial Changes and Probable Ages of the Continents, founded upon Astro-
nomical Data and Geological Facts. By the late EvAN Hopkins, Esq., C.E., F.G.S.
On the Credibility of Darwinism. By the late GEorGE WARINGTON, Kisq., F.U.S.
On the Credibility of Darwinism. By the late JAMES REpDIE, Hsq., Hon. Sec. V.I.
6. | On Utilitarianism. By the late James REppig, Esq., Hon. Sec. V.I.
| On the Logic of Scepticism. By the Rev. Roptnson THornTON, D.D., V.P.
} Annual Address (On the Institute’s Work). By the late JAMES Reppig, Esq., Hon. See. V.1.
fe 1 On the Relations of Metaphysical and Physical Science to the Christian Doctrine of
Prayer. By the Rev. Professor JoHN Kirk.

On Geological Chronology, and the Cogency of the Arguments by which some Scientific
Doctrines are supported. (In reply to Professor Huxley’s Address delivered at Sion
College on 21st Noy., 1867.) By the late J. Reppre, Esq., Hon. Sec. V.1. (1867-68).

8. | On the Geometrical Isomorphism of Crystals, and the Derivation of all other Forms from

L those of the Cubical System. (6 Plates.) By the late Rev. W. MircuEu. M.A., V.P.

WOOL: TIT.

§. On the Antiquity of Civilisation. By the late Bishop Trrcomr, D.D.
On Life, with some Observations on its Origin. By J. H. WHEATLEY, Esq., Ph.D.
On the Unphilosophical Character of some Objections to the Divine Inspiration of Scrip-
ture. By the late Rev. WALTER MITrcHELL, M.A.
On Comparative Psychology. By E. J. MorsuEap, Esq., Hon. For. Sec. V.I.
10. On Theology asa Science. By the late Rev. A. DE LA Marg, M.A.
On the Immediate Derivation of Science from the Great First Cause. By R. LAmine, Esq.
On some of the Philosophical Principles contained in Mr. Buckle’s ‘ History of Civilisa-
tion,” in reference to the Laws of the Moral and Religious Developments of Man. By
the Rev. Prebendary C. A. Row, M.A.
On the Nature of Human Language, the Necessities of Scientific Phraseology, and the
Application of the Principles of both to the Interpretation of Holy Scripture. By the
Rev. J. BAYLEE, D.D.
11. On the Common Origin of the American Races with those of the Old World. By the late
Bishop Trrcoms, D.D.
On the Simplification of first Principles in Physical Science. By the late C. Brooxg, F.R.S.
On the Biblical Cosmogony scientifically considered. By late G. WARINGTON, Esq., F.C.S.
On Ethical Philosophy. By the Rev. W. W. ENGuisu, M.A.
12. Onsome Uses of Sacred Primeval History. By the late D. McCausianD, Esq., Q.C., LL.D.
On the Relation of Reason to Philosophy, Theology, and Revelation. By the Rey. Preb.
C. A. Row, M.A.

VO. LY:

13. ( Analysis of Human Responsibility. By the late Prebendary Irons, D.D, (And part 16.)
On the Doctrine of Creation according to Darwin, Agassiz, and Moses. By Prof. K1irk.

14. | On the Noachian Deluge. By the Rey. M. Davison.

On Life—Its Origin. By J. H. WHEATLEY, Esq., Ph.D.

On Man’s Place in Creation. By the late Professor MACDONALD, M.D.

On More than One Universal Deluge recorded in Scripture. By late Rev. H. Mouts, M.A.

On Certain Analogies between the Methods of Deity in Nature and Revelation. By the
Rev. G. HEnstow, M.A., F.L.S.

On the Respective Provinces of the Observer and the Reasoner in Scientific Investigation.
By the Rev. EpwArp GABBETT, M.A.

On the Credulity of Scepticism. By the Rev. R. THorntTon, D.D., V-P.

16. | On Current Physical Astronomy. By the late J. Reppin, Esq., Hon. Sec. V.I.
| Analysis of Human Responsibility. By thelate Preb. Irons, D.D. (See part 13.) Concluded.

15.

VOL NV;

19. On the Origin of the Negro. By the late Bishop Trrcomp, D.D.
On the Testimony of Philosophy to Christianity as a Moral and Spiritual Revelation. By
the Rev. Preb. C. A. Row, M.A.
On the Numerical System of the Old Testament. By the Rev. Dr. THornTon, V.P.
18. OnSpontaneous Generation; or, the Problem of Life. By the Rev. Prof. Kirk.
A Demonstration of the Existence of God. By the Rev. J. M’Cann, D.D.
Why Man must Believe in God. By the late JAmEs REDDIE, Esq., Hon. Sec. V.I.
19. On Geological Proofs of Divine Action. By 8S. R. Parrison, Esq,, F.G.S.
On True Anthropology. By W. HitcHMAN, Esq., M.D.
On Comparative Psychology. (Second Paper.) By HE. J. MorsuHxEaD, Esq., Hon. For. Sec. V.I.
20. On the High Numbers in the Pentateuch. By P. H. Gosse, Esq., F.R.S., V.P
Israelin Egypt. By the late Rev. H. Mouez, M.A.

xXVi

NEW SERIES.

BreING THE VOLUMES CONTAINING THE MORE MODERN Papers,

VOL. VI. 1s THe First or tuis SERIES.

21. (On Civilisation, Moral and Material. (Also in Reply to Sir John Lubbock on “ Primitive
Man.”) By the late J. Reppin, Esq., Hon. Sec. V.I.
22. | On Dr. Newman's ‘‘ Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent.” By the Rev. Preb. Row, M.A.
On the Evidence of the Egyptian Monuments to the Sojourn of Israel in Egypt. By the
Rev. B. W. SAvILE, M.A.
On the Moabite Stone. By Captain F. Perri, Hon. Sec.
On Phyllotaxis; or, the Arrangement of Leaves in Accordance with Mathematical Laws.
By the Rev. G. Henstow, M.A., F.L.S.
On Prehistoric Monotheism, considered in reJation to Man as an Aboriginal Savage. By
the late Bishop T1rcoms, D.D.
23. | On Biblical Pneumatolugy and Psychology. By the Rev. W. W. ENetisn, M.A.
On Some Scriptural Aspects of Man’s Tripartite Nature. By the Rey. C. GRAHAM.
On Ethnic Testimonies to the Pentateuch. By the late Bishop T1rcoms, D.D.
. | On the Darwinian Theory. By the late Prebendary Irons, D.D.
Serpent Myths of Ancient Egypt. By the late W. R. Cooper, Esq., F.R.A.S., M.R.A.S.,
Sec. Soc. Biblical Archeology. 129 Illustrations.

VOL. VII.

D. ( On Natural Theology, considered with respect to Modern Philosophy. By the Rev. G,

HENs.Low, M.A., F.L.S.

On Fatalism. Contributed by the Rey. J. Ropsrys, D.D.

26, | On Darwinism Tested by Recent Researches in Language. By F. BATEMAN, Esq., M.D., &e.
| On Force and its Manifestations. By the Rev. J. M‘Cann, D.D.

bo
o

On Professor 'Tyndall’s ‘‘Fragments of Science for Unscientific People.” By the late
Prebendary Irons, D.D.
On the Origin of the Moral Sense. By the Rev. Professor Krrxk.
On Force and Energy. By the late CHARLES Broox®, Esq., M.A., F.R.S.
27. | On Darwinism and its Effects upon Religious Thought. By C. R. Bree, Esq.,M.D., &e.
_| Remarks on Some of the Current Principles of Historic Criticism. By Rev. Preb. Row, M.A.
On ‘‘ Scientific Facts and Christian Evidence.” By the late J. E. HowarD, Esq., F.R.S., F.L.8.
28. | On the “ Law of Creation—Unity of Plan, Variety of Form.” By Rev. G. W. WELpon, M.A.
Some Remarks on the Present Aspect of Inquiries as to the Introduction of Genera and
Species in Geological Time. By V.-Chancellor J. W. Dawson, C.M.G., LL.D., F.R.S.

VOL. VIII.

29. The Paleolithic Age Examined. By N. Wuirtey, Esq.

(Annual Address.) On the Moral and Social Anarchy of Modern Unbelief. By the late
Principal T. P. BoutrsEr, LL.D.

30, On the Identity of Reason in Science and Religion. Rev. R. MircHe..,

On Buddhism. By the Right Rev. Bishop Przrs C. CLaveuron, D.D., &c., with communi-
cations from Professors CHANDLER and BREWER.
On the Contrast between Crystallisation and Life. By the late J. E. Howarp, Esq., F.R.S8.

51. On the Brixham Cavern and its Testimony to the Antiquity of Man—examined. By

N. Wuit ey, Esq., Sec. Royal Inst. of Cornwall.

On the Rules of Evidence as applicable to the Credibility of History. By W. Forsytm,
Esq., Q.C., LL.D., Vice-President.

On the Principles of Modern Pantheistic and Atheistic Philosophy as expressed in the last
work of Strauss, Mill, &c. By the Rev. Prebendary C. A. Row, M.A. Paper on the
sane, by late Prof. Cuartis, M.A., F.R.S., F.R.A.S.

On Prehistoric Traditions and Customs in Connexion with Sun and Serpent Worship.
By J. 8. Pueng, Esq., LL.D., F.S.A., with Illustrations.

©>
te
.

XVll

VOL. 1X,

33. (On the Varying Tactics of Scepticism. (Annual Address.) By the Rev. Rosinson
Tuornton, D.D., Vice-President.

On the Harmony between the Chronology of Egypt and the Bible. By the Rev. B. W.
SAviLF, M.A.
On the Ethical Condition of the Early Scandinavian Peoples. By E. W. Gossg, Esq.

34. | On Magnitudes in Creation and their Bearings on Biblical Interpretation. By the late
Bishop T1rcoms, D.D. Paper on the same, by late Prof. CHatiis, M.A., F.R.S.,
F.R.A.S.; with communications from the Astronomer Royal’s Department, the
Radcliffe Observer, and Professor Prircnuarn, F.R.S.

} On Biblical Interpretation in connexion with Science. By the Rev. A. I. McCavn, M.A.

{ (King’s College), with a communication by V.-Chancellor J. W. Dawson, C.M.G.,

LL.D., F.R.S.
On the Final Cause as Principle of Cognition and Principle in Nature. By Professor
G. 8. Morris, of Baltimore University, U.S.

35. | On the Bearing of certain Paleontological Facts upon the Darwinian Theory of the Origin
of Species, and of Evolution in General. By Professor H. A. NrcHoxson, M.D., D.Se.,
F.R.S.E., &e.

On the Early Dawn of Civilisation, considered in the Light of Scripture. By the late
J. E. Howarp, Esq., F.R.S.
On the Indestructibility of Force. By the late Professor Brr«s, M.A.
36. On Mr. Mill’s Essays on Theism. By the late Preb. W. J. Inons, D.D.

VOL. X.

37. On the Chronology of Recent Geology. By S. R. Parrison, Esq., F.G.8.
On the Nature and Character of Evidence for Scientific Purposes. By the Rev
J. M‘Cann, D.D.
The Relation of the Scripture Account of the Deluge to Physical Science. By the late
Prof. Cuayis, M.A., F.R.S., F.R.A.S.
38. An Examination of the Belfast Address from a Scientific point of view. By the late
J. E. Howarp, Esq., F.R.S.
Annual Address; Modern Philosophie Scepticism examined. By the late Rev. R. Mary
F.R.S., V.P.R.A.S., The Radcliffe Observer.
On the Etruscan Language. By the Rev. Isaac Taytor, M.A.
39. On ‘** Present Day Materialism.” By the Rev. J. McDoUGALL. ]
On the Sorrows of Scepticism. By Rey. R. THornron, D.D., Vice-Pres. (see parts 6, 15,33.
On Heathen Cosmogonies, compared with the Hebrew. By Rev. B. W. Savitz, M.A.
On the Place of Science in Education. By Professor H. A. Nicnoison, M.D., D.Sc.,F.1.8.E.
40. On Egypt and the bible. By the late J. E. Howarp, Esq., F.R.S.

VOL. AE

41. (The Flint ‘‘ Implements” of Brixham Cavern. By N. WarrLry, Esq. (Photographically
illustrated.)
On the Flint Agricultural Implements of America. By Dr. J. W. Dawson, O.M.G., F.R.S.
An Examination of ‘* The Unseen Universe.” By the late Preb. Irons, D.D.
| The Uncertainties of Modern Physical Science. By the late Professor Birks, M.A.
The Ethics of Belief. By Principal H. WAcr, D.D.
42.4 On the Metaphysics of Scripture. By the late Prof. CHALuis, M.A., F.R.S., FLR.A.S.
On the Theory of Unconscious Intelligence as opposed to Theism. By Prof. Morxis, U.S.A.
On the Myth of Ra, By the late W. R. Cooprr, Esq., F.K.A.S., Sec. Soc, Bib, Arch.
On Christianity as a Moral Power. By Professor L1as, Hulsean Lecturer, Cambridge.
43. | On the Structnre of Geological Formations as Evidence of Design. By D. Howarp, F.C.S
On the Bible and Modern Astronomy. By the late Prof. Brrxs, M.A. (Camb.),
44, (On Comparative Psychology. By HK. J. MorsHEap, Esq.

VOL. XII.

45. On the Indestructibility of Matter. By the late Professor CHALuis, M.A., F.R.S., F.R.A.S.
On History in the Time of Abraham, Illustrated by Recent Researches. By Rev. H. G
TomxKins. With Numerous Notes by Various Assyriologists.
On the Horus Myth. By the late W. R. Cooprr, Esq., F.R.A.S., M.R.A.S., See. Soe.
Bib. Arch. (dilustrated.) Additional Papers by various Egyptologists,
46. The Influence of True and False Philosophy. (Ann. Address.) The late J. E. Howard, F.R.S
The History of the Alphabet. By Rev. Isaac Taytor, M.A,
Creation and Providence. By the late J. E. Howarp, Esq., F.R.S.
Nature’s Limits: an Argument for Theism, By S. Rt. Parison, Esq., F.G.S.
Mr. Matthew Arnold and Modern Culture. Prof. Lias, Hulsean Lecturer, Cambridge.

Dia ae

XVIll

47. On the Relation of Scientific Thought to Religion. The Right Rev. Bishop CoTTERILL, D.D
Monotheism. By the Rev. Dr. RULE (Author of “ Oriental Records”).
48. Physical Geography of the Hast. By the late J. L. PortEr, D.D., D.C.I..

VOL. XIII.

49. ( Modern Geogenies and the Antiquity of Man. Late Prof. Brrxs, M.A.

| The Annual Address. Rev. Principal Riec, D.D.

‘On Science and Man.”” By Dr. NoAu PorTER (President of Yale, United States).

“The Lapse of Time since the Glacial Epoch determined by the Date of the Polished Stone
Age.” By Dr. SouTHALL (United States).

‘Final Cause: a Critique of the Failure of Paley and the Fallacy of Hume.” By the
late J. P. THompson, D.D., LL.D. (Harvard, U.S.).

51. | “The Torquay Caves and their Teachings.” By the late J. HE. HowArp, Esq.. F.R.S.

“ Does the Contemporaneity of Man with the Extinct Mammalia, as shown by Recent Cavern
Exploration, prove the Antiquity of Man?” By T. K. Cauiarp, Esq., F.G.S., &c. ;
with special additional communications by Professor Boyp-DAWKINs, F.R.S., Rev.
J. M. Mrtxo, M.A., F.G.S. (Creswell), &c.

“The System of Zoroaster considered in connexion with Archaic Monotheism.” By
Rk. Brown, Esq., F.S.A.

‘©On the Evidence already obtained as to the Antiquity of Man.” By Professor T. McK.
Hucues, M.A. (Woodwardian Professor of Geology at Cambridge University) ; with
additions by the DUKE or ARGYLL, K.G., Professor Boyp-DAwkins, F.R.S., and other

Geologists.
VOL. XIV.

53. “The Topography of the Sinaitic Peninsula” (giving results of last survey). By (the late)
Rey. F. W. Hotztannp, M.A. (Palestine Exploration Fund); with a new map.
“ The Ethnology of the Pacific.” By the Rev. 8. J. WuitMEr, F.L.8.; with a large new
map, showing the distribution of Races and all the results of the latest discoveries.
The Annual Meeting.
54. On Physiological Metaphysics. By Professor NoAH PorTER (President, Yale Univ., U.S.).
On the Druids and their Religion. By the late J. E. Howanb, Esq., F.R.S.
On the Organ of Mind. By Rev. J. F1sHer, D.D. (the late).
On the Data of Ethics. By Principal Wacr, D.D.
55. Onthe Bearings of the Study of Natural Science, and of the Contemplation of the Dis-
coveries to which that Study leads, on our Religious Ideas. By Professor STOKEs,
P.R.S. (Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge).
Late Assyrian and Babylonian Research. By HormMuzpd RassaM, Hsq.
On the Evidence of the Later Movements of Elevation and Depression in the British Isles.
By Professor HucuEs, M.A. (Woodwardian Professor of Geology at Cambridge).
On the Nature of Life. By Professor H. A. NicHoison, M.D., F.R.S.E., Aberdeen.
56. On the Religion and Mythology of the Aryans of Northern Europe. By R. Brown, F.S.A.

VOL. AXy..
57. The Life of Joseph. Illustrated from Sources External to Holy Scripture. By Rey. H. G.

or
ne

TOMKINS.

On the Relation between Science and Religion, through the Principles of Unity, Order, and
Causation. Annual Address by the Right Rev. Bishop CoTTERILL, D.D, (the late).
Some Considerations on the Action of Will in the Formation and Regulation of the Universe
—heing an Examination and Refutation of certain Arguments against the existence of

a personal conscious Deity. By (the late) Lord O’NEILL.

On the Modern Science of Religion, with Special Reference to those parts of Prof. Max
Miiller’s ‘‘ Chips from a German Workshop,” which treat thereon. Rev. G. BLENCOWE.

On the Harly Destinies of Man. By (the Jate) J. E. Howarp, Esq., F.R.S.

Pliocene Man in America. By Dr. SouTHALi (United para a second paper on the
same, by Sir J. W. Dawson, C.M.G., LL.D., F.R.S., of M‘Gill College, Montreal ;
and communications from the Duke of Ar@yiL, K.G.; Professor W. Boyp-DAWKINS,
F.R.S.; Professor T. McK. Hugues (Woodwardian Professor of Geology at Cam-
bridge), and others.

Scientific Facts and the Caves of South Devon. By (the late) J. E. Howarp, Esq., F.R.S.

Implements of the Stone Age as a primitive Demarcation between Man and other Animals.
By (the late) J. P. THompson, D.D., LL.D.

Meteorology: Rainfall. By J. F. BATEMAN, Esq., F.R.S., F.R.S.E.

On the Rainfall and Climate of India. By Sir JosEpH FayreEr, K.C.S.1., M.D. F.R.S.,
with a new Map, showing the Physical Geography and Meteorology of India, by
| TTRELAWNEY W. SAUNDERS, Esq.

60. (Language and the Theories of its Origin. By R. Brown, Esq., F.8.A.

58.

59.

— ee

x1X

VOLCSOVi1.

61, The Credibility of the Supernatural. (Annual Address.) By (the late) Lord O’Nerit.
Supposed Paleolithic Tools of the Valleyof the Axe. By N. WuirieEy, Esq. (Engravings. )
An Examination of the Philosophy of Mr. Herbert Spencer. By the Rev. W. D. Grounn.
62. On Herbert Spencer’s Theory of the Will. By Rev. W. D. GrounD; with Communication.
Biblical Proper Names, personal and local, illustrated from sources external to Holy Scripture.
By Rey. H. G. 'ComKrns. Comments by Professor MAsSPERO, Mr. RassaAm, and others.
Breaks in the Continuity of Mammalian Life at certain Geological Periods, fatal to the
Darwinian Theory of Evolution. By (the late) I’. K. Cattarp, Esq., F.G.S., with
Comments by several Geologists.
The New Materialism Unscientific ; or, Dictatorial Scientific Utterances and the Decline of
Thought. By Professor LionrL 8. BEALE, M.D.,F.R.S.
On the Living and the Non-Living. By the same. On the New Materialism. By the same.
63. The Vheory of Evolution taught by Heckel, and held by hisfollowers. By J. HASSELL, Esq.
The Supernatural in Nature. By (the late) J. E. Howanp, ksq., F.LS,.
64, Materialism. By Judge C. W. RicumMon».

VOL. XVII.

65. ( The Recent Survey of Western Palestine, and its Bearing upon the Bible. By TRELAWNEY
SAUNDERS, Esq.

Remarks on Climate in relation to Organic Nature. By Surgeon-General C. A. Gornon,
M.D., C.B. Speeches by Sir J. RispoN Bennert, V.P.R.S.; Sir JosepH FAyRER,
K.C.8.1., M.D., F.R.S.; and others.

66. } On the Argument from Design in Nature, with some Illustrations from Plants. By (the
late) W. P. JAMEs, Esq., M.A.

Considerations on the Unknown and Unknowable of Modern Thought; or, Is it possible to
know God? By the Rev. J.J. Litas, M.A. (then Hulsean Lecturer). Comments by
(the late) Lord O’NeiLu and others.

On certain Theories of Life. By Surg.-Gen. C. A. Gorpon, C.B., M.D., Hon. Phys. to
the Queen.

On Certain Definitions of Matter. By (the late) J. E. Howarp, Esq., F.R.S.

67 (on the Absence of Real Opposition between Science and Revelation. By Prefessor G. G.
4 Strokes, P.R.S. Comments by several leading scientific men.
Babylonian Cities. By Hormuzp RAssAM; with Remarks by Professor DE.irzscu, Xe.
68. | The Origin of Man. By Archdeacon BarpDsLry.
| Did the World Fvolve Itself? By Sir E. Beckert, Bart. (mow Lord Grimthorpe).

VOL. XViil.

69. On Misrepresentations of Christianity. By Lord O’Nertn (the late).
Science not opposed to Revelation. By J. L. Portrr, D.D., D.C.L. (the late).
70. Recent Egyptological Research in its Biblical Relation. By the Rey. H. G. TomMKINs.
Cuneiform Inscriptions as illustrative of the times of the Jewish Captivity. By W. Sr.
CHAD Boscawen, F.R.Hist.Soc.
Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon—On Recently Discovered Inscriptions of this King. By
BK. A. Bupce. M.A., M.R.A.S.
Buddhism. By Rev. R. Couiins. Remarks by Dr. Leiner (Lahore), Professor Ruys
Daviws, Mr. Rassam, Rev. 8. Cotes (Ceylon), &e. Also a full Note on Krishna.

71, Pessimism. By (the late) W. P. Jamzs, Esq.

On the Prehistoric Factory of Flints at Spiennes. By Rev. J. MAGENS MELLO, F.G.S.

The Evolution of the Pearly Nautilus. By S. R. Parrison, Esq., F.G.S.

“On Prehistoric Man in Egypt and the Lebanon.” By Sir J. W. Dawson, C.M.G.,
F.R.S., McGill University, Montreal. Remarks by Professors W. WaRiINGTron SMYTH,
¥.R.S., W. Boyp-Dawk1ns, F.R.S., T. RuPERT Jones, F.R.S., T. WILTsHIRE, F.G.S.,
Colone] HERSCHEL, F.R.S., Dr. RAE, F.R.S.

VOLS EX.
78 bs the Inductive Logic. By Prof. R. L. Dasnry, D.D., LL.D. Speeches by Sir H.

~1
bu
.

Bark iy, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., F.R.S., Sir J. Lerroy, K.C.M.G., F.R.S., &e.
On Evelution by Natural Selection. By J. HASsELL, Esq.
Remarks on Evolution. By Professor VircHow.
74. | On the Recency of the Close of the Glacial Epoch. By D. MAckrintTosu, Esq., F.G.S.
Communications from Prof. T. Rupert JoNnxs, F.R.S., and others.

t On the recession of Niagara (with the United States Government Survey Diagrams),

76.

80.

81.

85.

84.

XxX

( On the Religion of the Aboriginal Tribes of India. By Professor J. Avery. Remarks by
General Hate, Mr. E. Rassam, and others.

On the Evolution of Savages by Degradation. By Rev. F. A. AtLes, M.A.

Some Thoughts on the Evolution of Religions. By Rev. W. R. Buacknrr, M.A.

On the Relation of Fossil Botany to Theories of Evolution. By late W. P. James, F.L.S.
Remarks by Sir R. Owen, F.R.S., Prof. W. Carruruers, F.R.S., Dr. J. Braxton
Hicks, F.B.S., &ce.

Was Primeval Man a Savage? By J. HAssExu, Esq.

Remarks on Evolution and Development. By Rev. J. Wurre, M.A.

On Some Characteristics of Primitive Religions. By Rev. R. Cotuins, M.A.

Human Responsibility. By Rev, G. BLENcowE.

On the Worship and Traditions of the Aborigines of America, By Rev, M. Eents, M.A.

Remarks by Professor J. O. DorsEy, U.S. Survey.

Note on Comparative Religions.

VOL. XX.

Special Address by the Institute’s President, Sir G. G. Sroxxs, Bart., M.A., D.C.L.,
President of the Royal Society.

Egypt: Physical, Historical, Literary, and Social. By J. Lestre Porter, D.D., D.C.L.
(the late), Remarks by the Earl of BeELMor®E, Right Hon. A. S. AyRron (the late), &e.

On the Theory of Natural Selection and the Theory of Design. By Professor Duns, D.D.,
F.R.S.E. Remarks by Right Hon, Lord GrimrHorre, &c,

On Agnosticism, By J. HASsELL, Esq.

On the Structure of the Gorilla. By E. CHARLESworRtH, Esq., F.G.S.; with illustration.

Notes on the Antiquity of Man. By the Eprror. The Chronology of Animal Life on the
Harth prior to the Advent of Man. By Sir J. Witu1Am Dawson, C.M.G., F.R.S.,
President of the British Association.

Historical Evidences of the Migration of Abram. By W. Sr. C. Boscawen, F.R.Hist.Soc.,
with drawings. Notes by Professor Saycg, BH. A. W. BupGeE, Esq., &e. ‘

A Samoan Tradition of Creation. Rev. 'T. PowE tt, F.L.S. (the late); Notes on the Islands.

‘The Fundamental Assumptions of Agnosticism. By Rev. H. J. CLARKE.

On Miracles. By Rev. H. C. M. Watson. Remarks by Lord Grimruorre, &e.

On Accounts of the Creation. By W. P. JAMEs, Esq., F.L.S. (the late).

On Final Cause. By Professor li. L. Dapnry, D.D., LL.D.

On Structure and Structureless. By Prof. Lionen 8. BEALE, M.B., F.R.S.

On the Meteorology of Syria and Palestine. By Professor G. E. Post, F.L.S. (with chart).
Remarks by Sir JosepH Fayre, K.C.8.1., F.R.S., &e.

On the Geographical Names on the List of Thothmes III. By Professor G. MAsPERO
(with map). Remarks by Sir CHARLES Witson, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., F.R.S., Major
C. R. ConpEr, R,E., Dr. Wricut, &c. Note on Excavations round the Sphinx. By
Prof. Masprro.

VOL. XXI.

Results of an Expedition to Arabia Petrea and Palestine (with chart). By Professor E.
Hutt, F.R.S., Director of the Geological Survey of Ireland.

Jewish, Phoenician, and Early Greek Art. By Rev. J. LEstrz Porrer, D.C.L. (the late).

The Discoveries at Sidon.

‘he Empire of the Hittites. By Rev. W. Wricur, D.D. Note on the Hittites.

Canaan, Ancient and Modern. By Professor 'TRrisrram, F.R.S.

On Caves. By Professor T. McK. Hueuxs, F.R.S. (Cambridge), with comments by Sir

J. W. Dawson, C.M.G., F.R.S., Sir WArIncron W. Smyru, F.R.S., and others.
Oriental Entomology. By Rey. F. A. WALKER, D.D., F.L.S. Notes by 8. T. KiE1n Esq.,
F.L.S., and others.
Petra. By Professor E. Hutt, F.R.S. (with chart).

On Krishna. By Rev. R. Cottins, M.A. Notes by Sir M. Monrer-W1itutams, K.C.LE.,
Professors MAx Mutuer, Li. B. CowELy, DouGuas, DE LAGouPERIEZ, Dr. LEITNER, and

Dr. EpDERSHEIM (the late).

The Pedigree of the Coral Reefs of England. By 8. R. Parrison, F.G.S. Remarks by

Sir G. G. Sroxgs, Bart., P.R.S. '
Practical Optimism. By the Most Rev. Bishop SAumArgEz Situ, D.D,
Traditions of the Aborigines of North America. By Rev. §. D. Prnr (with illustrations).

On the Beauty of Nature. By Lord GrimrHorrE, with special paper by Rev. W.

ARTHUR, M.A.
Evolution. By Key. H. J. CLarke, M.A. Remarks by Sir J, W. Dawson, O.M.G., F.RS.

Appendices; The Jewish Nation and Diseases. Egyptian Discoveries in 1888. (Library

List, &e.) The Sacred Books of the Hast. By Sir M. Monter-Wititams, K.C.LE.

eee ss eC eh rhUCUc eer TlUhUhl er rh mOhcmo rr

88.

89.

90.

91.

Xxi

VOL. XXII.

Annual Address by the President, Sir G. G. Srokxzs, Rart., M.P., President of the Royal
Society. Speeches by Sir H. Barkty, K.C.B., F.R.S., Sir Rispon Bennett, F.R.S.,
Sir F. L. McCurntock, F.R.S., Mr. H. RAssam, &c.

Note by the President on the one Origin of the Books of Revelation and of Nature.

On Time and Space. By the Rev. W. ArrHuR.

On the Names on the List of Thothmes IIT at Karnac, their Geographical, Ethnographical,
and Biblical relations. By G. MaAspEro, with communications from Sir C. Wison,
K.C.B., F.R.S., Professor A. H. SAycr, Rev. Canon Lippon, Mr. Lz PAGE RENOUF,
Rev. Dr. EDERSHEIM, Major C. R, ConpER, Rev. H. G. Tomkins, &c., with maps by
G. MASPERO.

On the Theory of Natural Selection and the Theory of Design. By Professor Duns, D.D.,
with remarks by Lord GrimruorPr, the Most Rey. the BisHor of SypNnEy, and others,
and a note by Mr. Tl. Francis Rivers, F.L.8.

On the late Professor AsA GRAY. ~By the Eprtor.

Note on the importance of Babylonian Excavations. By the Eprror.

On Human Footprints in Nicaragua. By Dr. D. G. Brinton.

The Aborigines of Australia, their Ethnic Position and Relations, by J. FrAsEr, LL.D.,
F.R.S. (N.S.W.), with remarks by many travellers; also an opinion by Professor
Max MULLER.

Oriental Entomology. By Rev. F. A. WALKER, D.D., F.L.S., remarks by several ento-
mologists, including a note by Mr. HE. B. Poutron, F.R.S., on Mimicry.

A Physical Theory of Moral Freedom. By JosrpH Joun Murpuy; remarks by Sir J.
Fayrer, K.C.8.1., F.R.S., the Hon. J. M. Grecory, LL.D., of Washington, and
others.

The Botanical Geography of Syria and Palestine. By Professor G. E. Posr, D.D., M.D.,
with notes by Eastern Travellers.

On Flint Arrow Heads of delicate Structure. By the Rt. Hon. Sir C. Murray, K.C.B.,
also a note on Cave Deposits.

VOL. XXIII.

Annual Address by Sir M. Monrer-Witziams, K.C.I.E., D.C.L., 1..D., Ph.D., Boden
Professor of Sanscrit in Oxford University. Speeches by the Bishop or DuNEDIN,
Sir H. Barkty, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., Sir Rispon Brnnegrr, F.R.S., late Mr. H. W
Bristow, F.R.S., &e.

On a few of the Contrasts between the Essential Doctrines of Buddhism and of
Christianity. By Sir M. Monrer-Wittams, K.C.LE., &c., &e.

Coral Islands and Savage Myths. By H. B. Guppy, Esq., M.B. Discussion, &c., by
Sir G. G. Stoxgs, Bart., M.P., P.R.S., Captain W. J. L. WHarton, R.N., F.R.S., the

Hydrographer to the Admiralty, Mr. W. H. Hupiustron, F.R.S., Professor JAMES
GEIKIE, F.R.S., Mr. Joun Murray, of the Challenger Expedition, &e.

On the Keeling Atoll. By Dr. Guppy.

Colours in Nature. By Rev. F. A. WALKER, D.D., F.L.S.

On the Sciences of Language and of Ethnography. By Dr. Lrrrnrr, Ph.D., LL.D., D.O.L.

Modern Science and Natural Religion. By Rey. C. Goprrry ASHWIN, M.A.

Note on Science and Religion. By Captain F. Perris, F.G.S.

The Historical Results of the Excavations at Bubastis. By E. Navi~ie, Ph.D. Remarks

- by Sir C. Newron, K.C.B., Dr. REGINALD Stuart Pootg, &c.

Notes on the Ethnology and Ancient Chronology of China. By Surgeon-General
Gorpon, M.D.,C.B. Remarks by Dr. LEGGE, Prof. Chinese, Oxford Univ., Dr. BEAL,
Prof. Chinese, London Univ., &c.

On Cuts on Bone as evidence of Man’s Existence in remote ages. By Prof. T. McK.
Hueuss, F.R.S. Remarks by Prof. RupErr Jonzs, F.R.S., Prof. A. 8. Woopwarp,
F.G.S., Rev. J. M. Metxo, M.A., F.G.S., &e.

The Butterflies and Moths of Africa. By W. F. Krrsy, F.E.S.

The Factors of Evolution in Language. By Mr.J.J.Murpuy. Remarks by Professor
Max MOLLER.

The Meaning and History of the Logos of Philosophy. By Rey. H. J. CLARKE.

The Dawn of Metallurgy. By Rey. J. Macens Meio, M.A., F.G.S. Remarks by
Professor SAycE, Major ConpzER, Mr. J. ALLEN BRown, F.G.S., and others.

93.

94,

95.

96.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

XXll

VOL. XXIV.

Annual Meeting. ‘The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Tel el Amarna. By the Rev. A. H.
Sayce, M.A., D.D., LL.D., Professor of Assyriology, Oxford University. Speeches
by the Rt. Hon. Lord Hatspury, Lord High Chancellor, Dr. Naviiiz, Sir H.
BaRKLY, K.C.B., F.R.S., &c., Sir E. OMMANNEY, C.B., F.R.S., Sir J. RISDON
BENNET?, F.R.S., Captain E. W. Creak, R.N., F.R.S., and others.

On the Canaanites. By Major C. R. Conner, R.E., D.C.L.

Instinct and Reason. By UC. Co~Lincwoop, Esq., M.A., M.B., M.R.C.P., F.L.S., &e.
Remarks by Professor Hut, F.K.S., and others.

The Science of Rectitude as Distinct from Expedience. By Rev. H. J. CLARKE.

God in Nature. By Professor E. Hurt, D.C.L., F.R.S., Director of the Geological
Survey of Ireland.

Man’s Place in Nature. A Note. By the Epitor.

Land Tenure in Ancient Times in Palestine. By Rev. J. NEtz,M.A. Remarks by the
Right Hon. Lord Hatspury, Lord High Chancellor, Mr. F. S8eBoum, Mr. 8.
BERGHEIM, Dr. CHAPLIN, and other Eastern Travellers.

The Botany and Entomology of Iceland. By Rev. F. A. Waker, D.D., F.L.S.
Remarks by Dr. J. Raz, F.R.S., Dr. G. HARLEY, F.R.S., Professor LOGAN LOBLEy,
F.G.S., &c.

The Origin of Man. An address thereon by Professor RuDOLPH ViIRCHOW.

The Dispersal of Plants as Illustrated by the Flora of the Keeling Islands. By H. B.
Guppy, Esq., M.B. Remarks thereon by Professor T. RupERT Jonzs, F.R.S., Mr.
JoHN Murray (Challenger Expedition), and others.

Sketch of the Geological History of Egypt and the Nile Valley. By Professor E. Hut,
LL.D., F.B.S8., F.G.S., &c., with map.

VOL. XXV.

The Monism, Pantheism, and Dualism of Brahmanical and Zoroastrian Philosophers.
By Sir M. Monrer-Wi111AMs, K.C.I.E., D.C.L.

On the Post Glacial Period. By Professor W. UpHamM, Assistant State Geologist, U.S.A.
(a note).

On ee Responsibility. By the Right Hon. Lord GrimtHorrE. Remarks by
Prebendary H. Wack, D.D., Principal of King’s College, London.

Chinese Chronology. By Professor J. LEGGE, M.A., Oxford University. Remarks by
Sir THomAs WaDg, G.C.M.G., and others.

The Garden of Eden, a criticism on the views of certain modern writers. By HormuzpD
RassAM, Esq. Remarks by Sir G. G. SroxsEs, Bart., F.R.S., Sir J. W. Dawson,
O.M.G., F.R.S., Professor A. H. Sayer, D.D., Mr. T. PincuEs, Colonel ConDER,
D.C.L., &c., M. BERTIN, and others. With a map engraved by Mr. Stanford from
the official surveys.

Annual Meeting.

Islam. By Rev. W. St. C. Tispatt, M.A. Remarks by Sir T.ForD, Colonel ConpER,
D.C.L., Dean GouLBuRN, Rev. Dr. K@11x, Rev. H. Lansprut, D.D., M.R.A.S.,
Mr. RAssaAm, and other authorities.

On the Reality of the Self. By W. L. Courtney, M.A., LL.D.

Notes on the Philosophy and Medical Knowledge of Ancient India. By Surgeon-General
Sir C. A. Gorpon, M.D., K.C.B., Q.H.P. Remarks by Sir JosrpH Fayre, K.C.S.L.,
F.R.S:, and others.

On the Apparent Cruelty of Nature. By Rev. T. Woop, M.A. Remarks by Sir
J. FAyrer, K.C.S.1., F.R.S., and others.

Deontology. By the Rev. H. J. CLARKE.

VOL. XXVI.

The Route of the Exodus. By Dr. BE. NAviLLE. Speeches by Sir J. Fayrer, K.C.S.1.
Sir J. Coopr, K.C.M.G., and others.

From Reflex Action to Volition. By Dr. ALEx. H1LL, Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge
University, with important discussion.

The Weak Sides of Natural Selection. By J. W.SuatEr, F.C.S., F.E.S. Remarks by
Professor E. Hutt, LL.D., F_R.S., and many others.

On Serpent Worship and the Venomous Snakes of India. By Sir JoszepH FAyRER, M.D.,
K.O.8.1., F.R.S. Remarks by Sir RicHArpD Pottock, K.C.S.I., Surgeons-General
W. B. Beatson Cornisu, O.1.E., C. A. Gorpon, C.B., Admiral H. D. GRANT, C. B.,
and others and an important special report by Dr. A. MUELLER of Australia.

103,

104,

106.

108.

109.

110.

XX111

Some recent Discoveries in the Realm of Assyriology. By T, G. Prncuss, Esq., Brit,
Mus. Remarks by Colonel ConpEr, R.E., D.C.L., M. Bertin, Mr. W. Sr. U.
Boscawen, Rev. H. G. Tomxmis, and others.

The Philosophic Basis of the Argument from Design. By Professor BERNARD, D.D.,T.C.D.

On Flint Bodies in the Chalk known as Paramoudra. By E. CHARLESWORTH, Esq.
F.G.S. Illustrated.

The Glacial Period and the Earth-movement Hypothesis. By Professor JAMES GEIKIE,
D.C.L., F.R.S. Remarks by Professors E. Hut, LL.D., F.R.S., LoGan Losey,
F.G.S., Major-General Drayson, R.E., F.R.A.S., Mr. W. UpHam, U.S. Govt. Assist.
State Geologist, &c., Xe.

Useful and Ornamental Stones of Ancient Egypt. By Sir J. W1tt1am Dawson, C.M.G.,
F.R.S. Remarks by W. H. HupzxstTon, F.R.S., President of the Geological Society,
Professor E. Hutt, F.R.S., Mr. W. BrinDLeEy, F.G.S., Colonel ConpER, R.E., D.C.L.,
Professor LoGAN LOBLEY, and others.

pee ct Climatal Changes. Current opinions reviewed by Sir J. W. Dawson, C.M.G.,

-R.S.

VOL. XXVII.

The work of the Institute in the present day. By the Right Hon. Lord Hatsrury, P.C.,
R.S., with speeches by Sir H. BarKLy, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., F.R.S., Sir G. BUCHANAN,
F.R.S., Sir J. Fayrer, K.C.8.L, F.R.S., Sir F. Youne, K.C.M.G., Professor

E. Hutt, F.R.S., and others.

The Principles of Rank among Animals. By Professor H. W. PARKER, M.D.

On the Recession of Niagara Falls. By W. Upuam, Assist. Geologist U.S. Govt.

How the Waters of the Ocean became Salt. By Professor E. Hutrn, LL.D., F.R.S. Remarks
i eee J. Tynpatt, D.C.L., F.R.S., Sir J. Prestwicu, D.C.L., F.R.8., and
others.

The List of Shishak. With map. By Professor MAspEro. With important discussion,

An Inquiry into the Formation of Habitin Man. By Dr. A. T. ScHorigip. Remarks
by Dr. Atex. Hitt, Master of Downing, Sir C. A. Gorpon, K.C.B., Professor
PARKER, &c., &c.

On the Alleged Scepticism of Kant. By W. L. Courtnry, LL.D. Remarks by Arch-~
deacons SincLair (London) and THoRNTON (Middlesex), Professors BERNARD, DuNs,
and numerous others.

On the Comparison of Asiatic Languages. By Colonel C. R. Conner, R.E., D.C.L.
Remarks by Professor LEGGE (Oxford), and others.

A Possible Cause for the Origin of the Tradition of the Flood. By SirJ. Prestwicu, K.C.B.,
D.C.L., F.R.S. Remarks by Sir J. W. Dawson, C.M.G., I'.R.S., Sir H. HowortH,
K.C.I.E., M.P., F.R.S., Dr. H. Woopwarp, F.R.S., President cof the Geological]
Society, Professor T. McK. Hucues, M.A., F.R.S., Professor T. RUPERT Jonks, F.R.S.,
Mr. J. ALLEN Brown, F.G.S., Rev. J. M. MELLO, F.G.S., Mr. W. UpHam, Assist.
Govt. Geologist, U.S.A., and many others.

VOL. XXVIII.

The Religious ideas of the Babylonians. By T. G. Pinches, M.R.A.S., British Museum.
Remarks by Colonel ConpER, R.E., D.C.L., Rev. Dr. Liéwy, Professor Fritz
HomMeEtL, &c.

Chinese Ethics and Philosophy. By Sir CyarLEs Gorpon, K.C.B. Special statement
by Sir THomAs Wank, G.O.M.G., K.C.B., &e.

On the Luminiferous Ether. By Sir G. G. Sroxxs, Bart., President. Speeches by His
Excellency the Hon. ‘I’. F. Bayarp, United States Ambassador, Sir H. Barkty,
G.C.M.G., K.C.B., F.R.S., Sir JoserH Fayrer, K.C.S.1., F.R.S., Professor. HULL,
F.R.S., Admiral Grant, C.B., R.N., &c. (Annual Meeting).

Evolution and Design. By G. Cox Bompas, F.G.S. Remarks by Professor BLAKE,
F.G.S., Rev. J. M. MELLO, F.G.S8., &e.

Archeology and Evolution. By R. H. Watkry. Remarks by Professor Losier,
F.G.S., &e.

Holy Scripture illustrated and confirmed by recent discoveries in the East. By Professor
E. Huut, F.R.S. Remarks by Professor J. H. GLapsToNr, F.R.S., Colonel CoNDER,
R.E., Mr. Rassam, &c.

Buddhism and the Light of Asia. By Rev. R. Corzins, M.A. Remarks by Professor
Lrcex, Rev. G. U. Porr, D.D., the Rev. KENNETH MACDONALD, Professor ORCHARD,
M.A., B.Sc., Mr. R. Scorr MoncrierF, and many others.

115.

114.

116.

117.

119.

120.

XXIV

Stone Folk-lore. By Professor Duns. Speeches ;by the Right Hon. the Lorp CuHan-
CELLOR, Sir H. Barkiy, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., F.R.S., Sir G. Bucuanan, F.R.S.,
Sir J. Fayrer, K.C.S.1., F.R.S., Professor Hutz, F.R.S., Sir C. Gorpoy, K.C.B.,
His Honour J. OTonBA PAyNeE, &c. (Annual Meeting).

The Mechanical Conception of Nature. By Professor Mactoskre, D.Sc., of Princeton
College, U.S.A. Remarks by Rev. Prof. Bernarp, D.D., G. B. Buckxton, Esq.,
F.R.S., and others.

The Philosophy of Comte. By J. W. Siater, F.C.S., F.E.S.

On the supposed discovery of Remains belonging to an animal intermediate between man
andthe ape. by Professor E. Hutz, F.R.S. (illustrated).

The Passage of the Red Sea by the Israelites. Ly Major-General Tutzocu, C.B.,
C.M.G. (with map).

VOL. XXIX.

Jubilee Volume. Annual Address: The Perception of Light. By Sir G. G. Stoxxs,
Bart., President. Speeches by Earl Hatspury (Lord Chancellor), Sir H. BARKLY,
G.C.M.G., F B.S., Sir C. Gordon, K.C.B., Profs. E. Hutu, F.R.S., and Sayce.

On Bag a Research and Biblical Study. By the Rey. Canon R. B. GrrpLEsTONE,

On Certain Inscriptions and Records Referring to Babylonia, Elam, and their Rulers,
and other Matters. By THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, M.R.A.S. With copies of tablets,
&e., and arranged by the Author up to September 25th, 1897, with Opinions of
Professors HoMMEL, SAYCE, and others. Communication from Professor A. H.
Saycr, D.D

China’s Place in Ancient History: A Fragment. By Surgeon-General Sir CHARLES A.
Gorpon, M.D., K.C.B.. Q.H.P.

Communications from Her Majesty the Queen and Her Royal Highness Princess Henry
of Battenberg.

The Polynesians and their Plant-Names. By H. B. Guppy, M.B. Communication
from Professor Max MULLER, Dr. Joun Fraser, F.R.S. (N.S.W.).

The Natural and the Artificial. By A. T. ScHorretp, Esq., M.D., M.R.C.8. Communi-
cations from Professor LIonEL §. BEALE, M.B., F.R.S., and others.

Causes of the Ice Age. By WARREN UpHam, Esq. Communications from Sir JosEPH
PrEstTWIcH, D.C.L., F.R.S. (late), Professor J. GEIKIE, LL.D., F.R.S., and others.

On Specimens in the Peter Redpath Museum of McGill University, illustrating the
Physical Characters and Affinities of the Guanches or Extinct People of the Canary
Islands. Jilustrated. By Sir J. Wrtt1am Dawson, C.M.G., F.R.S., &e.

Professor PuTNnaM on some Guanche Skulls. Communications from Professor J.
CLELAND, M.D., D.Sc., F.R.S., Dr. LAMBERT of Cairo.

Miracles, Science, and Prayer. By the Rey. Chancellor J. J. Lias, M.A.

VOL. XXX.

Annual Address: Chiefly on the Réntgen Rays. By Sir G. G. Sroxss, Bart., President.
Speeches by Earl Hatspunry (Lord Chancellor), the Rt. Hon. Lord KEtvin,G.C.V.0O.,
Sir H. Barkry, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., F.R.S., Sir JosepH Fayrenr, Bart., K.C.S.1.,
¥.R.S., Professor E. Hutt, LL.D., F.R.S.

Biblical Lands; their races, customs, &c. (with Map). By Hormuzp RassAm, Esq. —
Remarks by G. Prycuss, Esq., M.R.A.S. (of British Museum), &c. ;

The History of Manikka Vacagar, “the Foe of the Buddhists.” By the Rey. G. U.
Pork, D.D., with Appendix for Students.

List of Publications in the Institute’s Transactions on the Religions of the East.

On some Relations of Mind and Body. By A. T. ScHor1reLp, M.D., with communications
from Professors CALDERWOOD, LL.D., J. CLELAND, M.D., F.R.S., and Dr. SANSOM.

The Classification of the Vertebrata. By Prof. J. CLELAND, F.R.S., J. HUTCHINSON, Esq.,
SF Inspector-General J. D. MacponaLp, F.R.S., Prof. H. W. PARKER, Dr. W. ©
KIDD, &e.

The Proposed Scheme for the Embanking the Waters of the Nile. By Professor E.
Hut, LL.D., F.R.S. Remarks by Batpwin Latuam, M.1.C.E., &e.

Problems of Aboriginal Art in Australia. By the Right Rev. Bissop THoRNTON, D.D. |

On Primitive Man. By Rey. J. M. Metto. Communications from Sir J. W. Dawson
C.M.G., F.R.S., Professors T. RupERT Jones, F.R.S., E. Hurt, F.R.S., H. G-
SEELEY, F.R S., and others.

Investigations regarding the submerged Terraces and River Valleys bordering the British
Isles. By Professor E. Hutt, LL.D., F.R.S. Remarks by Cavaliere W. P. JERVIS, ©
Director of the Royal Museum, Turin, Professors ETHERIDGE, F.R.S., T. Rupert
JonES, I'.R.S., LoGan Losier, F.G.S. &c.

121.

123.

XXV

VOL. XXXI.

Annual Address. The age of the Earth as an abode fitted for life. By the Right Hon.
Lord Kretvin, G.C.V.O. Speeches by the Right Hon. Earl Haussury, P.C., F.R.S.
Lord Chancellor), Sir G. G. Sroxrs, Bart., F.R.S. (the President), Sir Josuru
AYRER, Bart., F.R.S., Sir Sipney Surprarp, G.C.M.G., Captain E. W. Creax,
R.N., F.R.S. Design in Nature. By Lord KELVIN. A note.

Where is Mount Sinai? By Professor E. Hurtr, LL.D., F.R.S., with the Ordnance
Survey Map reduced.

Design as exemplified in the formation of the human foot. A note by Dr. GERARD
SmitH, M.R.C.S8.

Herodotus. His remarks bearing on Egyptian Geology in the light of recent Egyptian
Research. By Rev. F. A. Waker, D.D., F.L.S. Copious remarks by Sir
J. W. Dawson, C.M.G., F.R.S.

Herodotus. His remarks bearing on Egyptian Botany und Investigation. By same.

Physical conditions of the Mediterranean Basin which have given rise to a community of
some species of Fresh Water Fishes in the Nile and Jordan Basins. By Professor
BE. Hut, F.R.S. (with map).

Tithe Giving amongst Ancient Pagan Nations. A plea for the Unity of the Human
Race in early times. By Rev. H. UANSDELL, D.J)., M.V.I., M.R.A.S., F.R.G.S.
A note, Philological reasons for the same, given at the Congress of Orientalists by
the Right Hon. F. Max MuLtrr, M.A., D.C.L.

Another possible cause of the Glacial Epoch. By Professor E. Hutu, LL.D., F.R.S.
fae map), with remarks by Professors TI’. Rupzyrr Jongs, F.R.S., W. 8. GRresLey,

.G.S., United States, Cavaliere Jervis, I'.G.S., Italy, and others.

The Literature of Egypt in the time of Moses. By J. N. FRaADENBURGH, Ph.D., D.D.,
LL.D. With remarks by Colonel C. R. Connrr, R.E., D.C.L., &c.

Plan and purpose in Nature. By Dr. W. Kipp. Remarks by Professors L1onet S.
BEALE, F.C.8., E. Huu, F.R.S., J. H. Grapstrone, Ph.D., F.R.S.. and others.
The Star Worshippers of Mesopotamia. By Rev. 8S. M. Zwemepr, F.R.G.S. With

remarks by Dr. IT. CHAPLIN and Colonel C. R. Conner, R.E., D.C.L.

Anaoual Address: The Perception of Colour. By Sir G. G. Stoxss, Bart., F.R.S., V.D.
Speeches by the Night Hon. Lord Ketviy, G.C.V.O., F.R.S., the Right Hon.
Lord ListEer, P.R.S., Sir C. Gorpon, K.C.B., Archdeacon THorntTow, &c.

Sub-Oceanic Terraces and River Valleys off the coast of West Europe. By Professor E.
Hut, LL.D., F.R.S. (with three plates). Remarks by Professors ETHERIDGE, I’.R.8.,
T. McK. Hucugs, F.R.S., Cavaliere JERVIS, F.G.8., of the Royal Museum, Turin.
General McMauon, F.R.S., &c.

VOL. SCX

Annual Address: Our Coal Resources at the close of the Nineteenth Century. By
Professor E, Hutu, LL.D., F.R.s. Speeches by the President, Sir G. G. Sroxes,
Bart., F.R.S., Sir Josgepy Fayrer, Bart., K.C.S.1., tev. CANON GIRDLESTONE, M, A.,
and the Ven. Archdeacon T'HoRNTON, D.D.

The Unity of Truth: Being the Annual Address to the Victoria Institute for 1899. By
the Right Hon. Sir Ricuarp TEMPLE, Bart., G.C.5.1.

Life as compared with the Physical Forces. By J. W. Starer, Usq., F.C.S., F.E.S.
Remarks by Professor LionEL 8. BEALE, F.R.S., Rev. Professor BERNARD, Dr.
R. C. SHETTLE, &c.

The Worship and Traditions of the Aborigines of the Islands of the Pacific Ocean.
By Rey. M. Wetts, D.D., with remarks by DAvip Howarp, Esq., D.L., Professor
H. L. OncHarD, M.A., D.Sc., &e.

The Climate of Egypt in Geological, Prehistoric, and Ancient Historic Times. By
Dr. GRANT Bey.

Remarks on the Past, Present, and Future of the Australian Flora. By Rev. W. Wootzs,
Ph.D., F.L.S., with remarks by Sir Frepgrick Youne, Surgeon-General Sir
C, A. GORDON, and a communication from (the late) Baron F. von MuELLER, Ph.D.,
F..S.

The Sub-Oceanic River-Valleys of the West African Continent and of the Mediterranean
Basin (with Map). By Professor E. Hutt, M.A., LL.D., F.W.S. Communications
from Professor ‘I’. Rupert Jonks, F.R.S., Cavaliere W. P. Jervis, F.G.S., and
Professor J. LoGAN Losey, £.G.5.

The Human Colour Sense and its accordance with that of Sound, as bearing on the
‘« Analogy of Sound and Colour” By Dr. Joun D Macpona.p, I.H.R.N., F.B.S.

XXVI

Creation or Hvolution. By Dr. WALTER Kipp, F.Z.S., with communications from
Major TurTON, R.E., and Dr, J. H. GLApsTong, F.R.S.

Common Hrrors as to the ReJation of Science and Faith. By Professor G. MACLOSKIB,
D.Sc., LL.D.

The Scope of Mind. By Dr. ALrrep T. ScuorigLp, M.R.C.S., with communications
from Professors J. CLELAND, F.R.S., Lionet Brag, F.R.S., Dr. R. Jones, F.R.C.S.,
and R. ANDERSON, Esq., C.B., LL.D.

Nationality. Likenesses and Differences which point to many Races making up what are
called Nationalities. By Professor T. McKENNY HuGuEs, F R.S8., with remarks by
the Right Rev. H. B. Wurppie, D.D., Bishop of Minnesota, Professor WESTLAKE,
LL.D., Colonel ConpDER, R.E., &c.

Marks of Mindin Nature. By Rev. Professor J. Duns, D.D., F.R.S.E.

Thalassographical and Thalassological Notes on the North Sea. By Sgr. Cavaliere
W. P. Jervis, F.G.S. (with Map), with remarks by Professors E. Huuu, LL.D.,
J. LoGan Losiey, F.G.S., Rev. G. F. WHIDBORNE, F.G.5., &c.

The Nature of Life (Part I). By Professor LioneL §. BEALE, F.R.S., with remarks by
Dr. SHETTLE, Professor ORCHARD, M.A,, B.Sc., and Kev. J. TUCK WELL.

VOL. XXXII.

Annual Address: The Origin of New Stars. By Professor Sir Ronert 8. Batt, LL.D.,
F.R.S. Speeches by the President, Sir G. G. Sroxes, Bart.. F.R.S., and the Rev.
Canon GIRDLESTONE, M.A.

A short account of the Congrés International d’Histoire des Religions: held in Paris,
September, 1900. By THEOPHILUS G, PINCHEs, Esq., LLD., F.R.A.S.

Vitality. By Professor LionEL 8S. BEALE, F.R.C.P., F.R.S., with remarks by Dr. A. T.
ScHOFIELD, Professor E. Hutu, LL.D., F.R.S., Professor ORrcHARD, M.A., B.Se.,
and Mr. Davip Howarp, D.L.

On the Being of God. By the Ven. Archdeacon Srncuatr, D.D. Remarks by Professor
ORCHARD, Rev. JOHN TUCKWELL, and Dr. WALTER KIbD.

The Philosophy of Education. By A. T. ScHorigiD, Esq., M.D.

Ethics and Religion. By the Rev. Prebendary H. Wace, D.D., with remarks by Rev. Dr.
WALKER, Rey. JoHN TUCKWELL, and others.

Methods of Protection among Animals. By Water A. Kipp, Esq., M.D., F.Z.S
Remarks by Professor Hutu, F.R.S., and Professor ORCHARD.

Questions Involved in Evolution from a Geological Point of View. By Rev. G. F.
Wuipnoeng, M.A., F.G.S., remarks by Mr. Martin Rovsg, B.L., and Rev. JoHN
TUCKWELL.

Eolithic Implements. By Rev, R. AsHINGTON BULLEN, B.A., F.G.S., with remarks by
Professor E. Hutt, Professor RuPERT JONES, F.R.S., and others.

Visit to the Hittite Cities, Eyuk and Boghaz Keoy. By Rev. G. E. Wuite, Marsovan.
Remarks by Dr. THropuiLus G. PincHEs, Davip HowarpD, Hsq., D.L., and others.

: Recent Investigations in Moab and Edom. By Major-General Sir CHARLES W. WILson,
K.C.M.G., F.R.S. Remarks by Rev. Canon GirpLEsTone and l’rofessor E. HULL.

Address of Condolence to H.M. the Kiug on the Death of H.M. Queen Victoria,

Ancient Script in Australia. By E. J Straruam, Esq., Assoc.M.Inst.C.E. Remarks
by Sir G. G. Srokss, Bart., F.R.S., Commander G. P. Heatu, R.N., and others.

Meeting, Monday, 1st April, 1901. Gracious reply from H.M. the King to the Address
ot Condolence; sent through the Home Secretary.

The Maori’s Place in History. By Joshua RuTLAanD, Esq. Remarks by Dr. T. G.
Pincugs, Rev. Dr. WALKER, Rev. W. SHAW, F.Z.S., and others.

Pictorial Art among the Australian Aborigines. By R. H. Maruews, Esq. Remarks
by Professor LonLEY, F'.G.S., Rev. W. 36. Lacu Szyrma, M.A., and others.

The Wahabis: Their Origin, History, Tenets and Influence. Ly Rev. 8S. M. ZWEMER.
Remarks by Rev. G. F. WHIDBORNE and Dr. H. W. HuBpann.

The Arab Immigration into South East Madagascar. By Rev. G. A. Suaw, F.Z.S.,
with remarks by E.S.M, PERowneE, Esq., Professor E. HuLL, Professor ORCHARD,
and others.

Hornets: British and Foreign. By Rev. F. A. WALKER, D.D., F.E.S.

The Divisions of the lee Age. By WarneN UpuHam, Esq., M.A., F.G.S.A. Remarks
by Professor Hut, Professor LoBLEy, Dr. PIncHEs, and Rev. JoHN TUCKWELL.
The Sub-Oceanic Depression known as ‘‘ La Fosse de Cap Breton,” and the adjacent
River Valleys of France and Spain. By Professor J. LoGan Losiry, F.G.S8., with

remarks by Captain G. P. Hzatu, R.N., and Mr. Davipy Howakp, D.L.

XXVil

VOL. XXXIV.

Annual Address: The Water Supply of Jerusalem. By Major-General Sir C. W. WILson,
.H., F.R.S.

The Springs of Character. By A. T. ScHorie LD, Esq., M.D.

Modifications in the Idea of God, produced by Modern y hought and Scientific Discovery,
By Rev. Chancellor Lias, M.A.

The Preparation of the Earth for Man’s Abode. By Professor J. LoGan Losi EY, F.G.S.

Adaptation and Selection in Nature: their bearing on Design. By WaLTER Kipp, Lsq.,
M.D., F.Z.8.

Physical History of the Norwegian Fjords. By Professor Hull, F.R.S

Physieal History of the New Zealand Fjords. By J. M. MACLAREN, BF, G.8.

Iceland: Its History and Inhabitants. By Dr. J. STEFANSSON.

Artesian Water in Queensland. By R. Locan Jack, LL.D.

Locusts and Grasshoppers. By Rev. Dr. WALKER, I’.L.S.

-Water essential to All Life. By Professor LIONEL BEALE, F.R.S.

Procopius’s African Monument. By M. L. Rouse, B.L

Some Diseases mentioned in the Bible. By Dr. T. CHAPLIN,

WOLs XY.

Annual Address, By Professor W. M. Fiinpers Petrig, D.C.L.

The Babylonian Story of the Creation, including Bel’s Fight with the Dragon. By
THEOPHILUS G. PincHuEs, Esq., Th D., M.R. “ALS.

The Future of Islam. By Professor D. 8. MaxrcGo.ioutH, D.Litt., Laudian Professor
of Arabic, Oxford University.

The Arya Samaj. By Rev. H. D. Griswotp, M.A., Ph.)., Missionary, Lahore, India.

On the Unseen Life of our World and of Living’ Growth. By Professor LIONEL 8.
Brag, F.R.C.P., F.R.S., Government Medical Referee for England.

The Cheesewri ing, Cornwall, and its Teachings. By Professor Epwakp Hutt, LL.D.,

RS , 8.

The Water Supply of Jerusalem. By Ernest W. GurNEY MAsTERMAN, Diploma in
Public Health, Cambridge.

Modern Theories concerning the composition of Holy Scripture.
“TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S.

On the Geological Relationship of the Volcanoes of the West Indies. By J. W.
SPENCER, M.A., Ph.D., F.G.S.

Volcanic Action and the West Indian Eruptions of 1902. By J. LoGan LosLey, F.G.S.

By Rey. Joun

H.R.G.S.
Report on the Congress of Orientalists held at Hamburg in September, 1902. By
THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, Esq., LL.D., M.R.A.S.

The Laws of the Babylonians, as recorded i in the code of Hammurabi. sy THEOPHILUS
G. Pincugs, Esq., LL.D., M.R.A.S.

Lecture on “ Experiences in’ South Africa during the War.” By the Rev. W. H.
FRazER, D.D., late Acting Chaplain to the Forces.

The Living God of Living Nature from the Science Side. By Professor L1ionet S.
BEALE, F.R.C.P., F.R.S.

VOL XXy i.

Annual Address. By the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Hatssury, D.C.L., F.R.8.

The Genesis of Nature. By Rev. G. F. WuHiIppornNE, M.A., F.G.S.

Ancestral Worship (lecture). By Rev. ARTHUR ELWIN.

Two Paths, one Goal. By Dr. WattTeR A. Kipp, F.Z.S. (being an examination of
Bishop TEMPLE’s Bampton Lectures for 1884.)

On the Hot Lakes District, New Zealand. By Miss Hinpa Boorp.

Observations on Irrigation Works in India. By C. W. Opuine, Esq., C.1E.,
M. Inst.C.E.

On the Age of the Last Uprise in the British Isles. By Professor Epwarp Hutt,
LL.D., F.R.S.

On the Samaritan Text of the Pentateuch, By Rev. Canon Garratt, M.A.

The samaritan Passover of the year 1861. By Rev. Canon HamMmonp, LL.B.

Vhe Conception of the Great Reality. Bv Sypngy T. Kier, Esq., F.L.S., F.R.A.S,

XXVill

On the Synchronous Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah. By Freprrick
GARD FLEAY, Esq., M.A.

Notes on the Thickness of the Lucerne Glacier of the Post-Pliocene Period. By
Professor EpwarD HUvtt, F.R.S.

Prehistoric Remains, with drawings, near Tenda, Italy. By Cav. W. P. JeErvis,
F.G.S.

On the Origin of the Marine (Halolimnic) Fauna of Lake Tanganyika. By W. H.
Hub eston, Esq., M.A., F.R.S.

VOL. XXXVIT.

Annual Address. By Dr. SirvAnus P. THompson, F.R.S.

The Right Way in Psychology. By Rev. F. Storrs Turner, B.A. Remarks by
Dr. ScHOFIELD, Rev. J. 'UCKWELL, and others.

On Confucianism. By Rev. ArTHUR ELWIN,

Yhe Rajputs and the History of Rajputana. By Colonel T. Hotprrn HENDLEY, ©.1.E.
Remarks by General HALLIDAY, Professor E. Hux, F.R.S., and others.

The Growth of the Kingdom of God. By Rev. J. BRADFoRD WHITING, M.A.

Biblical Astronomy. By MLieut.-Colonel G. MAckInLAY. Remarks by Commander
CABORNE, U.B., Dr. HEyYwoop SMirH, Professor SAYCE, Canon GIRDLESTONE, and
others.

Geological Exterminations. By Dr. CHARLES B. Warrinc, M.A. Remarks by Rev.
Dr. Irvine, Dr. W. Krpp, and others.

The Nebular and Planetesimal Theories of the Earth’s Origin. By WARREN UPHam,
Hsq., M.A., F.G.S.A.

On Dr. Nansen’s Bathymetrical Researches in the Aretic Ocean as Compared with those
on the Atlantic Coast of Europe. By Professor EK. Hunn, LL.D., F.R.S,

The Resurrection of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Address). By Rev. Canon
R. B. GrmpLEsTone, M.A.

The Influence of Physiological Discovery on Thought. By Epwarp P. Frost, Esq.,
10 Ey ial en

The Messiah of Qadian. By Rev. H. D. Grisworp, M.A., Ph.D. Remarks by Colonel
ALVES, Colonel HENDLEY, Mr. RovussE, Mr. J. O. Corrte, and others.

The Minerals and Metals mentioned in the Old Testament and their influence on the
Social and Religious History of the Nations of Antiquity. By Cav. W. P. JERVIs,
F.G.S.

VOL, 2OEx VEE,

The Bearing of Recent Oriental Discoveries on Old Testament History. By Rev. Joun
UraquHArt. Being the essay for which ‘the Gunning Prize” was awarded by the
Council,

Jceland: Its History and Inhabitants. If. By Dr. Jon StEransson, Ph.D.

Evolutionary Law in the Creation Story of Genesis. By Rey. A. Irvine, B.A., D.Sc.

iological Change in Geological Time. By Professor J. Logan LoBiey, F.G.S8., F.R.G.S.

The Bible Pedigree of the Nations of the World, as attested and expanded by ancient
Records and Traditions, and by early and long-lasting national Names. By Martin
L. Rovsg, Esq., B.L.

The Bearing of Recent Oriental Discoveries on Old Testament History. Being the second
in order of merit of the ‘‘ Gunning Prize Essays.” By Rev. ANDREW CRAIG
RoBinson, M.A.

The Early Celtic Churches of Britain and Ireland (with illustration). By Miss ELEANOR
H. Hutt, author of Early Christian Ireland, ete. With lantern illustrations.

The Bible in the Light of Modern Science. Abstract of a Lecture delivered by WILLIAM
Woops Smytu, Hsq., F.Med.Soc.Lon, With lantern illustrations.

Ice or Water. By Sir Henry Howortn, D.C.L., F.R.S. Review by Professor
Epwarp Hutt, LL.D., F.R.S. (Secretary)

The Zodiacal Arrangement of the Stars: in its Historical and Biblical Connections. ly
Rey. A. B, Grimanpr, M.A. (Camb. ).

The Morning Star in the Gospels. By Lieut.-Colonel GEoRGE MackIntray, R.A. (liet.).

XXx1x

VOL. (XX XTX.

Annual Address. The Development of the Religious Faculty in Man, apart from Revela-
tion. By the Right Rev. Bishop WELLDoN, D.D.

tesearches in Sinai. By Prof. W. M. FLINpEers Perrigz, D.C.L. Review by the
Secretary.

The San Ranaieod and Valparaiso Earthquakes and their causes (with map). By
WakreEn Upuam, Esq., D.Se., F.G.S. (America).

The Scriptural Idea of Miracles. By Rev. Canon R. B. GrrpLEsTonr, M.A.

The Pedigree of the Nations, No. Il. By Martin L. Rouse, Esq., B.L.

The History of the Spread of the European Fauna. By Prof. J. Logan Losiry, F.G.S.

Orissa: A little known province of the Indian Empire. With some personal Reminis-
cences. By C. W. Op1ine, Esq., C.S8.I.

Survivals of Primitive Religion among the people of Asia Minor. By the Rev. G. BE.
Wuirte, Dean of Anatolia College.

Plant Distribution from an Old Standpoint. By H. B. Guppy, Esq., M.B., F.R.S.E.

Exploration of Asia Minor, as bearing on the Historical Trustworthiness of the New
Testament. By Prof. Sir WriittaM M. Ramsay, D.C.L.

Recent Discoveries in Palestine in Relation to the Bible. By Dr. Ernest W. G.
MASTERMAN,

Mencius. By the Rev. F. Storrs TurneEr, B.A.

VOL. XL.

Annual Address. The Bible and Astronomy. By Mr. Ef. Watter Maunper, F.R.A.S.

Primeval Man in Belgium. By Rev. D. Gat WHITLEY.

The influence of the Glacial Epoch upon the Early History of Mankind.
Professor G. FREDERICK Wricut, D.D., LL.D.

Resemblances between Indian and Jewish Ideas and Customs. By Colonel T. Hontpetn
HENDLEY, C.I.E.

The Glaciers, Past and Present, in the South Island of New Zealand, together with the
great Vertical Movements of the Ground. By Mr. C. Dittworrs Fox.

A Recent Visit to Petra. Lecture delivered by Mr. ARTHUR SurTon, F.L.S.: a short
account by the SECRETARY.

Philosophy and Evolution, By Professor H. LANGHORNE OrcHARD, M.A., B.Sc.

The Spread of the Existing Animals through Europe and to the Islands of the Atlantic,
based on Dr. ScHARFrY’s recent work, ‘“ Huropean Animals.” By Professor EpwARD
Huni, LL.D., F.R.S8:

The Decay of Ultramontanism from an Historical Point of View.
J.J. Lias, M.A.

The American Fauna and its Origin. By Professor J. Logan Lopiey, F.G.S.

The Shia Turks. By Rev. G. E. Wuits, M.A., B.D., Dean of Anatolia College,
Turkey.

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. By
Mr. F. W. CuristTian, B.A.

List of Officers, Members, etc.

By Rey.

By Rev. CHANCELLOR

VOL.) XL.

ee By the PrestpEnt, The Rt. Hon. the Earl of H ALSBURY, D.C.L.,

F.R.S.

Geneva and Chamounix of to-day as compared with half a century ago. By Professor
EH. Hurt, LL.D., F.R.S. ; 3

Life in a Country town of Lycaonia: being a description of the conditions of Christian
Life under the Eastern Empire. By Professor Sir W. M. Ramsay, D.C.L., F.R.S.

Science and the Unseen World. By Dr. A. T. ScHorrEenp.

Christianity and Socialism. By the Venerable W. CUNNINGHAM, Archdeacon of Ely.

Discoveries in Babylonia and Neighbouring Lands. By Dr. TuEropuitus G. Pincngs.

Modernism, its Origin and l'endencies. By the Rev. CHANCELLOR J. J. Lias, M.A.

The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia. By H. M. Wiener, Esq., LL.B.

Ezekiel’s Vision of the Divine Glory. By Professor C. A. CArvus-WILson.

The Present Position of Catholics in France. By Rey. A. GALTON.

The Date of the Nativity was 8 B.c. By Lieut.-Colonel GEoRGE MACKINLAY.

Authority. By the Very Rev. H. Wacr, D.D., Dean of Canterbury.

Biographical Notice of the late Mr, W1LFRED H. HupLeston.

List of Officers, Members, ete.

; LONDON: Ae.
HARRISON AND SONS, PRINTERS IN ORDINARY TO HIS LATE MA
Lh eli

ST. MARTIN’S LANE. Pat

“Winn

01298 3391

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Journal of the transactions of the Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain"

See other formats