HARVARD UNIVERSITY. 


LIBRARY 


OF THE 
MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY 
Yb6S 


| 


Va, 


7 ~ 
ae rore- tes 
Sg - ne Ta se 


: 
mi a . ’ 
- 4 i ws Sen ae ‘ : 
weer. we 2 é -“ 

ay wwe 
Seca ee male Se +e 
ms > te “ 


earn PR ea NS 
eS a 
OF og wnt 


' y ; 4 " f 7 f *Y a ‘ : ye Pd 


A i hee, : ‘ 7 : mS ; 
SONAL OP Tepes ya sees 
Er ald ha ay | (ee ; 


1% er : v2 


‘ 
P will 
‘ek 
is 
a 
a 


is ip Tt 


a War y : , oe 


e 
a 
Ts) 


bee 
i) 
i 


+e 
aa 
oso 
‘. 
~ 


‘ ‘ 
a P ' 
) My | od 
) 1 m 
| % 4 
Wy, ' 
. Wes ; a) 
ab : = iy 
i Ks 9 . 
ivy d i. f 
- J a 
Sid i " ; 
- of ; 
; ed 


JOURNAL OF THE TRANSACTIONS 


OF 


ame Vic hORITA INS TIEUTE. 


VOL. XLVI. 


JOURNAL OF 


THE TRANSACTIONS 


Che Victoria Institute, 


Ahulosophical Society of Great Arita. 


Szorerary: KH, WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S. 


VOR! XLVE 


LONDON: 
(Published hy the Institute, 1, Central Buildings, Westminster, SU.) 


ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 


1914. 
oa 


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


PREFACE. 


—e—— 


HE papers read before the Victoria Institute in the 
Session 1913-1914, and appearing in the present Volume, 
No. XLVI, of the Journal of the Transactions, have been 
concerned to a larger extent than usual with religious life in 
action, rather than with abstract philosophical discussions. 
The Right Reverend Bishop Welldon has set forth the supreme, 
indeed the unique, character of Christianity amongst religions ; 
and the Rev. H. J. R. Marston has insisted upon its supreme 
and unique doctrine, the doctrine of Atonement. The Rev. 
Chancellor 8. B. MeCormick, D.D., has drawn our attention to 
the influence of Christianity in that welding of many races into 
one great nation that is now proceeding in the United States; 
and the Rev. Prebendary H. EK. Fox has shown the need for the 
influence of Christianity in the development of new Japan, 
while Professor F. F. Roget, in his memoir of Godet, has 
presented us with a vivid sketch of a leading Christian pastor 
and theologian. 

Biblical criticism, in its various departments, has not occupied 
so much space as in the programmes of the preceding two 
years, but has not been neglected. The Rev. Chancellor 
J.J. Lias has presented with admirable clearness the strong 
linguistic evidence for the early date of the Priestly Code; and 
the incident of the taking of Babylon by Cyrus has been 
discussed by the Rev. A. Craig Robinson, and the accuracy of 
the references to 1t in the Book of Daniel completely manifested. 
The Rey. T. H. Darlow, in his paper on Versions of the Bible, 
has pointed out how essentially the Scriptures remain the 
Word of God in inspiration and power, no matter what the 
language into which they may be translated; and similarly 
Mr. Maunder has endeavoured to bring out from the First 

A 2 


vl PREFACE, 


Chapter of Genesis the lessons it was originally designed to 
teach, lessons necessary for all men and independent of niceties 
of translation, and unaffected by any progress of Science. 

In the field of Pure Science, Dr. Sydney Chapman presented 
a most important paper on the Number and Total Light of the 
Stars, and Dr. Pinches, in the department of Assyriology, gave 
a summary of the latest discoveries in Babylonia. The Institute 
was indebted for the Annual Address to Colonel Sir Charles M. 
Watson, whose illustrated lecture, on “Jerusalem: Past and 
Present,” followed most appropriately Mr. Arthur W. Sutton’s 
address in the previous year on “ Suez to Sinai.” 

To the writers of these papers, which have sustained the high 
standard of interest and importance of previous Volumes of the 
Transactions, the hearty thanks of the Council are tendered, 
and also to those who have taken part in the discussions. 

Since January five new members and 27 new associates 
have been elected. During the last two or three years there 
has been a marked increase in the attendances: this increase 
has been fully sustained during the past Session, and the 
Council desire to announce that they have removed their offices 
to 1, Central Buildings, Westminster, 8.W., where they have been 
able to make more suitable arrangements to provide for this 
increased attendance. 

Losses from death have been especially numerous and severe. 
Among the valued supporters whose help is thus lost to us, 
have been Sir David Gill, K.C.B., F.R.S., one of our honorary 
correspondents, and our Vice-President, the Right Honourable 
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. Nevertheless the year has 
been, on the whole, one of steady and satisfactory progress, and 
the Council feel a grateful assurance that they have been 
sustaimed and helped by the Divine Presence in the work of 
the Institute. They pray that the blessing of Almighty God 
may continue to rest upon their labours, and may go forth with 
the Volume which they now issue and would humbly dedicate 
to His service. 

E. WALTER MAUNDER, 
Secretary. 


CONTENTS. 


PREFACE Me BaD soe aa sy Sais Boe 
REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE YEAR 1913.... a at 


CasH STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR 1913 .... wee beat wat 


ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING, HELD ON MonpbAy, FEBRUARY 2ND, 1914, 


Mr. Davip Howarp, V.P., IN THE CHAIR.... es oes 


PAGE 
Te: 
conte 
7 

eevee 8 


THE FaLL oF BABYLON AND DANIEL v, 30. By THE? Rev. ANDREW 


Craig Rogsinson, M.A., Donne“ttaAn Lecturer, DUvBLIN 


JNIVERSITY, 1912-1913 of diss ake 


Discussion. REMARKS BY sass sie 

Very Rev. DEAN WACE, 
Str Ropert AnpERSON, K.C.B., 

, Dr. T. G. PIncuEs, 
VEN. ARCHDEACON PoTTER, 
Rev. JoHn TuckwE tt, 
Cot. VAN SoMEREN, 
Mr. M. L. Rovssz, 
Proressor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, 
Rev. CHANCELLOR Las, 
Mr. Joun ScHwartz, JUNR., 
Mr. E. WALTER MAvunper. 


JAPAN, AND SOME OF ITS PROBLEMS, RELIGIOUS AND SocIAt. 


THE Rev. PrReEBENDARY H. E. Fox, M.A. 


Discussion. REMARKS BY ae a Fa nee 
Mr. M. L. Rovss, 
Lievut.-Cot. G. MAackInuay, 


9 
20 

By 
scoend ver 
a, OO 


vu CONTEN'S OF VOL. XLVI. 


Discuss1ion—continued. PAGE 
Mr. JoHN ScHWARTZ, JUNR., 
Capr. M. McNetue, B.N., 
Rev. W. H. Murray WALTON, 
Gen. J. G. HALLIDAY, 
Rr. Rev. Bisuop 8. THorntoy, 
REY. 1. -E DARtow, 
Ligzut.-CoLt. M. A. Atvess, R.E., 
. Proressor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD. 


THe CHRISTIAN DocTRINE OF ATONEMENT. By THE Rev. H. J. R. 
Marston, M.A. ak ee nes deve shai oe at 1S 


Discussion. REMARKS BY 
Dr. J., W. THIRTLE, 
Mr. M. L. Rovss, 
Rev. E. SEELEY, 

Rev. JoHN TUCKWELL, 


eoee eeee erro oeve 52 


Mr. JoHN ScHWARTZ, JUNR., 
Rev. A. CocHRANE, 

Rev. F. B. JoHnston, 

Rev. F. Cecit Love ry, 
Proressor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, 
Str Rospert ANDERSON, 

ReEv. CHANCELLOR Lis, 

Rev. A. Irvine, D.Sc., 

Mr. W. Woops Smytu, 
Lirut.-Cot. M. A. Atvzs, R.E., 
Mr. E. J. G. Tittrertneton. 


Is THE SO-CALLED “ PRIESTLY CoDE” or Post-ExiILic Date? By 
THE Rev, CHAncErLior J. J. Liss, MeAy.= ie seat OS 


Discussion. REMARKS BY ahs vhs ee eee ee, 
Mr. HAaroLtp WIENER, 
Mrs. E. WALTER MAuUNDER, 
Rev. Canon R. B. GIRDLESTONE, 
Mr. E. WALTER MAUNDER, 
Dr. J. W. THIRTLE, 
REV. F, E. SPENCER, 
Mr. M. L. Rovusz, 
Proressor H,. LANGHORNE ORCHARD. 


CONTENTS OF VOL. XLVI. 1x 


PAGE 
THE CHARACTER OF THE BIBLE INFERRED FROM ITS VERSIONS. By 


THE Rev. T. H. Dartow, M.A., Lirerary SUPERINTENDENT OF 
THE BIBLE SOCIETY _.... 2s Mais i Dr esily ie ek Pee S37! 


Discussion. REMARKS BY iy al Se nee ou. OF 


Rev. Canon R. B. GirRDLESTONE, 
Mr. PHILLIPS, 

Rev. F. C. Love ty, 

Mre-P. FE. Woop, 

Mr. M. L. Rovss, 

Mr. Martin, 

Rev. J. SHARP, 

Lrgvut.-Cou. G. MAcKINLAY, 
Rev. J. Gosszert-TANNER, 

Rev. E. SEELEY. 


THe NuMBER OF THE Stars. By Sypnry CuHapman, B.A., D.Sc., 
Cu1EF ASSISTANT AT THE RoyAL OBSERVATORY, GREENWICH .... 103 


Discussion. REMARKS BY er. eee oe opie Ie) 


Prorsessor D. 8. Margorioutn, 

Mr. E. WALTER MAUNDER, 

Dr. F. W. Dyson, AstRonNomMER RoyAt, 
Capt. M. McNertez, R.N., 

Mr. M. L. Rovuss. 


THe First CHAPTER OF GENESIS. By E. WALTER MAUvuNDER, 
F.R.A.S. a ao ek pe Zong 


Discussion. REMARKS BY date ai sey wee 142 
Mr. D. Howarp, 

Mr. M. L. Rovss, 

Very Rev. Dran WACcE, 

Mr. W. Woops Smyta, 

Dr. A. T. ScHOFIELD, 

Proressor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, 
Rev. JAmrEs THoMAs, 

Mr. Joun ScHwARrtz, JUNR., 

Rev. J. Iverach Munro, 

Dr. Hrywoop Smita, 

Lizut.-CoL. M. A. Auvss, R.E., 
Rev. A. Irvine, D.Sc., 


Die CONTENTS OF VOL. XLVI. 
PAGE 
Discusston—continued. 


Stk Ropert ANDERSON, K.C.B., 
Rev. JoHn TuCKWELL, 

Rev. CuancELior J. J. Lias, 
Mr. JosEPH GRAHAM, 

Mr. 7:3. BisHor. 


THe Latest DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA. By THEOPHILUS G. 
Pincus, UL.Ds5 MRrASs. se eine ae ae ey ae AGE 


Discussion. REMARKS BY... “— a £54: sate Bp 
Mr. D. Howarp, 
Rev. J. J. B. Coss, 
Mr. M. L. Rouse, 
Cot. VAN SOMEREN, 
Rev. F. A. Jonss, 
Rey. A. Irvine, D.Sc. 


FrREDERIC GopET, Swiss Divine, AnD TuToR To FREDERICK THE 
Nosie. By Prorsssor F. F. Roger _.... oe ava palod 


Discussion. REMARKS BY i: on oe: gs eee) 


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


Tux Composite or Racres AND RELIGIons IN AMERICA. By THE 
Rev. 8. B. McCormick, D.D., CHANCELLOR oF PITTSBURG 
University, Pennsytvanta, U.S.A. is ee ane sors Ak 


Discussion. REMARKS BY Ae ees - 2. De dail 


Mr. E. J. SEWELL, 

Lirut.-Cot. M. A. Atvess, R.E., 
Mr. M. L. Rouse, 

Mr. E. WALTER MAUNDER. 


THE SUPREMACY OF CHRISTIANITY. By THE Ricut Rev. J. E. C. 
WeELLDoN, D.D., DEAN or MANCHESTER (Summary) __.... we 255 


Discussion. REMARKS BY ae Stee en * ay) 


Rev. PREBENDARY H. E. Fox, 
Lievut.-Cou. G. MAcKINLAY, 
Mr. E. WatteR MAUNDER, 
Mr. E. J. SEWELL. 


CONTENTS OF VOL. XLVI. xl 


PAGE 
ANNUAL ADDRESS : JERUSALEM, Past AND PRESENT. By Cou. Sir 
Cuarutes M. Watson, K.C.M.G., C.B., M.A. (Summary) 2 262 


List oF MEMBERS AND ASSOCIATES as PoP. De ey ae gl 


¥*, The object of the Institute being to investigate, it must not be held to 
endorse the various views expressed either in the Papers, or in the 
Discussions. 


VICTORIA INSTITUTE, 


REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE YEAR 1913. 


READ AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING, FEBRUARY 2ND, 1914. 


1. Progress of the Institute. 


During the year just past, the Institute has sustained a most 
serious loss in the death of its Secretary, Mr. F. 8. Bishop. To 
his energy and devotion much of the recent improvement in 
the position of the Institute has been due; and his removal 
from us has affected adversely the Report which the Council 
have to present as to the numbers upon the roll of the Institute, 
and its financial position. But for this untoward event, the 
past Session would probably have shown a continued improve- 
ment in both respects ; and the falling off, though slight, which 
has to be reported, is chiefly to be ascribed to this cause. In 
other respects the work of the past Session has been most 
successful; the papers contributed to the Transactions have 
been of great interest and value, and the crowded attendances 
that they have attracted have rendered the question of securing 
for the Meetings ampler accommodation than that which our 
own rooms can afford one of pressing importance. 


2. Appointment of a New Secretary. 


The Institute has been fortunate in securing the services as 
Secretary of Mr. E. Walter Maunder, I'.R.A.8., late Superin- 
tendent of the Solar Department, Royal Observatory, Green- 
wich, and author of several standard works on astronomy. 
Mr. Maunder is not only widely known as an astronomer, but 
he has also had experience in organization and in the conduct 
of a learned society, having founded in 1890 the British 
Astronomical Association, which he has since served as 
President, Editor, and in other capacities. He was also for five 
years one of the Secretaries of the Royal Astronomical Society. 
He is well known to the supporters of the Institute, as he 
delivered the Annual Address in 1908, and for the last four 


years has served on the Council. 
B 


2 ANNUAL REPORT. 


3. Meetings. 


During the year 1913 twelve meeting were held. The papers 
read were the following :— 

“Present Day Factors in New Testament Study.” By the Rev. 
Canon R. J. Kyow.ine, D.D. 

“The Fact of Prediction.” By the Rev. Jonn UrquHart. 

“Vision, in Sacred and other History.” By the Rev. Joun Huntiey 
SKrineg, D.D. 

“ Methods of Biblical Criticism.” By the Ven. Archdeacon WiLLIAM 
SincLair, M.A., D.D. 

“Pompeii: Life in the First Century a.p.” By E. J. Sewett, Esq. 

“The Bearing of Archaeological and Historical Research upon the 
New Testament.” By the Rev. Parke P. Fiournoy, D.D. [The 
Gunning Prize Essay. | 

“The Samaritan Pentateuch, and Philological Questions connected 
therewith.” By the Rev. J. IveERAcnH Munro, M.A. 

“The Origin of Life—What do we know of it?” By Professor G. 
Sims WoopHEaD, M.A., M.D., LL.D. 

“The Position and Principles of the Criticism of the Old Testament.” 
By the Very Rev. H. Wacz, D.D., DEAN or CANTERBURY. 

The Annual Address was delivered by Artuur W. Sutton, Esq., 
J.P., F.L.S., who gave an account of his journey “ From Suez to 
Sinai,” illustrated by 100 photographs exhibited by the lantern. 

“The Fall of Babylon, and Daniel v., 30.” By the Rev. AnpREW 
Craica Ropinson, M.A. 

A Meeting was also devoted to the discussion of the Gunning Prize 
Essay, and proved both interesting and profitable. 


4. The Journal of Transactions. 


Volume XLV of the Transactions of the Institute was issued 
in December last and contained the papers, discussions and 
communications of the Session, December, 1912, to June, 1913. 
The Council desire to express their great indebtedness to 
Dr. J. W. Thirtle, who passed the Volume through the press, and 
to Mr. Arthur W. Sutton for the beautiful plates which he 
supplied in illustration of the Annual Address, “ From Suez to 
Sinai.” 

The papers contained in the Volume are almost wholly devoted 
to subjects bearing upon the Inspiration of Scripture, upon the 
present aspects of Biblical Criticism, and upon the light which 
recent archeeological and historical research have thrown upon 
these. The Council trust that the effect of the Volume will be 
to render clearer our apprehension of the nature and of the 
truth of Inspiration, and to strengthen our faith when we 
encounter difficulties, as yet unsolved, by the sight of difficulties, 
which in the past seemed insoluble, but have been made plain 
by fuller knowledge and research. 


ANNUAL REPORT. 3 


d. Council and Officers. 


The following is the list of the Council and Officers for the 


year 1913 :— 


President. 


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


Vice- Presidents. 


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

David Howard, Esq., D.L., F.C.S. (7vustee). 

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

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

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


General Halliday. 


Honorarp Correspondents. 


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


Professor Sir Gaston Maspero, D.C.L. (avis). 


Professor FE. Naville, Ph.D. (Geneva). 
Professor A. H. Sayce, D.D., LL.D. 


Professor Warren Upham, D.Sc. 
His Excellency Herr Friatjof Nansen, D.Sc. 


Honorary Auditors. 


E. J. Sewell, Esq. 


H. Lance Gray, Esq. 


Honorary Creusurer. 


Arthur W. Sutton, Esq., J.P., F.L.S. 


Secretary und Editor of the Journal. 
E. Walter Maunder, Esq., F.R.A.S. 


Council. 


(In Order of Original Election.) 


Very Rev. H. Wace, D.D., Dean of Canterbury 
(Trustee). 

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

Theo. G. Pinches, Esq., LL.D., M.R.A.S. 
Ven. Archdeacon W. M. Sinclair, M.A., D.D. 
Rev. John Tuckwell, M.R.A.S. 
_Lieut.-Colonel G. Mackinlay (Chairman). 
Arthur W. Sutton, Esq., F.L.S., J.P 

Rev. Prebendary H. E. Fox, M.A. 

Professor H. Langhorne Orchard, M.A., B.Sc. 
Rt. Rev. Bishop J. E. Welldon, M.A., D.D. 


Sydney T. Klein, Esq., F.L.S., F.R.A.S., 
M.R.I. 

William J. Horner, Esq. 

A. T. Schofield, Esq., M.D. 

Heywood Smith, Esq,, M.A., M.D. 

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

Ven. Archdeacon Beresford Potter, M.A. 

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

EK. J. Sewell, Esq. 

Chancellor P. V. Smith, LL.D. 

Frank W. Challis, Esq., M.A. 


© 


4 ANNUAL REPORT. 


6. Election of Council and Officers. 


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


Lieut.-Colonel G. Mackinlay. 

Professor H. Langhorne Orchard, M.A., B.Sc. 
Sydney PT. Kiem Esq, Foss hea os MRL 
William J. Horner, Esq. 

A. T. Schofield, Hsq., M.D. 

Heywood Smith, Esq., M.A., M.D. 


The Council nominate also Lieut.-Colonel M. A. Alves, R.E., 
and Alfred William Oke, Esq., B.A., LL.M., for election on the 
Council. 


7. Obituary. 


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


R. Bruce Foote, Esq., J. R. Hershensohnn, Esq., Rev. F. Ashwin, 
Rt. Hon. Earl Nelson, J. T. Matthews, Esq., W. Drake-Brockman, Esq., 
G. W. Munt, Esq., Frederic S. Bishop, Esq., Me AL, J, OUT idee 
Secretary, S. Joshua Cooper, Esq., Member of “Council, the Ven. 
Archdeacon W. F. J. Kaye, M.A., Rev. G. H. W. L. Ross, the Rev. 
G. Stringer Rowe, Francis G. Smart, Esq., M.B., J.P., Miss G. Crewdson, 
M.A., Prof. J. Logan Lobley, F.G.8., Martin J. Sutton, Esq., J.P. F.LS,, 
Rev. ©. Godfrey Ashwin, Sir Robert Ball, F.R.S., The Rev. J. C. Walter 
B.A. 


8. New Members and Associates. 


The following are the names of new Members and Associates 
elected up to the end of the year 1913 :— 


Memperrs.—Miss F. Cruddas, The Rev. C. G. Monro, M.A., M.B., 
Williamson Lamplough, Esq., the Ven. Archdeacon Beresford Potter, 
Mrs. Bishop, John T. Burton, Esq. 

AssociaTEs.—Colonel G. J. van Someren, Dr. Eugene Stock, the Rev. 
L. G. Buchanan, M.A., the Rev. W. Hervey Woods, the Rev. W. 
Laporte Payne, Miss J. E. Williams, the Rev. George Denyer, Ronald 
MacGregor, Esq., Robert Gladstone, Hsqe Al Benjamin, Esq., 
Prof. Theodore Flournoy (Life), the Rev. W. H. Saulez, B.D., Prof. 
J. Logan Lobley, F.G.S. (since deceased), Mrs. A. H. Pelly, Captain M. 
McNeile, R.N., T. Isaac Tambyah, Esq., Harry G. Munt, Esq., John B. 
Martin, Esq., Miss J. Winstone, Miss M. Vickers, BSc. Miss Edith 
Grindley, Ivan Panin, Esq., Miss Selina F. Fox, M.D., B.S., the Rev. 
W. J. Heaton, B.D., J. E. Solade-Solomon, Esq., the Rev. G. H. 
Lancaster, M.A., F.R.A.S., Miss F. Wolsey, Mrs. Maunder (Life), 
W.H.S. Monck, Esq., W. St. G. Grantham-Hill, Esq., M.D., M.RB.CS., 
Rev. W. H. Murray Walton, B.A., Robert Kerr, Esq. 


Or 


ANNUAL REPORT. 


9. Numbers of Members and Associates. 


The following statement shows the number of supporters 
of the Institute at the end of December, 1913 :— 


Life Members ‘ee Ae ies 28 
Annual Members _... ae apm ast Us) 
Life Associates tai fat Ed: 66 
Annual Associates... ae dare. t290 
Missionary Associates zat re 20 
Hon. Corresponding Members oe: 90 
Library Associates... Ae she 24 

Total 627 


showing a net decrease, after allowing for deaths and 
retirements, of 5 on last year’s return. 


10. Finance. 


The statement of Receipts and Expenditure attached hereto 
compares not unfavourably on the whole with that of the 
preceding year. The total expenditure in 1913 exceeded that 
in 1912 by £1 11s. 7d., but certain items, amounting in the 
whole to £16 16s., will not recur in the year on which we have 
just entered. The unpaid bills also, carried forward to 1914, 
are £31 17s. 9d. lower than those brought forward from 1912. 
But on the other hand, the receipts in 1913 have only sufficed 
to meet the expenditure through the donations received for the 
Special Fund, viz., £52 16s. 3d. The prospect for the coming 
year is satisfactory so far that the ordinary income may be 
expected to meet the ordinary expenditure. 


11. Special Fund. 


The Special Fund, above alluded to, was inaugurated by the 
Council at their Meeting on December 9th, 1913, in order to 
secure funds to enable them to place the finances of the 
Institute upon a more satisfactory basis, and to make provision 
for larger audiences than can at present be suitably accom- 
modated in its rooms. It will be noticed that in the current 
Session arrangements have been made that six of the Meetings 
shall be held in the Hall of the Royal Society of Arts. A 
prompt response was made to this Appeal, by several Members 
and Associates, and the total amount received when the Annual 
Account was made up on December 31st, 1913, was £52 16s. 3d., 


6 ANNUAL REPORT. 


the subscriptions in detail received up to that date being as 
follows :— 

Miss E. H. Bolton, £5 ; the late 8. Joshua Cooper, Esq., £5 18s. ; Miss 
Florence Cruddas, £5 ; J. F. W. Deacon, Esq., £1; Mrs. Farquharson, 5s. ; 
Dr. J.C. M. Given, £1 1s. ; George A. Gutch, Esq., £1; William J. Horner, 
Esq., £2 2s.; David Howard, Esq., £10; Joseph Howard, Esq., £1 Is. ; 
Prof. Edward Hull, F.R.S., £1; the Rev. Canon Knowling, £1 10s. ; 
Lt.-Colonel G. Mackinlay, £2; Miss Amy Manson, £1; Prof. H. 
Langhorne Orchard, M.A., £1 1s.; the Ven. Archdeacon Beresford 
Potter, £5; the Rev. W. Percy Schuster, £1 ; Sir Alexander R. Simpson, 
M.D., £1; Arthur W. Sutton, Esq., £6 18s. 3d. 

The Council trust that the Fund, which has thus opened so 
satisfactorily, will continue to be hberally supported. 


12. Auditors. 
The Council desire again most cordially to thank Messrs. 
Sewell and Lance Gray for their kind services as Auditors. 


13. Conclusion. 


As time goes on, the Council feel that the work of the 
Institute has necessarily undergone some change of character. 
In days gone by, the forces of unbelief were militant and 
ageressive, striving to detach professing believers from their 
faith, Now the chief influences hostile to faith are in- 
differentism, and complete preoccupation in material interests : 
a materialism, that is to say, which is practical rather than 
intellectual. In the intellectual field, aggressive unbelief has 
been succeeded by a vague, patronizing assumption that Progress 
has left behind, as an outworn, old-time superstition, the belief 
in a direct Revelation from God to man. To combat this 
requires more faith, more patience, more effort and devotion, 
than were called for by the earlier phases of the struggle. In 
view of this necessity the Council would ask that every 
subscriber, whether Member or Associate, would do his or her 
best to yain more adherents, more workers for the Institute. 
In particular, the Council would invite those who sympathize 
with the objects of the Institute to join it as Members, for the 
very condition that Membership is confined to professing — 
Christians, offers to such the opportunity and privilege of a 
practical declaration that their faith in the Divine Revelation is 
a reality, and enables them to bear a quiet but significant 
testimony. 

Signed on behalf of the Council, 


HALSBURY. 


c 


‘SsHopipny 1 


S21 SbF 
SE on Oe 5 - 
Daa. ag os 
Paes 


TBTNSUTUO BIPUy JVBodt) 


AVUH HONV] ‘A 


TIAMAG “Pf OL 
‘qOoLLOD ULOYY PUNOF PUB SLOT[ONOA pUB SYOOd ot} YIM WY porrdutod puR squUNODdL OT} TTB POIs OAVY OAK 


(ZIG) Potofoyy OF WUNTIRLOUOTT 


yurg yr 


souRrg “SI6T “IS1e 09d 
"ST6T “UIST 390 


‘ONO 


aZ1ad 


LI 8vF 
Orie 
OL FI 
O &@ 
‘S % 


DNINNOSO 


Yen) 


earn 


‘PIGL “YIGT Awonune 


ee oe oe 73 


SI6I ‘4ST Aine 
**pusplatcy “S16 ‘pug “uve 
. a ee ZI6L Wot oouvleg 


‘P6 SLT SPLF 0 Ssuryunowr PIBMAOF peldtVd STIG predun OLB ILO T, 


OSF ‘puny nay, Suruuny oy Jo jeyidey oxy osye ‘sposuog “queo aed §z QOSF jo wns [eydey v st oaoyy, 


G 61 8607 

| rc OS al pa ; * ae a mn yurg ye yseg 
O G-¢6 a doysiq Bl OFel Ou 09. Tareomie TA Oy MOE mC 
0 61 @ 3 ey : "*  sotapung 
r= T ' > <. . a sasrvyg yurg 
0260-0 a Pg a ee: "*  QOUBANSUT OAT 
G F OL oe o. o. e- oe oe oe ALBIQUT 
6 OL £ ve a Me he "*  qusry olaqQoo[ Wy pure svg 
0 6 & 7 . . ag e "*  goUvAINSS YW OF] 
LE SE: GE : a Le ty es Ssh jo sostodzy 
gc 6 Zs t my ni ny : ar 95v4SOg 
6) 0) COL ee ee o- oe ee oe e- quoy 
P OL 686 *-e oe ee oe ee rf er F SOILV[B 
Bape ty fis 0) ator ge A ‘sues 
ae It piedun oatj4 oom “pQ ‘SCT OSIF oseyy JO Samat 
ae 


“AYO LTIGNAd Xa 


oe 


2 6I cox 
€ 91 <9 2 
3.) 0 EE ; 
6 O bY , 
0 OL See 
0) 
0 
0) 
0 
0 
O 
1) 
y Al PE 
Ppl ag fee ty 


‘C161 “ISLE saquassg ee ene au) es LNAWALVLS HSVO 


ee ee ee ee ee SUOTFVUO(T 
** sfostog “4uad tod) § 1 o0s# uo puapLAlc(y 
vi a at “+ sartg 
Se TOr ee a) 
eater ae a eee 
ze so}eloossy LT 
ie SOPLIDOSSYW OFI'] Z 
eal as) € 
ee SI6I ce 06 
ZIGT S1aqwoa A, e—: suotdriosqng 
sr "* ZIGL Woaz oounpeg yseg 
‘SLd HOTA 


THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 
OF THE 


VICTORIA INSTITUTE 


WAS HELD IN THE ROOMS OF THE INSTITUTE ON 
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2np, 1914, AT 4 O'CLOCK. 


Mr. Davip Howarp, Vice-President, took the Chair. 


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


The SECRETARY read the notice calling the Meeting, and the 
Report and Statement of Accounts presented by the Council, 
having been circulated among the Members present, were taken as 
read. 


The Rev. A. M. NiBLock then proposed, Mr. R. D. RIcHARDSON, 
of Winnipeg, seconded, and Mr. M. L. Rouse supported, the 
following resolution :— 


“That the Report and Statement of Accounts for the 
year 1913 presented by the Council be received and adopted, 
and the Officers named therein be elected, and that the thanks 
of the Meeting be given to the Council, Officers and Auditors 
for their efficient conduct of the business of the Victoria 
Institute during the past year.” 


The resolution was carried unanimously, and the CHAIRMAN 
returned thanks to the Meeting on behalf of the Council, Officers 
and Auditors. 


The Rev. JoHN TUCKWELL proposed a hearty vote of thanks, 
which was carried by acclamation, to Mr. Howard for presiding, 
and the CHAIRMAN having replied, the Meeting adjourned at 
4,20 p.m. 


548TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 


HELD IN THE ROOMS OF THE INSTITUTE ON TUESDAY, 
DECEMBER 9ry, 1913, AT 4.30 P.M. 


THE VERY REVEREND THE DEAN OF CANTERBURY OCCUPIED 
THE CHAIR UNTIL 5.30, WHEN LIEUT.-COLONEL G. MACKINLAY 
TOOK HIS PLACE. 


The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed, and 
the elections were announced of the following Associates and 
Member :—Miss Edith Grindley, Mr. Ivan Panin, Miss Selina F. Fox, 
M.D., B.S., Rev. W. J. Heaton, B.D., Mr. J. E. Solade-Solomon, Rev. 
G. H. Lancaster, M.A., F.RAS., Rev. W. H. Murray Walton, B.A., 
Miss Florence Wolsey, Mrs. Annie Scott Dill Maunder (Life), Mr.. 
Robert Kerr, Mr. Wilfred St. George Grantham-Hill, M.D., Mr. W. H. 
Stanley Monck, M.A., Mr. John T. Burton (Member). 


THE FALL OF BABYLON AND DANIEL V, 30. By Rev. 
ANDREW CRAIG ROBINSON, M.A., Donnellan Lecturer, 
Dublin University, 1912-13. 


EFORE the archaeological discoveries of recent times the 
Book of Daniel had been, for probably over 2,000 years, 
the only extant evidence for the existence of Belshazzar. The 
Bible was in regard to this matter a single witness, unsupported 
by any evidence outside itself, and it was open to any rationalist 
who chose to reject the evidence of the Bible to assert that 
such a person as Belshazzar never existed, but was merely a 
creation of the imaginative fancy of the writer of the Book ot 
Daniel. AJ that, how ever, 1s now changed, and by the discovery 
of the contemporary inscriptions of the Age of Cyrus the 
reality of the existence of Belshazzar as a personage of history 
is placed beyond the power of scepticism to deny. 

When Cyrus in his career of conquest in Western Asia 
marched against the Babylonian Kingdom the name of the 
Babylonian king was Nabonidus—called by the Greeks 
Labynetos—and ‘he was in the seventeenth year of his reign. 
Belshazzar was his son, and was probably associated with his 
father in the kingly power. His name very frequently appears 
in the inscriptions as “the son of the king”; and he would 
seem to have been dearly loved by his father, who in one of his 
inscriptions offers up an earnest prayer to his god for the 


10 REV. ANDREW CRAIG ROBINSON, M.A., ON 


welfare of Belshazzar and calls him “his eldest son the offspring 
of his heart.” The Annalistic Tablet, one of the principal 
inscriptions of this period, for several successive years records 
that “the king’s son and the nobles were with the army in 
Accad” (Northern Babylonia). To these nobles, with whom he 
was thus so intimately associated in the army for many years, 
Jelshazzar perhaps gave that memorable banquet in Babylon 
recorded in the: 5th Chapter cf the Book of Daniel, “ Belshazzar 
the King made a great feast to a thousand of his lords and 
drank wine before the thousand’”—a banquet to the chiefs of 
the army. Several contract tablets record business transactions 
oi “Belshazzar the .son of the kime” (cords of the fast, 
New Series, vol. ii, pp. 123-127), and there are records also of 
his offerings to the temples of the gods. The Annalistic Tablet, 
as we have seen, informs us that for several years in succession 
Belsbazzar was In command of the army in Northern Babylonia, 
whilst his father, Nabonidus, remained in Babylon. Subsequently 
he and his father would appear to have exchanged places—his 
father taking command of the forces in the field, and suffering 
a signal defeat from the army of Cyrus—whuilst Belshazzar 
remained in Babylon, where, the Book of Daniel tells us, he was 
holding a brilhant banquet to his lords on the night that be 
city fell. “On that night,” says the Book of Daniel, as 
Belshazzar the King of the Chaldeans slain.” 

But it has now come to be treated as if it were a common- 
place of history, and one of the “assured results” of modern 
eriticism that these words in the Book of Daniel, and the 
general account of the fall of Babylon which has come down to 
us in the writings of the classical historians, are contradicted by 
the inscriptions. 

How has this impression been created ? 

The general account of the Fall of Babylon which has come 
down to us from antiquity may be put in this way:—The 
classical authorities say, that the Babylonians after one 
encounter with the troops of Cyrus, in which they were worsted, 
retired within the walls of Babylon which seemed to be 
impregnable, and within which there had been stored up pro- 
visions for many years. Cyrus then invested Babylon. He 
commanded his soldiers to dig deep trenches surrounding the 
city, as if he were throwing up lines of circumvallation, but 
contrived that these trenches should be dug in such a way that 
at a moment’s notice the waters of the River Kuphrates could be 
turned into them, and the depth of the river so much reduced 


in that part where it flowed through the city, that his soldiers 


THE FALL OF BABYLON AND DANIEL V, 30. Hilt 


should be able to advance through the water and enter the city 
by the river gates. The Babylonians, secure within the walls of 
Babylon, “took no heed,” Herodotus says, “of the siege’ 
whilst Xenophon says, “They laughed ‘at the Persians, sat 
turned them into ridicule”—so the work of digging the 
trenches went on without any attempt on the part of the 
besieged to interfere with it ;—and the siege was consequently 
carried on “ without fighting,’ ” This bloodless character of the 
siege—as described by the classical writers—is an important 
point to note. 

And Herodotus says, that when Cyrus had set these things in 
order, he himself went away with the imefficient part of his 
army, and employed it in diverting the river at another point 
into a marshy lake. This absence of Cyrus from the principal 
scene of operations is another point to be particularly noted. 

But when the trenches were dug, Xenophon relates, Cyrus 
selected a night on which he heard ‘there was to be some great 
feast held in Babylon, and as soon as darkness fell, taking a 
number of his troops, he caused the trenches to be opened, the 
water from the Euphrates poured into them, and soon the river 
became shallower. Then Cyrus commanded two of his most 
trusted officers, Gobryas and Gadatas, to lead the troops up the 
river, now rendered shallow at its banks, and to enter the city 
by the river gates. 

[t was a night of festival in Babylon, the streets were full of 
revellers. The soldiers of GObryas, assuming the guise of 
revellers themselves, mingled in the crowd—pressed on to the 
palace—burst in through the guards at the palace gates—and 
reached the hall where the King was. They found him, when 
they entered, standing up sword in hand—but he was soon 
overpowered by numbers, and fell slain by the soldiers of 
Gobryas. Such would appear to have been Belshazzar’s tragic 
end. 

Cyrus instantly sent cavalry through the city, and caused it 
to be proclaimed that, on pain of death, none of the Babylonians 
should leave their houses. Next morning all arms and the 
towers of the city were surrendered ; Cyrus held a ereat 
reception, at which the Babylonians, Xenophon says, attended in 
unmanageable numbers—and thus, almost without fighting or 
bloodshed, Babylon was his. The, Cyrus Cylinder, one of “the 
principal inscriptions of that time, in remarkable agreement 
with this says, “The men of Babylon, all of them, and the 
whole of Sumer and Accad, the nobles and the high priest, 
bowed themselves beneath him, they kissed his feet, they 


12 REV. ANDREW CRAIG ROBINSON, M.A., ON 


rejoiced at his sovereignty, their countenances shone—and when 
the same inscription says, that “without fighting and _ battle 
(Merodach) caused him to enter into Babylon,” this is in reality 
not a contradiction of the classical account, but a confirmution 
of it, because that account represents Babylon as having been 
taken practically without fighting, since the siege was conducted 
without any attempt on the part of the Babylonians to oppose 
it—and on the night in which the city was captured only 
Belshazzar and those immediately around him were slain. 

This would seem to be clearly the case—yet Professor Sayce, 
strange to say, took up the idea—which he put forward, first in 
his edition of Herodotus, published in 1883, and afterwards in 
his celebrated book, The Higher Criticism and the Monuments 
(1894), that the classical account of the Fall of Babylon, and 
the 5th chapter of Daniel, verse 30-—which seemed to agree 
with it—were contradicted by the account of that event 
implied by the inscriptions—the special poimt being, that the 
classical account related how there was a siege of Babylon 
lasting for some months—whereas the cuneiform inscriptions 
declare that the city fell “ without fighting.” 

Professor Sayce wrote— 


“There was no siege and capture of Babylon; the capital of the 
Babylonian Empire opened its gates to his general, as Sippara had 
done before. Gdbryas and his soldiers entered the city ‘ without 
fighting.” . . . Three months later Cyrus himself arrived, and 
made his peaceful entry into the new capital of his empire. We 
gather from the contract tablets that even the ordinary business of 
the place had not been affected by the war.”—Higher Criticism and 
the Monuments, p. 522. 


And in a note on the same page he adds— 


“Even after the entry of Gébryas into Babylon on the 16th of 
Tammuz, the contracts made there and at Sippara continued to be 
dated in the reign of Nabonidos.” 


And then he gives the dates of certain tablets, published by 
Dr. Strassmaier, which shall be referred to presently. He 
adds— 

“Tt is clear that the transference of power from Nabonidos to 


Cyrus must have been a peaceful one, so far as the commercial 
community was concerned.” 


And he writes, p. 527— 


“Jt is clear that the editor of the fifth chapter of the Book of 
Daniel could have been as little a contemporary of the events which 
he professes to record, as Herodotus.” | 


THE FALL OF BABYLON AND DANIEL V, 80. 13 


It may well be imagined with what avidity the Critics 
pounced upon these pronouncements of Professor Sayce: all 
the more that they supplied a crumb of comfort in a book 
which otherwise was in great measure a drastic attack on their 
theories. Thus the late Dean Farrar in a work of his, Zhe 
Book of Daniel, published in 1895, which may be described as 
an impassioned attack on the conservative view, quotes, on 
p. 56, the above passage from Sayce—with many emphatic 
italics. Dr. Driver in his Daniel (p. xxx1) takes the same view, 
and all the rest of the Critics have followed in a similar strain. 

The following are the most important passages in the 
“ Annalistic Tablet””—the principal inscription bearing on the 
Fall of Babylon—according to the translation adopted by 
Dr..Driver— 


“Tn the month of Tammuz (July) when Cyrus in the city of 

Upé (Opis), on the banks of the river Zalzallat, had delivered 
battle against the troops of Akkad, he subdued the inhabitants of 
Akkad. . . . On the 14th day of the month, Sippar was taken 
without fighting. Nabu-na’id (Nabonidos) fled. On the 16th 
Gubaru (Gébryas), governor of the country of Guti, and the soldiers 
of Cyrus, without fighting entered Babylon. In consequence of 
delaying Nabu-na’id was taken prisoner in Babylon. . . . Onthe 
3rd day of Marchesvan (November) Cyrus entered Babylon. 
Peace for the city he established, peace to all Babylon did Cyrus 
proclaim. Gubaru (Gobryas) his governor appointed governors in 
Babylon. From the month of Kislev (December) to the month 
Adar (March—viz., in the following year, 537—Drwver) the gods of the 
country of Akkad, whom Nabu-na’id had bronght down to Babylon, 
returned to their own cities. On the 11th day of Marchesvan 
during the night, Gubaru (Gébryas) made an assault (?) and slew the 
King’s son (?).” 


Dr, Driver adds in a note— 


“The tablet is injured at this point, but ‘the king’s son’ is the 
reading which those who have most carefully examined the tablet 
consider the most probable.” 


In respect, then, to the Fall of Babylon, three points. are 
maintained by the Critics at the present day :— 


First, that on the 16th Tammuz (July) Gobryas obtained 
complete possession of Babylon for his master Cyrus. 

Secondly, that notwithstanding this the merchants of 
Babylon continued to date their contract tablets “in 
the 17th year of Nabonidus, King of Babylon.” 


14 REV. ANDREW CRAIG ROBINSON, M.A., ON 


Thirdly, that although his general Gobryas had obtained 
full possession of Babylon on the 16th of Tammuz 
(June-July), if was not until three months after—on 
the 3rd Marchesvan (Oct.-Nov.)-—that Cyrus “ entered 
Babylon.” 


To the present lecturer it seems that it would be passing 
strange, that when the capital of the Babylonian empire, and 
by far the most famous city in Western Asia, had come into his 
power, Cyrus should treat the matter with such cool disdain, 
as not to condescend to visit it until three months had passed 
away. It was not his way to treat the conquered peoples with 
discourtesy. The sentiment also in ancient times in a case like 
this, as between a king and his leutenant, may be well illus- 
trated by the message that Joab, captain of his host, sent to 
King David, when he found that the city of Rabbah was 
practically in his hands, and by David’s action on receiving the 
message: “I have fought against Rabbah,” Joab announces, 
“and have taken the city of waters. Now therefore gather the 
rest of the people together and encamp against the city and 
take it, lest I take the city and it be called by my name. And 
David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, 
and fought against it, and took it.’—m Sam. xu, 27-29. 

And then, too, in regard to the second point asserted— 
namely: that after Gobryas had gained complete possession of 
Babylon for his master Cyrus, the merchants of Babylon 
continued to date their contract tablets in “the 17th year of 
Nabonidus, King of Babylon,” as if nothing had happened, and 
as if the conqueror Cyrus was not then the reigning king—one 
may well ask, “Is this likely ? Is it likely that the merchants of 
Babylon would be so foolish as to flout their new master by 
thus ignoring his sovereignty ? and if they were so silly would 
Gobryas have stood such nonsense ? ” 

And then there is a further point which, on the supposition 
that Gobryas in the month of Tammuz (July) obtained full 
possession of Babylon, would have to be explained, and that 
is: What does that mysterious passage in the Annalistic Tablet 
mean, where it is said, “On the 11th day of Marchesvan ’— 
that is to say, 8 days after Cyrus had entered Babylon— 
“during the mght Gubaru (Gobryas) made an assault (7) and 
slew the king’s son (?).”. Does not this look very like what 
the Book of Daniel says in the 5th chapter, “In that night 
was Belshazzar the King of the Chaldeans slain.” For do 
not the inscriptions say that Belshazzar was the king’s sen ? 


THE FALL OF BABYLON AND DANIEL V, 30. Lo 


and does not the Book of Daniel say that Belshazzar was slain 
at night ? 
Dr. Pinches writes— 


“The probability is therefore that ‘the son of the king’ 
Belshazzar, held out against the Persians in some part of the 
capital, and kept during that time a festival on the 11th of Mar- 
chesvan, when Gébryas pounced upon the place, and he the rightful 
Chaldaean king was slain as recorded in Daniel.”—7Zhe Old 
Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and 
Babylonia, pp. 418, 419. 


The solution of the whole matter seems to be afforded by the 
plans of the ruins of Babylon showing the course of the walls, 
illustrating Weissbach’s Stadtbild von Babylon, published by 
Hinrichs, Leipzig, by whose kind permission they have been 
reproduced by the present lecturer. The plans show that 
there was a not inconsiderable portion of the city enclosed 
with walls, situated on the western bank of the Euphrates ; 
but the main porticn of Babylon, containing the royal palace 
and the great temples, was on the eastern shore of the river. 
What therefore occurred at the taking of Babylon by Cyrus 
would seem to have been this: On the 14th of the month 
Tammuz (June-July) Sippar was taken, and King Nabonidus, 
who would appear to have been in it, fled. He probably crossed 
the river in escaping from the Persians, and took refuge in that 
part of the city of Babylon which was on the western side of 
the Euphrates. Gobryas and the Persians pursued him, and 
two days after—on the 16th of the month—the citizens opening 
the gates to the enemy, the king was captured. Thus in the 
words of the inscription :—“ On the 16th day Goébryas 
and the soldiers of Cyrus without fighting entered Babylon. In 
consequence of delaying Nabunaid was taken prisoner in 
Babylon.” 

This outlying portion of the city on the western side of the 
river would seem to have been regarded by Nebuchadnezzar as 
an outwork of Babylon. In the India House Inscription he 
says— 


‘‘and to the city for protection I brought near an embankment of 
enclosure beyond the river westward.”—Aecords of the Past, 
Ist Series, p. 125. 


On this view Gobryas had, it is true, “entered Babylon,” but 
he was very far indeed from having really gained possession of 


16 REV. ANDREW CRAIG ROBINSON, M.A., ON 


Plan of the 
Ruins of 
Babylon. 


Pre er en et 
1 Kiiometer 


SY Birnittn ' 
Village 


Ry 
ae 
g Babil = 


Zervermmmnw® 


Anane™ 


Village 


' i: x= & ae 
t anrteniles oa 8 * 
> SF wMuinis WH. ge 8% 
Se 22 “5% St: 
mn) ve 2 & sy efzs 
Lo ages Se OS A 
WY 1 oe oy tne Le 
a\ 's ee wen = Ste 
, a2” = eC 
Village 1 Barry yrattnnyeenn OOS tnt 2 ve 
a gg ee ae 
: : = = % Ss 
tis n se i 
' |g ow. E Markéz & 
; & ‘ , aoal z = 
oz as 4 nd 
' jz os 
es sehen RC 7 
Ni: aes: 
' innate 3: 


POLL 


ae 


= 
a 
a 


“ant 


Se, 


Bserevin Village 
( 1195 Ehsien, guar, According to Porler‘lajeta) 


«PTI OL 


PLAN OF THE RUINS. OF BABYLON. 


Reproduced by kind permission of J.C. Hinrichs, Leipzig, from Weiszbach’s 
Stadtbild von Babylon. 


THE FALL OF BABYLON AND DANIEL V, 30. Re 


Attempt 
ata Reconstruction 
of Babylon of the 
Time of Nebuchadneazar | 
[a 


1 Kilometer. 


nem Aura 42euul 


yeueD MWegy 


ao 


aS) 

Co 
Reference 

1. Marduk-Canal 

2 Libil-chegalla Canal 

3. Portionof the Imgur-Bel wa!l 

4. Ishtfar-Gate 

9. Temple E-mach_ | 

6. Chamber of Destinies 

7. Temple-tower Etemenanki 

8. Temole Esagila 

9. Ninib-Temple 

. 10. Urasch-Gate 

“>. \ 11. Samas Gale 


oo 
\ 


ATTEMPT AT’ A RECONSTRUCTION OF BABYLON. 


Reproduced by kind permission of J.C. Hinrichs, Leipzig, from Weiszbach’s 
Stadtbild von Babylon. 


18 REV. ANDREW CRAIG ROBINSON, M.A., ON 


the mighty city. He would find himself confronted by the 
River Euphrates—in breadth not much short of 200 yards—that 
is to say, about the width of the Thames at Chelsea—its further 
shore lined with immense embankments—behind which was the 
real Babylon. 

King Nebuchadnezzar, some 70 years before in one of his 
inscriptions would seem to have described the position by 
anticipation. Boasting of the fortifications which he had thrown 
up to defend Babylon, he says— 


“Great waters like the might of the sea I brought near in abun- 
dance, and their flowing by was like the sweeping past of the billows 
of the Western ocean—passages through them there were none, but 
mounds of earth I heaped, and embankments of brickwork I caused 
to be constructed.” —Records of the Past, 1st Series, p. 128. 


There, in that eastern part of the city, secure for the moment 
from the enemy, Belshazzar, son of the king, reigned—and 
there the merchants of Babylon carried on their business” 
transactions, and dated their tablets on which those transactions 
were recorded—safe from any interference of Gdobryas—on such 
a day of the month “in the 17th year of Nabonidos, King of 
Babylon.” Three months then elapsed before Cyrus “ entered 
Babylon ”—and those three months afforded time for the siege 
recorded by the classical writers, during which the soldiers of 
Cyrus round Babylon were digging the trenches—no very great 
task for a large army in the alluvial soil of Babylonia—whilst 
Cyrus himself-—as recognized in the Annalistic Tablet—was 
absent—employing (so Herodotus says) the inefficient part of 
his army in further reducing the waters of the Euphrates by 
turning them into a marshy lake. 

Then-on the third of the month Marchesvan (Oct.-Nov.)— 
the tablet says—‘“ Cyrus entered Babylon’”—and soon the 
decisive blow was struck ; for after this occur the words in the 
Annalistic Tablet—‘on the 11th Marchesvan during the 
night Gubaru (Gobryas) made an assault (?) and slew the king’s 
son (?).” 

That was the night when the trenches were opened, the 
Persian troops, under the shadow of the mighty mounds 
defending the eastern bank of the river, stealthily advanced 
through the shallower waters—entered the city by the river 
gates—and Babylon was taken, and Belshazzar slain. 

That this was the night on which Babylon really came into 
the power of Cyrus is shown to demonstration by the fact that 
all the contract tablets dated previous to the 11th Marchesvan 


THE FALL OF BABYLON AND DANIEL V, 30. 19 


are dated in “the 17th year of Nabonidus, King of Babylon ”— 
whilst all those dated later than the 11th of that month are 
dated in “the Accession year of Cyrus.” Gdbryas is said to 
have “entered Babylon” on the 16th day of Tammuz (June- 
July) and yet there is a tablet dated the 22nd of that month 
“in the 17th year of Nabonidus, King of Babylon.” Others are 
dated in the same way on the 5th, 21st, and 29th of Ab (July- 
Aug.) and on the 3rd, 5th, 11th, 18th, 21st, and 28th of Elul 
(Aug.-Sept.). 

Surely Babylon cannot have been held for Cyrus yet. 

On the third Marchesvan (Oct.-Nov.) the Annalistic Tablet 
records “ Cyrus entered Babylon ”—yet even after this there is 
a tablet dated 10th Marchesvan “in the 17th year of Nabonidus, 
King of Babylon.” On the very next night—the night of the 
11th Marchesvan—that occurrence took place recorded on the 
Annalistic Tablet— 


“On the 11th of Marchesvan in the night Gubaru (Gébryas) made 
an assault and slew the King’s son.” 


And after this occurs the first tablet dated in “ the Accession 
year of Cyrus.” It is a tablet—to be seen in the case at the 
British Museum—referring to workmen’s rations—and it is 
dated the 24th Marchesvan “in the Accession year of Cyrus.” 
Another cccurs in the next month Chisleu (Nov.-Dec.) dated 
“ Babylon 7th Chisleu in the Accession year of Cyrus.” 

In the note already referred to Professor Sayce writes— 


“Tt should be added that the contracts dated in the reign of 
Nabonidus which were witnessed on the 21st of Ab and the 5th of 
Elul were drawn up in ‘the city of the king’s palace Babylon’— 
whilst one dated the 7th Chisleu of the Accession year of Cyrus is 
simply inscribed ‘ Babylon.’” 


Does it not seem as if the words “the city of the king’s 
palace Babylon” were intended to define the city of Babylon on 
the eastern side of the river, where the king’s palace was— 
as distinguished from Babylon on the western side of the 
river—then in the hands of Cyrus. 

In conclusion the present lecturer would claim to have laid 
before you an array of solid facts which clearly show—that so 
far from the account of the Fall of Babylon, which has come 
down from the classical writers, being contradicted by the 
cuneiform inscriptions of the Age of Cyrus—they are, on the 
contrary, confirmed by them, And accordingly the 5th chapter 

eg 


20 REV. ANDREW CRAIG ROBINSON, M.A., ON 


of the Book of Daniel and 30th verse, which seems to imply 
the same account, 7s a/so—not contradicted—but confirmed 
by the inscriptions; and the words of the Book of Daniel, with 
all that they imply, stand unrefuted, “In that night was 
Belshazzar the King of the Chaldeans slain.” 


DISCUSSION. 


The CHAIRMAN, in opening the Meeting, previous to the reading 
of the paper, said that since their last Ordinary Meeting the 
Victoria Institute had suffered a severe loss in the death of its 
Secretary, Mr. F. 8. Bishop, M.A., J.P. During the three years that 
he had held that office, Mr. Bishop had worked most devotedly for 
the welfare of the Institute, and the result of his labours had been 
seen in the enhanced interest of the Meetings, and in the increase 
in the roll of Members and Associates. But the Institute was 
fortunate in securing as his successor Mr. Maunder, who had just 
retired after forty years’ service from his important post as 
Superintendent of the Solar Department of the Royal Observatory, 
Greenwich. The Institute had been founded for the discussion of 
questions in philosophy and science, and it was therefore to be 
congratulated in having secured as its Secretary a man of scientific 
eminence, one who had already served on the Council of the 
Institute for four years, and had contributed two papers to their 
Proceedings. 

After the paper had been read, the CHAIRMAN said that he desired, 
on behalf of the Institute, to offer his hearty thanks to the Rev. 
Andrew Craig Robinson for the admirable paper to which they had 
just listened. He was glad to see that Dr. Pinches was present, 
who was so high an authority on Babylonian inscriptions, and that 
there was also present another veteran in the controversy on the 
Book of Daniel—Sir Robert Anderson. That controversy presented 
features similar to those respecting the Book of Genesis. It was 
only seventy years since they first began to gain from the excavations 
light upon the ancient history of Babylonia ; but, long before 
that, every child in a Christian household was acquainted, from 
what he had read in the Book of Genesis, with the most important 
facts concerning the origin of the Assyrian and Babylonian 
kingdoms. In the same way, the facts which were now being estab- 
lished respecting the Conquest of Babylon proved to have been 
those implied in the Book of Daniel. 


THE FALL OF BABYLON AND DANIEL V, 380. 21 


Sir Robert ANDERSON said that the paper had cleared up 
difficulties which he had felt in the course of that study of Daniel, 
which had led to his publishing his book on the subject, more than 
thirty years ago. With reference to Daniel v, 30, seeing that it 
was held by some that the true reading of the Annalistic Tablet was 
“the wife” (not the son) ‘‘of the king died,” he had referred to the 
British Museum, and learned that the gap in the tablet at this point 
left enough space for the word “son,” but not for the word “ wife.” 
The fact that the decree of Cyrus for the building of the Temple 
was found in Ecbatana (Ezra vi, 2), afforded seemingly conclusive 
evidence of the identity of Gdbryas with Darius the Mede. He 
was a prince of the royal house of Media, and it is to be presumed 
that, after his three years’ reign as vassal King of Babylon, he was 
sent back to his own country, and carried with him the archives of 
his reign. 

“The historical errors” of Daniel, paraded by our English critics, 
were all taken from Bertholdt’s book of more than a century ago; 
and though every one of these “errors” had been disposed of by 
the researches or by the erudition of our own times, the critics 
had as yet offered no apology or retraction. 

Dr. PINCHES said: Mr. Craig Robinson has made my views 
clearer as to the events leading up to the taking of Babylon, and I 
feel that my thanks are due to him for this. It is a long time since 
I first made acquaintance with the Annalistic Tablet. I remember 
sitting, more years ago than I care to count, in Dr. Birch’s room at 
the British Museum, with a large tray of tablets before me, when 
Sir Henry Rawlinson, who was present, speaking of the one that I 
was examining, said, ‘‘ You ought to find the name of Astyages 
there.” And there, in fact, it was—one or two strokes of the brush 
revealed it—in the document in question—the Annalistic Tablet. 
I do not propose to discuss here the chronology of the Book of 
Daniel, which offers several difficulties, but the accuracy of the 
narrative therein is remarkable. The classical writers state that 
great excavations were made in order to drain the river (the 
Euphrates), but the tablets give no indications of this. With regard 
to the discrepancy in the names of the kings, it is to be noted that 
Belshazzar, according to Josephus, was called Nabonidus by the 
Babylonians (dntiy., X, xxi, 2), “‘ Baltasar, who by the Babylonians 
was called Naboandelus,” but the inscriptions show that the former 


22 REV. ANDREW CRAIG ROBINSON, M.A.,; ON 


was son of the latter. According to Xenophon, the Babylonians 
came and welcomed Cyrus, and this is supported by the Annalistic 
Tablet, which states that the crowds before him were great 
(or the deputations were numerous), and that they proposed peace 
for the city, saying: ‘‘ Cyrus, grant peace to Babylon, all of it.” 

Fried. Delitzsch, in his description of Babylon, says that the area 
within the ‘walls was no greater than that covered by Munich or 
Dresden. The plate accompanying the paper shows the plan of the 
old wall, but there was a greater Babylon outside this wall, just as 
there is a greater London outside the old City of London. Gdbryas 
of Gutiu™, that is to say of Media, took all Babylon outside the 
walls at his first approach, but the contract tablets, which cannot 
lead us astray, as they are contemporary documents, bear dates, as 
has been stated by the lecturer, right up to the eve of the taking of 
Babylon (that is, the old city) on the night of the 11th of Mar- 
chesvan, in the seventeenth year of Nabonidus. One tablet, 
found in Sippar, is dated in Chisleu in this year, and I think points 
to an error in the Annalistic Tablet ; for if the Persians had taken 
possession of Sippar (see p. 12) before they took Babylon, this 
contract tablet would not exist. Moreover, Berosus says that 
Nabonidus was captured in Borsippa. 

The passage in the Annalistic Tablet that refers to the events of 
the 11th day of Marchesvan cannot, I think, have stated that the 
king’s wife was killed, for where the tablet is damaged there is not 
room enough for the character for ‘“ wife,” and the verb, to all 
appearance, is not in the feminine. The Rev. C. J. Ball and 
Dr. Hagen, examining the text in my room in the British Museum, 
many years ago, agreed with me that the traces pointed to w mdr, 
‘and the son of ” (King Nabonidus).* 

I do not think that there is any doubt that the narrative in 
Daniel is as correct as it can be. With regard to Daniel being 
appointed third ruler, it was pointed out long ago that Nabonidus 
was, of course, the first. his son Belshazzar the second, and the third 
place was open for Daniel. Belshazzar was not officially king, 
unless perhaps he bore some subordinate title, and the title “ King 
of the Chaldeans ” may have been such.t 


* This reading was adopted by Dr. Pinches in his address delivered 
at Rhyl Church Congress, October 1891. 
+ Nebuchadrezzar (Nebuchadnezzar) seems always to be called “ King 


THE FALL OF BABYLON AND DANIEL V, 30. 23 


The Venerable Archdeacon PorrTer said that he had listened with 
great pleasure to Mr. Craig Robinson ; the more so as he came from 
his own old university. 

Notwithstanding the undoubted contribution make by the author 
towards the reconciliation of the conflicting accounts of the taking 
of Babylon, several difficulties in the narrative still, in his view, 
remained unexplained. (1) The Book of Daniel called Belshazzar 
the son of Nebuchadnezzar, whereas there were three kings with short 
reigns between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus. ‘This could be ex- 
plained away by assuming that the latter married a daughter of the 
former, and that the word ‘‘father ” stood for the word “ grandfather,” 
or possibly for ‘‘ predecessor,” but it seemed somewhat strange to omit 
the name of the real father, Nabonidus, who was apparently a man 
of some literary distinction. (2) Then the Book of Daniel called 
Belshazzar the king, whereas he was the son of the king. 
(3) Moreover the account in this book of Belshazzar’s feast gave no 
hint that at that time the city of Babylon was partly in the hands 
of the conqueror. Nor was it easy to reconcile with this fact the 
promise, made to the internreter of the writing, that he should be 
the third ruler in the kingdom; or the words of the interpretation, 
“ Thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” 
(4) It looked, too, as though the writer of the book had confused 
Darius the Mede (Dan. v, 31) with Darius Hystaspes, as the latter 
did divide the empire into satrapies (see Dan. vi, 1). (5) Moreover 
the late origin of the book seemed to be demanded by the use of 
Persian and of Greek words, and by the fact that Jesus, the son of 
Sirach (B.C. 200), while he mentions all the other prophets, omits 
Daniel. | 

Rey. John TucKWELL, M.R.A.S., felt deeply indebted to the Rev. 
Craig Robinson for his paper. He thought that, among modern 
Biblical critics, there was a danger of placing too much reliance 
upon the Greek historians and upon the tablets. Might they not 
give equal credit to Scripture? Why, if a statement in Scripture 
seemed opposed to some Greek writer, or to a Babylonian tablet, 


of Babylon” (melek Babel) in the Old Testament when his title is given. 
Belshazzar, however, is called “ King of the Chaldeans ” (malka Kasdaya 
or Kasdaah. Dan. v, 30). Whether this is owing to the text being in 
Chaldee, and not in Hebrew, is uncertain. 


24 REV. ANDREW CRAIG ROBINSON, M.A., ON 


should they at once conclude that the Scripture must be wrong ? 
In the British Museum we had 150,000 tablets and tens of thousands 
in other collections all over the world; yet up to the present time 
he did not know of a single case in which a cuneiform tablet had 
disproved any historical incident recorded in Scripture. With 
regard to Belshazzar being called the son of Nebuchadnezzar, 
among neither the Babylonians nor the Greeks did the expression 
“son” always mean the direct offspring. Nabonidus himself 
called Naram-Sin the “son” of Sargon, yet we had learnt from a 
tablet recently discovered that two kings reigned beween them, so 
that he may well have been a grandson or some other relation. In 
the first chapter of Matthew, Joram is said to have begotten Ozias ; 
yet he was his great-great-grandfather. We needed to guard 
against the error of forcing our own narrow meanings upon the 
expressions of ancient writers, and should seek to find the meaning 
which the writers themselves intended. It was quite a mistake to 
suppose that the tablets were infallible ; moreover, the records upon 
the historical tablets, such for instance as those of Sargon and 
Esarhaddon, were not always arranged in chronological order. 

Concerning the suggestion that, because Darius the Mede is 
stated to have appointed governors (Dan. vi, 1), he has thereby 
been confused with Darius Hystaspes, it would be found on page 13 
of the present paper that Gubaru is distinctly stated to have 
appointed “ governors in Babylon,”—-an expression which does not 
preclude the possibility that their jurisdiction may have been 
much wider than the city, and have extended over the whole 
country. 

Col. Van SOMEREN said that, as regarded the deciphering of 
inscriptions, he felt hardly qualified to take part in the discussion ; 
but he believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Might 
not the title “‘ King of the Chaldeans,” given to Belshazzar, be lke 
the title “ Prince of Wales” given to the eldest son of the King of 
England ? He would like to ask whether “ Tidal, King of Nations,” 
mentioned in Gen. xiv, should not be literally, ‘Tidal, King of 
Gutium.” If so, was he a King of Media ? 

Mr. Martin RousE believed that the “queen” who came in to 
advise Belshazzar at the banquet whereat his wives were already 
present, was the true queen, the wife of Nabonidus. This intro- 
duction of her as ‘the queen” without qualification, like the 


THE FALL OF BABYLON AND DANIEL V, 90. 20 


unexplained promise of Belshazzar that Daniel should rule as “ one 
of three” in the kingdom, was a touch that indicated the contem- 
porary historian. 

It was absurd to cavil at the use of the word ‘‘father” for 
“‘orandfather,” as the Hebrews had no word for the last relation, 
but freely used “father” instead. For instance, in If Samuel ix, 7, 
both Jonathan and Saul are called the “father” of Mephibosheth. 

Xenophon, alone among the Greek writers, mentioned the fact 
recorded in the Annals that Gdébryas, or Gubaru, was the chiet 
leader of the final attack upon Babylon in which the ‘“king’s son” 
perished. Since he alone gave this name correctly, why should we 
suppose him to be romancing when he says that after the capture of 
Babylon, Cyrus visited Ecbatana and there told Cyaxeres, King of 
Media, that a house “‘ had been chosen for him in Babylon and a ruler’s 
palace, so that when he went thither he might come to this, as to his 
own household” (Cyrop. vii, 5,17). Josephus tells us that, before 
Cyrus himself, his kinsman, Darius, King of Media, son of Astyages, 
reigned for a while, and that he was “known to the Greeks by 
another name”; no doubt the name that Xenophon supplies— 
Cyaxeres. He, therefore, and not Gébryas, a mere deputy of Cyrus, 
was probably that “ Darius the Mede” who “took the kingdom.” 
Darius the Mede is called ‘‘ king” a score of times in Dan. vi, 
and his final decree is quoted as made for “‘ every dominion of his 
kingdom,” and intended to be read in “all languages.” It was 
noteworthy that in Dan. v and vi we read of ‘* Medes and Persians ” ; 
but at a later period in Esther i, we find Persia set before Media 
| Moreover a Greek scholiast tells us that the Persian gold coin, the 
“daric,” was so called after an earlier king than Darius Hystaspes, 
and Lenormant points out that in Babylonian and Chaldean 
contracts, Cyrus is designated only ‘“‘ king of the nations” in the 
first and second years after the capture of the city, but thereafter 
is called ‘‘ King of Babylon” as well. |* 

In answer to Archdeacon Potter’s objection that certain Greek 
words occur in Daniel, these are confined to three, or at most four, 
musical instruments bearing Greek names, and may well have been 
imported from the great Greek cities on the coasts of Asia Minor. 


* Added subsequently. 


26 REV. ANDREW CRAIG ROBINSON, M.A., ON 


The Greek poet Terpander invented the seven-stringed cythara about 
the year 650 B.c., and the Assyrian bas-reliefs show it in use as 
early as the reign of Assurbanipal (668-625 B.c.). 

Professor LANGHORNE ORCHARD complimented the lecturer very 
heartily on the lucidity of his paper, in which he had solved a 
difficulty. The paper contained a warning against forming con- 
clusions on insufficient evidence ; that so highly competent a scholar 
as Professor Sayce should have fallen into the error of supposing 
the statement ‘‘ without fighting” necessarily implied that there 
was no siege of Babylon, and no capture of it, was a warning to 
others to be on their guard lest their conclusions should be unstable, 
ready to be overturned by a fresh fact. 

The CHAIRMAN proposed a hearty vote of thanks to the Rev. A. 
Craig Robinson, and called upon him to reply. 

The LECTURER was very grateful for the kind reception which 
had been given him ; he was glad that he had been able to clear up 
a difficulty. Above all he felt grateful to God, and in every work 
of this kind he sought His help and looked to Him for direction and 
light. He had felt sorry to have to contest any conclusion reached 
by Professor Sayce, for he had the highest appreciation of the 
splendid services which, by his many researches, he had rendered 
to our understanding of Holy Scripture. He fully concurred with 
the points which Mr. Rouse had brought before them. ‘ Son” 
often simply means ‘‘successor”; thus on the Black Obelisk of 
Shalmaneser, Jehu is called the “son of Omri,” although so far from 
being the son or descendant of Omri, he was the usurper who 
brought his dynasty to an end. No doubt Mr. Rouse was correct 
in his suggestion that the queen who came into the banquet house 
at Belshazzar’s feast was none other than the wife of Nabonidus ; 
also in thinking that Darius the Mede was Cyaxeres; the old 
traditions mentioned by Josephus very specially connected Daniel 
with Media. 


SUBSEQUENT COMMUNICATIONS. 
The Rev. Chancellor LIAS writes :— 


The Members of the Institute are indebted to Mr. Robinson for 
showing that the Annalistic Tablet, fairly interpreted, confirms, 
instead of contradicting, the history of the fall of Babylon given in 
the Book of Daniel and in the Greek historians. There is no 


THE FALL, OF BABYLON AND ‘DANIEL V, 80. 27 


improbability in the idea that Gobryas may have captured the 
portion of the city on the west bank of the Euphrates, and may 
have received instructions from Cyrus to delay further operations 
till he arrived. There seems some doubt about the translations 
“assault,” and “ king’s son.” But surely, as matters stand at present, 
the translations which harmonize with the statements of the Hebrew 
and Greek authorities are more likely to be correct than those which 
place these statements in direct opposition to one another. 


Mr. JOHN SCHWARTZ, Jun., writes :— 


Our lecturer’s new point of view that the Persians only entered 
without opposition into the western side of Babylon, while the 
eastern main portion resisted for some months, is very ingenious. 
The classical account of the lowering of the level of the Euphrates 
by diverting trenches, receives some support from the fact that this 
river, like the Nile, rises considerably during the summer months, 
when the snows around its source are melting, but in the month of 
November, when the entry was effected, it would be at its lowest. 
There are, however, difficulties ; the Euphrates was a very rapid 
stream, so rapid that in those days navigation against stream was 
impossible, and it seems very doubtful whether such a stream could 
be rendered fordable even by a stupendous diversion of water. It 
is also difficult to imagine that such work could be carried on 
without the knowledge of the besieged. Passing over the fact that 
it is rather straining language to state that a force is “not fighting ” 
when besieging a city, the statement quoted from the Annalistic 
Tablet, “‘on the 14th day of the month, Sippar was taken without 
fighting . . . onthe 16th . . . the soldiers of Cyrus, without 
fighting entered Babylon,” surely points to the abdication of 
Nabonidus, who had usurped the throne and incurred the hatred of 
the local priesthood by forcing the cult of Merodach as supreme. 
Professor Sayce’s statement that the editor of Dan. v could not 
have been a contemporary was based on much more vital points 
than those referred to by our lecturer. The monuments show that 
the editor was incorrect in stating that Belshazzar was the son of 
Nebuchadnezzar, that he was a king of Babylon, and that he was 
succeeded by Darius the Mede. Professor Sayce seems to me to 
demonstrate that the editor was mixing up the siege of Babylon by 
Darius Hystaspes later on, with this earlier war. 


28 REV. ANDREW CRAIG ROBINSON, M.A., ON 


Mr. MAUNDER writes :— 


Mr. Schwartz’s objections have force only against Herodotus and 
Xenophon and the Annalistic Tablet; though I think that their 
narratives are not those that he really wishes to call in question. 

The Annalistic Tablet tells us that on the night of the 11th of 
Marchesvan “ G6ébryas made an assault and slew the king’s son ” ; 
and the businéss contracts make it clear that it was immediately 
after this date that the city of Babylon recognized its change of 
masters ; for up to that date the contracts are dated in the 17th year 
of Nabonidus ; after it, in the accession year of Cyrus. The entry 
of Géobryas into Babylon “ without fighting,” on the 16th day of 
Tammuz had not effected any such change ; nor the entry of Cyrus 
himself on the 3rd day of Marchesvan. Clearly, then, the 11th of 
Marchesvan was the date of an event of much higher importance 
than either, and marks the real “ Fall of Babylon.” 

Turning to the accounts of Herodotus and Xenophon, both agree 
in ascribing the capture of Babylon to the lowering of the water 
in the Euphrates by the diversion of much of it into trenches, 
so that a river, usually more than 12 feet deep, was rendered 
easily fordable. The account in Xenophon is well worth considering, 
for he was one of the ablest soldiers of his time, and an earnest 
student of military operations. He describes Cyrus as having first 
attempted an investment of the city, but finding that his forces 
were unduly weakened by the length of the line over which they 
were extended, he gradually and most skilfully concentrated them. 
Herodotus supplies the information that the concentration took 
place at the two points where the Euphrates entered and left the 
city. Itis manifest that this manceuvre would have been suicidal 
unless the city on one side or the other of the Euphrates had been 
already in the hands of the Persian troops. Incidentally therefore, 
the Greek accounts confirm the suggestion of the Lecturer that the 
“ Babylon” entered by Gdbryas on the 16th of Tammuz, and by 
Cyrus on the 3rd of Marchesvan, was only the relatively small suburb 
on the west bank, not the main city. In any case a traveller, like 
Herodotus, so well acquainted with the Babylon and Euphrates of 
his day, and a soldier so experienced as Xenophon, have a far 
higher claim to acceptance than the mere a priori objections of 
those who live 2,300 years later and know nothing personally of 
the river and country. 


THE FALL OF BABYLON AND DANIEL V, 30U. 29 


The great merit of the paper presented to us is that, by one 
simple and natural suggestion, all the evidence relating to the 
taking of Babylon by Cyrus, supplied by the classical historians, by 
the Scriptures, and by the various cuneiform inscriptions, are brought 
together into a coherent, intelligible and accordant narrative. 


LECTURER’S REPLY. 


In reply to Archdeacon Potter— 


(1) Nebuchadnezzar was called Belshazzar’s father, probably as 
being his predecessor in the Babylonian kingdom, just as Shal- 
maneser on the Black Obelisk calls Jehu the son of Omri. Nabo- 
nidus was, of course, not mentioned by che Babylonian queen, 
because it was at the court of Nebuchadnezzar that Daniel was 
distinguished. (2) Belshazzar was probably associated with his 
father Nabonidus in the kingdom. (3) The mysterious writing on 
the wall surely shows that Daniel knew the desperate state in which 
the Babylonian kingdom stood that night, but to Belshazzar’s 
thoughtless court, all things seemed to be the same as they had 
been for three months past. (4) Was Darius Hystaspes the first 
king who ever divided his kingdom into subordinate governments ? 
(5) With regard to the Greek words in the Book of Daniel, I 
must refer to « book of mine, ‘‘ What about the Old Testament ?” 
If Jesus, the son of Sirach, omits any mention of the Book of 
Daniel, the prophet Ezekiel mentions Daniel himself. 


In reply to Mr. Schwartz — 


Mr. Schwartz is perfectly correct in saying that the Euphrates is 
at its lowest in November, the month in which the strategy of Cyrus 
was carried out. He doubts whether a very rapid stream, like the 
Euphrates, could be rendered fordable even by a stupendous diversion 
of water. But it must be remembered that in this case there was no 
question of crossing the river by fording: the Persians were already 
on the eastern side of the river, besieging the city; all they 
required, in order to reach the river gates of Babylon, was that the 
river should be rendered shallower close to the eastern bank. The 
Euphrates appears to have had at all times a facility for wandering 
from its bed ; and Cyrus had already, at a point higher up, turned 
a great quantity of the water into a marshy lake. Now he 


30 THE FALL OF BABYLON AND DANIEL V, 30. 


suddenly caused a further great volume of the water to flow into 
the ‘“‘ very wide and deep trenches” which his army had dug. We 
know how, by the receding of the tide, the southern shore of a great 
river like the Thames is left quite bare; and we can therefore 
understand how the water at the eastern shore of the EKuphrates— 
though by a different agency—could have been so reduced in 
depth that the soldiers of Cyrus could advance along it ; the water, 
according to Herodotus, reaching to their thighs. 

Xenophon has explained very particularly how Cyrus concealed 
from the besieged the stratagem which he planned. Where the 
trenches approached the river he left a space on which he 
erected towers, resting on immense palm trees laid across the space, 
under which, jater on, communication could be opened with the river. 
Thus the Babylonians could not suspect that the trenches had any 
reference to the river whatsoever. Even to his own officers, Cyrus 
pretended that he was going to reduce the city by famine. 

Mr. Schwartz refers to the policy adopted by Nabonidus, by 
which he seems to have become unpopular, of bringing the images 
of the gods from other cities into Babylon. Now the Annalistic 
Tablet shows tbat this policy of Nabonidus continued down to the 
month Elul (Aug.-Sep.); that is to say, for more than two 
months after Gébryas had entered Babylon, and Nabonidus had 
been captured. But from the month Chisleu (Nov.) the reverse 
policy of Cyrus was carried out, and the images restored to their 
cities. So that previous to the 11th Marchesvan, the policy of 
Nabonidus continued ; after the 11th Marchesvan, the policy of 
Cyrus began ; none again to that night as the date yes which 
Babylon fell: 

Mr. Schwartz’s statement with regard to Professor Sayce is too 
indefinite to call for an answer. The points with regard to 
Belshazzar have been already dealt with. The question of Darius 
the Mede is not so simple as suggested, but I have fully discussed it 
in my book, “ What about the Old Testament?” to which I must 
refer Mr. Schwartz for my answer. 


549TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 


HELD IN THE ROOMS OF THE INSTITUTE, ON MONDAY, 
JANUARY 191n, 1914, at 4.30 P.M. 


PROFESSOR H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., TOOK THE CHAIR. 


The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed, and 
the election was announced of Mr. W H. Baxter and Mr. David A. F. 
Wetherfield as Members, and of Mr. John Sterry and the Rev. James 
Gossett-Tanner as Associates. 


JAPAN, AND SOME OF ITS PROBLEMS, RELIGIOUS 
AND SOCIAL. By the Rev. PRepenDary H.. E. Fox, 
M.A. 


NY attempt to construct a theory of racial evolution from 
apparent resemblances between the inhabitants of the 
British and Japanese Islands, arising from similar conditions, 
would at once be defeated by the evidences of larger and more 
numerous contrasts. Each nation represents a mixture of several 
races, each is protected by sea girdling barriers, each has long 
had a high civilization, each has maintained a strong patriotic 
spirit, and for many generations no hostile force has been ° 
allowed to set foot on the shores of either. But in religion ana 
in art, and, till quite lately, in intellectual and scientific develop- 
ment, Great Britain and Japan lie far apart. Englishmen, 
though they have been leaders in world enterprise, and the dis- 
covery of new lands, are by nature cautious and not easily 
moved. The Japanese is emotional, and recently has shown 
himself quick to learn, and ready to absorb and assimilate 
everything that is new. Yet while Britain was sending her 
navies into every sea, and her travellers and traders into every 
land, and planting her flag in all parts of the world, Japan had 
shut herself up, and held no intercourse, except in some rare 


a2 THE REV. PREBENDARY H. E. FOX, M.A., ON 


instances, with any other people, and only since the great 
reaction in the present generation has she extended her posses- 
sions to Formosa, Corea and Saghahen. A feudal system, not 
unlike that which held rule in Western Europe in the middle 
ages, came to an end in Japan within the memory of old men 
still living. And, though she can build her own Dreadnoughts 
and has shown a military genius which startled the world, her 
representative government is still inits elementary stages. We 
are all familiar with the term “ Bushido,” or the spirit of Japan, 
more literally, the way of the Bushi or knight, But as it isa 
key to many of the pr oblems, social and religious, which modern 
Japan presents, a brief reference to its origin and development 
may be useful. It has grown out of an earlier genius. About 
the seventh century of the Christian era, a warrior clan, 
inhabiting the central portion of the main Island, named 
Yamato, gained supremacy over its neighbour tribes, driving 
some to the North, and welding the rest into one kingdom 
under the rule of its own chief. 

Dr. GRIFFIS, referring to this, says: “The spirit and prowess 
of these early conquerors have left an indelible impress upon 
the language and the mind of the nation in the phrase. 
YAMATO-DaMASHII—the spirit of (Divine and Unconquerable) 
Japan ... The Yamato men gradually advanced to conquest 
under the impulse, as they believed, of a divine command. 
They claimed that their ancestors were from Heaven, that the 
Sun was their kinswoman, and that their chief, or Mikado, was 
vice-regent of the heavenly gods, but that those whom they 
conquered were earth-born or sprung from the terrestrial 
clivinities.* 

In successive generations this elementary spirit of race 
superiority crystallized into the narrower features of a feudal 
system, and the original religion which had been more or less 
animistic, or a worship of the wonderful in nature, added to it 
by degrees new worship in the reverence shown to the departed 
spirits of tribal chiefs, and this afterwards grew into an actual 
worship of their Lord, the Mikado, the living representative of 
his deified ancestors. This religion, if it can be so called as 
recognizing some link between the higher and lower world, has 
had little influence in the direction of morals, It has no ethical 
code and supphes no motive for the control of natural instincts. 
Naturally, any sense of a divine righteousness, and the need of 
salvation, is wholly absent from the purely Shinto mind. The 


* Religions of Japan, p. 44. 


JAPAN AND SOME OF ITS PROBLEMS, RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL. 35 


loyalty and patriotism, which have from early times been so 
manifest among the Japanese, probably had their root, as the 
virtues of most non-Christian people have, in self interest, 
corporate and individual. 

Buddhism, in its original form as taught by Sakyamuni, has 
still less claim than Shintoism to be counted as a religion. 
Monier Williams denies that it 1s such, and describes it as “a 
mere system of morality and philosophy founded on a pessimistic 
view ot life.”* But its later developments, known as Mahayana 
or Higher Buddhism, found in China and afterwards in Japan, 
give evidence of the invariable refusal of the religious instinct 
of mankind to be satisfied with negations, powerless precepts, 
and the absence of a concrete object of worship. The abstract 
Buddha is everywhere present, but has countless manifestations ; 
one or many, sometimes a triad, are given the highest place in 
their pantheon. Images of these abound, from the gigantic 
figure at Kamakura to a tiny charm on a necklace. <A spacious 
hall in a temple at Kyoto is filled with them. 

A central figure of superhuman proportions, seated in the 
well-known attitude, which irresistibly suggests the contrast 
with Him who “went about doing good,” has on either hand 
1,500 life-sized standing figures gilded, and each in some slight 
particular differmg from the others. The popular Buddha is 
Amida, who is regarded as a real person, both Creator and 
Preserver, the Lord of life and the all Merciful Father. He is 
said to have lived a perfect life on earth, and when by labour 
and suffering he had acquired sufficient merit, he departed to the 
Western Paradise, where he will receive the faithful, till by 
further progress they reach the ultimate Nirvana. Connected 
with him are two other principal Buddhas, Kwannon the goddess 
of mercy and Seishi the god of might. 

Though the conclusions which Dr. Richard draws from such 
facts in his recent book, which he calls “The New Testament of 
Higher Buddhism,” are exaggerated and misleading, it is quite 
possible to find what seem to be traces of some Christian 
influence which had been carried, perhaps by Nestorians, to China 
in the fourth or fifth century after Christ. But it must have 
been a teaching either grievously defective on the part of those 
who gave it or as seriously mutilated by those who received it. 
Its doctrine is that of a tritheism, not of the Trinity. It has 
nothing to say of sin and its remedy, of atonement and recon- 
ciliation, still less of the work of the Divine Spirit as given in 


* Buddhism, p. 539. 
. D 


) 


34 THE REV. PREBENDARY H. E. FOX, M.A., ON 


the Christian Scriptures. Buddhism has been quite ready to 
accommodate itself to Shintoism, and instead of opposing the 
earlier religion of the country, succeeded in persuading the people 
to believe that the two were the same under different names and 
forms. 

It is common to hear an educated man say that he is just as 
much a Buddhist as a Shintoist, and can accept a good deal of 
Christianity as well. Concilatory, however, as Buddhism shows 
itself to-day, it cannot repress the bitterness which prevails 
between the sects within it, and it certainly incited the rulers of 
Japan to the persecutions and terrible atrocities inflicted for 
inany years on the first Christian Missionaries and their 
converts. 

But all these things belong to the past. No other nation has 
passed through so great transitions in so short a time as those 
which living men have seeninJapan. The Mikado is no longer 
a mystery. Daimios and Samurai exist only in pictures and 
poetry. The last of the Shoguns died in obscurity a few weeks 
ago. In the lobby of the Y.M.C.A. house in Kyoto, the old 
capital of Japan, I saw hanging one of the old notice boards 
bearing the proclamation against Christianity, and offering high 
rewards for the capture of Christian priests and people, and side 
by side with it a frame containing an autograph letter from the 
late Emperor, in which he heartily thanked the Association for 
the services its members had rendered to the sick and wounded 
during the war and enclosed a contribution of £1,000 to its 
funds. 

Changes of a less satisfactory character are increasing. The 
simple habits of life which have so long characterized Japan are 
giving place among the wealthier classes to the luxury which 
has been imported from other lands. The educational system, 
which has been highly developed by the government, is entirely 
secular. 

The moral precepts inculcated in Imperial Rescripts are 
excellent, but are based on no religious principles. 

The portrait of the Emperor, to which in every school at stated 
times the pupils are instructed to pay a reverence amounting 
almost to worship, is a surviving reminder of the old Yamato 
Damashii, or the later Bushido. And yet, notwithstanding 
the Materialism and Rationalism spreading vapidly under 
Kuropean and American influence, it must be admitted that the 
Japanese, as a whole, are still a religious people. The nature of 
their piety is not, perbaps, as intensive as that which we expect 
in ours, but it is certainly genuine. During the last few days 


~ 


JAPAN AND SOME OF ITS PROBLEMS, RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL. ao 


of the late Emperor’s life I was staying at Nikko, a sacred centre, 
where many ancient shrines, both Shinto and Buddhist, side by 
side, recall a brilliant past. It was a touching sight to see the 
people of all degrees, and also classes of children led by their 
teachers, coming thither all day long, singly and in groups, to 
offer their prayers to the unknown spirits on behalf of the 
dying Mikado. From the roofs of some of the temples there 
hung long strips of white cotton, inscribed with prayers, so that 
each passer-by might pause for a moment and make the 
petitions his own. 

Underneath their light-hearted manner, it cannot be doubted 
that still in the heart of many a Japanese there is a yearning 
for something higher and better than he can find on earth. The 
patch of paper on which he has written his name, and _ sticks 
upon the wayside image, or the little grove beside some 
country temple with hundreds of tiny paper flags covering the 
ground, on each of which has been written a name, perhaps of 
some loved one lost, all speak of souls groping in the dark after 
some unknown good, and area silent challenge to Christians who 
can tell those who put them there what they so need to know. The 
problems which face the Japanese and their friends are very 
complex, but one or two facts stand out which, from the Christian 
point of view, are absolutely certain. (1) It is not a new 
Gospel, a message accommodated to the prejudices of the non- 
Christian mind, but it is the same message that once conquered 
Pagan Britain which alone will save Japan. There are, how- 
ever, grave dangers arising from the defective way in w hich the 
Christian message is often given and taken. A Christ, who is 
little more than another Buddha, a Christ without the cross or 
the resurrection, without the promise of eternal life, will never 
enter deeply into any human heart. A Bible, dissected by 
however skilful a critic, will never become food for hungry 
souls. A Missionary of many years wide experience writes that 
he has “never seen or heard of any individual, or any body of 
Christians, brought nearer to Christ, and made more earnest or 
intelligent workers in His Kingdom through the influence of 
Modern Criticism. On the contrary—it is the consensus of 
opinion among the most earnest workers that, wherever it comes, 
it brings blight and paralysis into the Churches. The present 
condition of weakness and lack of evangelistic zeal and devotion 
can unquestionably be traced in some large degree to its 
desolating influences.”* 


* Missionary Joys in Japan, by Paget Wilkes, p. 318. 
D 2 


36 THE REV. PREBENDARY H. E. FOX, M.A., ON 


(2) It is also certain that the Christianizing of Japan must 
depend increasingly on her own sons and daughters and 
therefore that the efforts of the Missionary should be more and 
more directed to lead up to this object. That there are weak 
points in the Japanese character none are more willing to admit 
than the most thoughtful among them. But that many of them 
possess high qualities of leadership and loyalty, and that they 
can appeal to the hearts of their own people in a way that no 
foreigner can, is beyond question. Nothing can develop these 
qualities so much as the opportunity of responsibility. 

For her social problems Japan needs similar methods. Ifthe 
moral condition of her towns is to be purified ; if the standard of 
her literature is to be raised, if the honour of her business men 
is to become above suspicion, reforms must be induced by the 
Christian people of Japan. Non-Christianity can never rise, or 
raise men, above its own level. Though democratic tendencies 
have developed in Japan far less than in America or Europe, 
there are many signs of movement in that direction, and there 
is therefore the greater need of witnesses to that righteousness, 
God-given only, which can exalt a nation; and that witness must 
be given by the consistent lives and the constant teaching of her 
own people. 

English Christians have still a duty to fulfil towards a nation 
allied to their own by political ties, and they can best discharge 
it by earnestly endeavouring to encourage and strengthen those 
with whom they are already in Christian fellowship, to bring 
their Islands which they proudly call the Land of the Rising 
Sun, together with their increasing possessions in Formosa and 
on the main land, into the full light and lberty of the Gospel of 
Christ. 


DISCUSSION. 


The CHAIRMAN, after moving a very hearty vote of thanks to the 
Lecturer for his valuable paper, declared the Meeting open for 
discussion. 

Mr. M. L. Rouse asked the Lecturer whether the sect of Shin, 
which as he understood, offered the nearest analogy to the 
Evangelical School, proved more or less open to accept Christianity 
than did the other sects. The conception of Amida as having lived 
a life of beneficence on the Earth was doubtless borrowed from 
early Christian teachers, but that of a single Creator of men, if it 
existed, would be primeval, if it couid be shown that he bore a name 


JAPAN AND SOME OF ITS PROBLEMS, RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL. 937 
peculiar to Japan. He quoted, on the authority of Mr. Ijima, an 
old-time tradition that “Izanami no Mikoto came down from 
heaven, divided heaven from earth, and created everything.” He 
considered that medieval Europeans adopted decorated altar tables, 
rosaries and the like from the Buddhists and other Asiatic pagans, 
rather than the other way about. He had watched the ritual of the 
Kalmucks, who derived their Buddhism from Thibet, at their show 
encampment in Dresden, and in Chinese temples, one image 
constantly recurs, that of the queen of heaven with her infant in 
her arms. (N. Wright and H. Allom, J/lustrated China, I, p. 40, and 
II, pp. 52 et passim.) 

Lt.-Col. MACKINLAY said: As an instance of the great and rapid 
changes that had taken place in Japan, | may mention that 50 
years ago, dissection of the human dead body was not practised, as 
it was thought to be improper. On the other hand, in their recent 
war with Russia, the Japanese led the way in sound scientific 
regulations for the sanitation of armies in the field; their losses 
from typhoid being far less than ours in the South African 
campaign. 

The Japanese do not now oppose Christianity with bitterness, and 
they have no very strong attachment to their own religions, but a 
peculiar difficulty exists. The Japanese, under a guise of very great 
politeness, practise a reticence which renders it difficult to know 
their real thoughts. You seem to know a Japanese to whom you 
may be introduced, almost at once, but in most cases after many 
years’ friendship little advance seems to be made in real knowledge 
of his character. As an example of a Christian Japanese I may 
mention a friend of mine, who came to England some years ago, for 
education at Cambridge as an undergraduate ; he lived at the house 
of one of the tutors, whose wife read the Bible with the young 
foreigner every day. He was converted and baptised in Cambridge, 
some months before his return to Japan. What opportunities there 
are tor reaching non-Christian foreigners with the Gospel, during 
their stay in England! During the Russo-Japanese war a Christian 
Japanese officer, when dying, showed his change of heart by leaving 
a large bequest to needy Russians, the enemies of his country. 

Mr. SCHWARTZ said: Our author suggests that what good there 
may be in Buddhism had been carried by Nestorians to China. 
Max Miiller and other scholars have pointed out the many similarities 


38 THE REV. PREBENDARY 4. E. FOX, M.A., ON 


between the two religions, and I think there is no doubt whatever 
that Buddhist missionaries visited Western Asia, Greece and Egypt, 
before the Christian Era. The Japanese do not admit their moral 
inferiority ; they came over to Europe to learn and adopt western 
methods, and have assimilated our arts and sciences, but our 
religious, moral and social practices do not appeal to them. Our 
author alludes to the fanaticism displayed in the persecutions and 
atrocities inflicted on the first Christian missionaries in Japan. 
These persecutions were political, for these first missionaries were 
Jesuits, who fomented revolution and national disintegration. 
Teyasu realised the danger and put them down with a strong hand. 
I am sorry to learn that our author has so poor an opinion of the 
value of broad views, for they alone have any chance of success in 
heathen countries possessing any culture, except among the moral 
and intellectual dregs and children.* Thus Dr. Nitobe says: “I 
trust my attitude towards Christianity itself will not be questioned. 
It is with ecclesiastical methods and with the forms that obscure the 
teaching of Christ that I have little sympathy.” At the World’s 
Parliament of Religions, Mr. Kishimite said: ‘ Christianity will 
ultimately become the religion of the land; it is so pliable that it 
can adapt itself to any environment. We do not want Catholic or 
Protestant, but the Christianity of the Bible, nay of Christ. Indeed 
the time is coming when God shall be worshipped, not by rites and 
ceremonies, but in spirit and in truth ! ” 

Capt. McNEILE asked if the similarity between the Japanese and 
medizval forms of worship may not have arisen from the influence 
of the Jesuit missions of bygone centuries. About 35 years ago the 
Church Missionary Society in Hong Kong were debating what 
Chinese word to take to represent the idea, “the Almighty,” -there 
being no equivalent expression in Chinese; and difficulties arose 


* But are such “broad views” Christianity? Christianity, like 
Christ, comes to save the lost. He came not to call the righteous, but 
sinners to repentence, and was accused of being the Friend of publicans 
and sinners, z.e., of “the moral and intellectuai dregs.” The people of 
“culture” said, Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on 
Him?” But the sinners and the little children came to Him and He 
received them, and said, ‘‘ Except ye be converted and become as little 
children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” While the 
men of “ culture,”—the scribes and Pharisees, the chief priests and rulers 
of the Jews,—rejected Him and crucified Him.—Eprror. 


JAPAN AND SOME OF ITS PROBLEMS, RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL. 39 


because there was a Jesuit word for this already existing, which was 
not acceptable to the C.M.S. 

The Rey. Murray WALTON said that we had to remember that 
Buddhism in Japan to-day was a very powerful religion, and indeed 
the most strongly entrenched foe of Christianity. Of the Buddhist 
sects, the Shin was the most powerful; this was largely because of 
their conception of Amida as a Saviour, in many ways similar to our 
ideas of Christ, but their teaching as to sin was entirely different ; 
whereas we look to Christ to save us from sin, the Japanese look to 
Amida to save them in sin. Further, Amida never existed—he was 
pure myth—he had no historical basis. The Shin priests at the 
present time were carefully trained, and ignorant and immoral 
priests were certainly the exception. It must be remembered that 
80 per cent. of the population of Japan was rural, and was 
largely unaffected by intercourse with Europe. Buddhism had all 
the strength of this 80 per cent. behind it. In the towns things 
were different, and even sadder. Materialism and agnosticism had 
made great advances amongst the educated classes ; western science 
was shattering their faith. In the Tokyo University of some 4,600 
students a religious census recently was taken, in which 3,000 of 
them declared themselves agnostics, 1,500 atheists, 60 were 
Buddhist, 50 Shintoists and 8 Christians. 

Gen. HALLipAy asked the lecturer if he would kindly tell them 
what Nirvana really meant. 

Bishop THORNTON asked if any explanation could be given of the 
unfavourable opinion amongst business men as to the integrity of 
the Japanese. He had heard it said in Australia that Japanese men 
of business were unsatisfactory as regards commercial honour, and 
presented an unfavourable contrast to the Chinese in this respect. 
Is honesty insisted upon in the Imperial Rescripts ? Does uot love 
of truth, for its own sake, lie at the base of a good character ? 

Rey. T. H. DARLOw said: It was hardly possible to decide how 
far early Christianity had acted upon Buddhism, and how far 
Buddhism had modified Christianity. When the Jesuits landed in 
India, and saw the Buddhist ritual, they concluded that Satan must 
have been before them to caricature Christianity. One great 
obstacle to the Gospel in Japan to-day was the hold that Buddhism 
had on the rural districts. The Japanese use the religious 
machinery that we use—tracts, Sunday schools, Young Men’s and 


40 THE REV. PREBENDARY H. EK. FOX, M.A., ON 


Young Women’s Buddhist Associations—and they build costly 
new temples. ‘The revolution in Japan during the last sixty years 
had been extraordinary. Men who fought Russia with magazine 
rifles, had grandfathers who had fought in chain armour. The 
Standard war correspondent could not discover an illiterate soldier 
among the Japanese troops, and the standard of popular education 
was now much higher than in Italy or Portugal. But the war with 
Russia had burdened Japan with debt, involving crushing taxation. 
Factories were springing up, but the Japanese had, as yet, no factory 
laws, and child labour was used ruthlessly. From her intercourse 
with Europe, Japan had assimilated most things, except the Gospel. 
Our hope for Japan lay in an indigenous Christian Church, which 
would not be copied from any western model. 

Lt.-Col. M. A. Atvrss, R.E., said that he feared there was no 
reason to expect that Japan would become a Christian nation. 
There had recently been a great revival in downtrodden Korea, and 
there was a strong and vigorous Church in China; but the Japanese 
were too self-satisfied for the nation to accept Christianity. 

The CHAIRMAN moved a vote of thanks to the author of the 
paper and to the speakers in the discussion, which was carried by 
acclamation. He thought that they were all of opinion that it is 
“the same message that once conquered pagan Britain that alone 
will save Japan.” In the religions of Japan there is no atonement 
for sin, and therefore no salvation from it. The forgiveness of sins, 
and the peace of conscience flowing therefrom, are unknown to 
them. Unknown to them also are the birth from above, and eternal 
life, with its aim of holiness, sanctifying thought and desire in 
harmony with the will of our Father,—God. We have been 
reminded that though higher Buddhism has a doctrine of a 
tritheism, it has none of a Trinity ; and, while inculcating excellent 
moral precepts, it does not supply the motive power to carry them 
out successfully. We, who are Christians, have a great responsibility 
towards these, our allies, to convey to them the message of infinite 
love, speaking in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ ; and 
this Gospel preaching should be especially the work of native 
Christians, since these are in touch with the minds and hearts of 
their countrymen. Thus Japan may become, in a sense that she is 
not now, “ the land of the Rising Sun.” 

The LECTURER thanked the Meeting for the very kind reception 


JAPAN AND SOME OF ITS PROBLEMS, RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL. 4] 


which they had given him. He must admit that his knowledge of 
Japan was largely second-hand ; he had stayed there for four months 
in 1912, and had then enjoyed exceptional facilities for getting to 
know the country and people. His daughter had resided there for 
eighteen years and knew the language thoroughly, but most of his 
information he had derived from others. In reply to the questions 
that had been asked him: it was the fact that [English business 
men, whom he had asked, trusted Chinamen rather than Japanese. 
With regard to education in Japan, he did not know of the New 
Testament being used as a text-book in any Japanese Government 
school, and English was not usually taught there. But at Osaka, 
and in other Church Missionary schools, English was taught, and the 
knowledge of English is spreading. In most of the shops at Tokyo, 
English is spoken. The similarity between Buddhist and Roman 
Catholic rites might possibly have been derived from the Jesuit 
missions, images and books being preserved in secret from the time 
of the persecution. He knew that this had happened in some 
places, but, in view of the fierceness of that persecution, it was not 
likely that much of the resemblance had been brought about in 
that way. What Japan needed was the pure Christianity of the 
Bible, not deteriorated by ecclesiasticism or rationalism. An English 
bishop had told him that it was quite possible that the whole of 
Japan might at some time rapidly adopt Christianity. This would 
come about if a great leader arose, like the religious reformers that 
Japan had had in the past, who should commend Christianity to 
them. But, in that case, it would be a national adoption of 
Christianity, not a personal acceptance of Christ. As to the 
meaning of Nirvana, that was a very difficult question to answer. 
The nearest way by which one could express it was to say that 
Nirvana meant “nothingness.” In conclusion, he would say that 
it took a very long time for the European to learn and understand 
the Asiatic. They ought, therefore, to take care not to judge the 
Japanese too hastily and too harshly. 

The LECTURER subsequently added the following remarks in 
reply to Mr. Schwartz: 

The writer of the paper is not aware that he made any disparag- 
ing remarks on “broad views.” If he did so, he much regrets it; 
for he always avoids the term “broad” in the sense that 
Mr. Schwartz seems to attach to it; just as much as he also avoids 


42 JAPAN AND SOME OF ITS PROBLEMS, RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL. 


the terms “high” and “low,” as applied to Church views. They 
are all misleading words. He believes with the Psalmist that the 
commandment of the Lord is ‘exceeding broad,” .and also with the 
teaching of Jesus Christ that “broad is the way that leadeth to 
destruction.” He has also noticed that many who claim to have 
special breadth of view unconsciously narrow the scope of their 
outlook by limitations and prejudices which are, to say the least, 
unscientific, and therefore the opposite of “broad.” On the other 
hand the true Christian view is really broad. 


550TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 


HELD IN THE ROOMS OF THE INSTITUTE, ON MONDAY, 
FEBRUARY 2np, 1914, AT 4.30 p.m. 


Dr. J. W. THIRTLE, M.R.A.S., TOOK THE CHAIR. 


The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed. 
The CHAIRMAN introduced the Rev. H. J. R. Marston, and said that 
Mr. Marston would not read his paper, but would give them a general 
synopsis of it. The paper, as printed and submitted to the Meeting, 
is as follows :— 


THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. By 
THE Rey. H. J. R. Marston, M.A., Late Fellow of the 
University of Durham. 


Some prefatory observations are desirable in order to explain 
and justify the form and tenor of the following Lecture. 


I—The material here presented to the Members of the 
Institute is part of a book on the subject which is in course of 
production by the Lecturer. The consequence is that the 
composition, considered as a literary effort, may appear loose in 
connection; and may perhaps contain some unavoidable 
repetition. If this be so, I beg the Members of the Institute 
to understand and to pardon; assuring them that there has 
been neither haste nor carelessness in the preparation of the 
paper. On the contrary, the matter of the lecture has been 
long and industriously pondered and carefully put together. 

I venture to invite special regard to the title of my subject 
as it stands at the head of the paper. 

I have not endeavoured to formulate a theory of “The 
Atonement.” 

I incline to believe that Atonement is prior to Christianity ; 
and wider than the Bible. It would seem to be inherent in the 
beliefs and feelings of the human race. It is certainly far older 


44 THE REV. A. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON 


than Leviticus; which is probably a regulative code, not an 
inaugurating charter. Throughout that wonderful book, so 
it seems'to me, “the instinct for Atonement” is taken for 
granted. 

I further incline to believe that the New Testament takes 
that same instinct for granted too. The death of the Lord Jesus 
and the teaehing of his Apostles fixed and illuminated for all 
time what was the meaning, the value, and the limits of 
that instinct. Hence it seems to be correct to speak of “The 
Christian doctrine of Atonement”; rather than to treat of “The 
Atonement” as if it were a new and isolated fact in human 
history. 

Some misgiving has been expressed as to whether the subject 
of Atonement is not too theological to come properly within 
the ken of a Philosophical Society. That misgiving may be 
allayed by two considerations. The first is that the very nature 
of our Society compels it to attend to the outstanding aspects of 
the Christian Faith; and to explain and to defend them. This 
is what we arefor. Among these the Atonement is so important 
that we cannot possibly pass it by. To attempt to justify it to 
the modern conscience is a noble and very useful task. 

The second is that the method which I have followed in this 
lecture invites discussion from Historical and Ethical students. 
Recent Travel, Comparative Religion, and Moral analysis of 
Human Nature are all to be heard on the subject with attention 
and hopefulness. Light from many quarters is welcomed, so 
long as it be light. 


IJ.—The method which I have followed in this lecture is, I think, 
unusual. Most writers on the Atonement have dealt with the 
subject from what may be called the internal point of view. 
They have considered it either with reference to the attributes of 
God, or the intuitions of men. They have declared that such 
and such views are required because God is just ; or because He 
is merciful; or because man cannot believe that God would 
make such and such demands. From the time of Anselm to the 
time of McLeod Campbell, this way of treating the subject has 
been prominent. 

It must be allowed that a method which has commended 
itself to many good and gifted men, has much to be said for it. 
And I cannot expect that those who hear or read this lecture 
with minds accustomed to follow the lead of Anselm and 
Campbell, of Maurice and the elder Magee, will readily 
approve the method adopted by me. They are certain to 


THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 45 


think it narrow and jejune; and they may also think that it 
borders upon the splitting of verbal hairs, or upon grammatical 
pedantry. 

I would remind such objectors that the fundamental principle 
of the Reformation was this, that exegesis is the key to theology. 
By this maxim it reversed the proceedings of the Middle Ages, 
which were formed upon the principle that theology is the key 
to exegesis. I cannot see why this principle, which has been 
fruitful in spiritual results of the first importance, should not be 
applied to the study of the Atonement. To my own feeling 
Systematic Theology from Calvin to Ritschl has been blighted 
and deformed by the tendency to separate itself from the 
results of exact New Testament scholarship. 

This address, at all events, if it has erred, has not erred in 
that direction. I have rigorously endeavoured to follow the 
teaching of the New Testament; I have never even cared to ask 
whether the results arrived at can be made to harmonise either 
with what are supposed to be the Divine attributes, or with 
those alleged intuitions of men which some people so studiously 
endeavour to conciliate. 

For me the New Testament ought to have the first and the 
last word in this, as in all religious enquiry ; and that because of 
its unique and specific possession of the charisma of Inspiration. 
I do not for a moment question that a subject so wonderful and 
comprehensive as the Christian doctrine of Atonement may be 
lawfully treated by more methods than one. I hail with 
thankfulness the revived interest in this central article of 
Christian believing and Christian doing: It is a sign of 
reviving Christian life itself. Life is manifold: and every living 
enquiry must be conducted in manifold ways. But I venture to 
think that the method followed in this paper is among the first 
in importance, and likely to lead to clear and far-reaching 
thought upon the subject. 

In this spirit and under these convictions, these thoughts are 
offered as a contribution towards a clearer view of the work of 
Our Lord in the putting away of sin. It is committed to the 
blessing of God, and commended to the favourable perusal of 
Christian people, in a time of many transitions, and of much 
searching of heart; yet a time when the hearts of multitudes 
are reaching out after a fuller and surer knowledge of truth as 
it is in Jesus. 

There are two remarks which I ask leave to add to these 
introductory observations. The first is this, namely, that I 
believe in the stability of the laws of language, and especially 


46 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON 


of the Greek language. I hold strongly that the Greek of the 
New Testament is Greek ; not a patois, nora jargon. What has 
been called “grammarless Greek,’ if it ever existed anywhere, 
is certainly not the Greek of St. Luke and St. Paul, of 
St. Matthew and St. James, of St. Peter and St. John. The 
Apocalypse is, of course, the book in the New Testament the 
Greek of which most frequently defies the laws of grammar. 
The sidelights thrown upon it by recent researches into the 
Greek of the papyri, are often interesting and sometimes 
suggestive. I would welcome all such light; but I still believe 
that St. John in his latest years made no deliberate attempt to 
use language in defiance of the laws of speech and thought. 
With this exception, however, the books of the New Testament 
should be studied with the grammar in our hand; and under 
the belief that the sacred writers used the words which they did 
use so as to be understood by all sorts of readers who had 
learned their language as we learn ours. 

The second remark that I would make is this :—When 
appeal is made to the conscience or reason of man to settle 
whether the Christian doctrine of Atonement is true or not 
true, to what conscience and to what reason of what man is 
that appeal made? If Rousseau declared the doctrine to be 
false because it contradicted his moral sense, I rejoin, what 
does that signify ? Of what value to anybody was Rousseau’s 
moral sense, seeing it was of no value to himself? If his great 
contemporary, Bishop Butler, should declare that the doctrine 
repugnant to the moral sense of Rousseau was agreeable to the 
moral sense of men in general, who would hesitate to follow 
the bishop, and disregard the sentimental savage from Geneva ? 
And this is but a sample of the difficulties in which we 
are landed when we follow the method usually followed in 
enquiring about the Atonement. It is certain that so far as 
history can teach us, a sense of the need for propitiating God is 
found everywhere. This is a strong proof that such propitiation 
is actually possible ; since “nature does nothing in vain.” And 
this pathetic and venerable sentiment is of far more consequence 
than the objection to it raised by any particular thinker; that 
objection might be very strong if it were very general; but 
otherwise it seems to me of little account. 

Let anyone, however, consult the writings of those who have 
treated the Atonement on abstract principles; and they will find 
that these writers differ widely between themselves; and indeed 
that they agree in httle else than in the habit of raising 
objections to some or other part of the Christian doctrine. 


THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 4'7 


ILI]. New TESTAMENT VIEWS OF SIN. 


The sacred writers view sin as bondage, as enmity, as defile- 
ment, or as hampering limitation. They assume everywhere 
that men are conscious of being guilty, miserable, impotent. 
We may safely affirm that this assumption is sustained by an 
experience so vast and varied as to be practically universal. 
When St. Paul wrote, “O wretched man that I am,” he wrote 
as the prolocutor of the human race. 

In this light the Christian doctrine is only the highest 
confession of the need for Atonement; but if the Gospel be the 
universal religion, it must offer some doctrine of Atonement ; 
and if it also be the Divine religion, it must also offer the best 
doctrine of Atonement; and accordingly the New Testament 
announces that God is the author of a fourfold process. He is 
the Redeemer, the Reconciler, the Consecrator, the Releaser. 

The New ‘Testament, moreover, intimates that in thus 
proceeding God acted harmoniously with His essential character. 
“God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.” 


“ God set forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiation in His blood 
through faith.” 


“When we were enemies it was to God that we were 
reconciled by His Son’s death.” 


“The Father sent the Son to be a propitiation for our sins.” 


“It was the God of Peace Who brought again from the dead 
the Lord even Jesus.” 


“Tt is God Who commends His Love in that while we were 
yet sinners Christ died for us.” 


So confident is the New Testament of the truth that redemption 
had its origin in the love and will of God that St. Peter declares 
that Christianity was sent into the world in order that men’s 
faith and hope might be in God. 

The awful and abrupt impact of God upon the sinful world is 
that which imparts to the Christian doctrine of Atonement its 
signal and disquieting grandeur. Against it, therefore, rise all 
lawless sentimentalities; all vicious levities; all insolent 
sophistries; all despairing incredulities. The insurrection is 
sometimes exasperated and inflamed by the indiscretion of 
Christian preachers ; but it is provoked by the doctrine itself. 

In attempting therefore to sum up apostolic teaching on 
Atonement, while I would avoid everything that may justly give 
offence, I cannot hope, nor do I wish, to escape from that 


48 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON 


measure of hostility which is inevitable; and which even 
St. Paul lamented when he wrote to the Philippians about the 
enmity towards the Cross of Christ. 

For the New Testament accuses man of guilt, misery, and 
impotence ; and charges him with being responsible to some very 
real degree for each of these three calamities. It announces 
also a provision made by God which corresponds with these 
calamities. It declares that in Jesus Christ God’s love has 
entered into the world of time and history on what may be 
called a campaign of redemption. This love is just and pure ; 
and in fulfillmg this pure and holy purpose the Son of God 
became incarnate that He might reconcile and release in reality 
as well as in truth. The Incarnate Son incurred the total 
lability of the race which He came to redeem ; even the sacred 
wrath against sin which is essential to the Godhead was to the 
full vicariously felt by Him. So completely was this the case 
that nothing now remains over to be demanded by eternal 
perfection. 

Since in the intention and knowledge of the representative 
Christ, Man corresponded with all those demands, a true satis- 
faction for sin has actually been made. 

Thus a mutual reconciliation of God with the world was 
brought to pass by God Himself: and love in equity invites all 
men to become reconciled with God. As, believingly, we 
remember the speaking of the blood of sprinkling, whose voice of 
endless power allures all souls, peace with God obtains an inward 
ascendancy, which is accompanied by a penitent recoil from that 
which cost the shedding of the Redeemer’s blood. Thus is 
effected an actual release from the habits and even from the 
unpulses of sin. The Atonement becomes an ethical force; its 
influence begins to tell directly upon the springs of life and 
character. 


LV.—TuHE DOCTRINE OF THE BLOOD OF JESUS. 


The New Testament is penetrated by the teaching that an 
intimate connection subsists between the Blood of Jesus and the 
putting away of sins. The doctrine is supported by each of the 
four Gospels; by the Acts of the Apostles, by the language of 
St. Paul, by St. John in his first epistle and in the Apocalypse ; 
and by St. Peter in his epistle addressed to the churches of the 
dispersion. 

The apostle to the circumcision and the apostle to the 
Gentiles equally proclaim this intimate connection. The church 


THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 49 


of the Hebrews and the church of Rome, as also the churches in 
Asia were all taught that a profound and inviolable association 
linked the forgiveness of their sins with the shedding of the 
blood of Jesus. 

From the middle of the ministry of Our Lord to the closing 
decade of the first Christian century this doctrine was deci- 
sively and abundantly attested. 

The fact is so conspicuous and so impressive that it cannot 
be passed by with a cursory notice. It demands to be weighed 
and measured. For it proves that there dwelt in the apostolic 
mind the conviction unbroken and diverse that 


“ Without shedding of blood there is no remission.” 


Apart from any belief in divine inspiration this concurrent 
testimony is remarkable enough. Viewed in the light of any 
real and reasoned belief in that inspiration, the testimony is 
significant to the highest possible degree. 

The teaching of the apostles about the blood of Jesus was 
much more than a survival in them of Hebrew habits of mind 
formed under the influences of the ancient Law. for it is 
announced in its most trenchant formula in the epistle to the 
Hebrews ; an epistle which more than any other writing in the 
New Testament discredits the sacrificial apparatus of the Old 
Testament when placed in comparison with the sacrifice of 
Christ. =~ | 

The doctrine, moreover, is too defined and emphatic to be 
explained by that mysterious sentiment, seemingly coeval with 
our race, that bloodshed is the medium most proper for com- 
munication between God and His offending offspring ; the senti- 
ment so pathetically treated by Schiller in the “ Eleusische fest.” 

In fact this doctrine is specific to Christianity ; it is integral 
to the New Testament, and is distinctive of it. Shadowed 
forth by the Levitical ritual; attested by the indigenous 
religions of the world, sometimes in gross, sometimes in 
ferocious, always in tragic imitations, the “doctrine of the 
precious blood of Christ” (1 Peter 1.) was proclaimed by His 
apostles with an energy and an unanimity, which prove that. 
it was practically original. The eternal value of this was 
declared by them with all the more intensity, because they all. 
denied that 


“the blood of bulls and of goats had any power to take away 
sins. —(Hebrews x.) 


The true origin of the doctrine is to. be found in three 
events in the life of Our Lord. The first was His teaching in 
K 


50 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON 


the synagogue at Capernaum preserved in the sixth chapter of 
St.John. The second was the institution of the Eucharist. 
The third was the effusion of blood and water from His sacred 
side after His death upon the Cross. | 

Thus the doctrine of the blood of Jesus took its rise in the 
teaching and the facts of Our Lord’s life itself; and possessed 
from the.outset a spiritual, a sacramental, and an historical 
importance. 

The Lord Himself connected His blood with the saving and 
the nourishing of souls. It was none other than He who 
associated the Lord’s Supper in one of its two elements with 
the efficacy of His own blood. His favourite disciple mentioned 
the shedding of His blood as one of the proofs of His Lord’s 
perfect humanity. 

To-day the detractors of this glorious article are a negligible 
fraction, and if the Church is strong to-day in her conflict with 
sin and misery, a preponderant measure of that strength is due 
to the degree of faithfulness with which the doctrine of the 
precious blood of Christ has been maintained. 

Offence has sometimes been taken, and I think justly taken, 
at the language of popular preachers when speaking on this 
topic. I have no wish to excuse their aberrations, nor to 
minimise the mischief which sensuous extravagances have done. 

Such preachers are bound to imitate the language of the 
New Testament, in its decorum, its simplicity, its grave restraint. 
Sermons, hymns, and tracts ought never to transgress against 
these inspired qualities. A theme so immeasurably sacred, and 
so perilously sweet, should be treated only as the sacred writers 
treat it. 

To talk about “the blood” is contrary to the manner and the 
spirit of the New Testament. The term occurs once only in 
the New Testament* ; and strictly considered, not even once. 

The invariable use of the sacred writers is to define the blood 
by some explanatory word. “The blood of Christ,’ “ the blood 
of Jesus,” “ His blood,” “ the blood of sprinkling,” “ the blood of 
the everlasting covenant,” “Thy blood,” “ His blood.” 

While we may never relax the stress with which we maintain 
with the whole New Testament that between the blood of Jesus 
and the forgiveness of sins there is an association that cannot 
be dissolved, we must always assert that association, as the New 
Testament asserts it, with a divine sobriety and beautiful good 
taste. 


* See St. John, 1st Epistle, Chap. V. 


THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. ay 


DISCUSSION. 


In a spoken address of great eloquence, Mr. MARSTON introduced 
some details which were not included in the printed paper, and at 
the request of the CHAIRMAN, in which the meeting heartily joined, 
Mr. MArsTON added later the following section :— 


I have thus stated the Christian Doctrine of Atonement in a 
light which seems to make that doctrine appear to be incompar- 
able, indispensable, and completely moral. It remains for me 
to notice four objections alleged against all theories of Atone- 
ment ; and therefore, of course, against the Christian doctrine. 

The first objection is that alleged by some students of 
Comparative Religion. The second is alleged by those who 
maintain that repentance is sufficient to secure the complacency 
of God towards the sinner. The third is alleged by those who 
say that the Doctrine of Atonement offends the Moral Sense. 
The fourth is alleged by some disciples of Evolution, who say 
that there is no such thing in reality as a sense of sin, and 
therefore there is no such thing in reality as the need of atone- 
ment. 

The Comparative Religionist pronounces the Doctrine of 
Atonement to be mythical; the advocate of Repentance 
pronounces it to be superfluous; the stickler for the Moral 
Sense pronounces it to be immoral; the votary of Evolution 
pronounces it to be obsolete. I will briefly reply to each 
objector. 

1. The objection alleged from Comparative Religion I meet 
in this way. There are no doubt many tokens and guesses at 
Atonement scattered throughout history, human sacrifices, 
scapegoats, banquets of flesh and blood, and many grotesque 
and horrible ceremonies can be collected in illustration of 
Atonement, but at best, these are rude adumbrations of the Cross 
of Christ. Even the Old Testament sacrifices are called by the 
Apostle to the Hebrews a mere shadow of the things to come. 
But between the Cross of Christ in its definite historical power, 
and its moral majesty, and the quaint or painful examples of 
Atonement put forth by Comparative Religion, there is so deep 
and wide a gulf that any true comparison is out of place; at 
least it must be allowed that all such comparisons prove 
Christianity to be the superlative religion. 

2. The objector who says that Repentance is sufficient to 
secure forgiveness may be, answered thus. Is there anything 

E 2 


52 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON 


in the nature of repentance, to compel forgiveness? If God 
requires repentance, which is in itself a process full of deep and 
acute inward pain, why may He not also require a real sacrifice, 
a bearing of penalty, before He can effectually forgive. In this 
light, atonement becomes the crown of repentance. 

3. The objector who says that the Doctrine of Atonement is 
immoral, I have already referred to; but I would here submit 
to him the following questions. Why is it immoral in God to 
be displeased with Sin? Why is it immoral in God to forgive 
Sin? Why is it immoral in God to make the most generous 
terms with the Sinner? Why is it immoral in God to accept 
the loving and willing self-sacrifice of His Son in order to 
accomplish whatever may be necessary to complete the mystery 
of redemption ? 

4. To the objector from the side of Evolution, I would reply 
with all deference due from one, who knows very little about 
biology, as follows: The sense of sin seems to be inextricably 
intertwined in human nature; it is certainly not confined to 
the brutal or degraded: for example, it permeates the Attic 
Drama, which must be taken as the highest expression of 
human thought and feeling, outside Revelation. By the sense of 
sin, I do not mean a sense of conflict, successful or unsuccessful, 
with lower appetites or lower forms of life; it is something 
quite different from the scars of humanity in its victorious 
ascent. It is properly expressed by the royal penitent in the 
words, “Against Thee only have I sinned”; “Lo, Thou 
requirest truth in the inward parts.” 

It is again expressed by the Apostle Paul, in the words 
“The good, that I would, I do not,” “the evil, that I would not, 
that I do.” This sense of sin is, I maintain, chronic; and can 
only be -eradicated by a beheving enjoyment of the Christian 
Doctrine of Atonement. 


The CHAIRMAN in conveying to the lecturer the thanks of the 
Meeting, said it was a happy idea on Mr. Marston’s part to lay 
aside his printed paper and to give the Meeting an exposition of 
his subject in the lucid and eloquent speech to which they had 
listened with so much pleasure. 

Mr. M. L. RousE thought that an inherent idea in sacrifice was 
the purity of the victim; hence, in a passage quoted from Virgil by 
Mr. Marston, it was a virgin that had been slain to appease the 
wrath of the gods. Where did the heathen get the idea of 
propitiatory sacrifice through the offering of the life of an innocent 


THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 53 
animal? Would it have occurred to them naturally that the 
Creator would be pleased with their burning to Him, in part or in 
whole, one of the creatures that He had made? Must they not 
have learnt it by tradition from our common ancestor, Noah? It 
should be remembered that in the Babylonian account of the Flood, 
as in the account in the Bible, stress was laid on the offering up of 
sacrifice as soon as the Flood was over. Probably Noah had 
received the tradition from Adam who had been taught of God in 
this matter. 

Rev. E. SEELEY said: I do not rise to criticise as I agree with 
nearly all that Mr. Marston has now set before us whether by 
printed or spoken word. 

‘Christ died for our sins”; a ‘ Propitiation for our sins 

for the whole world.” , 

“God . . . gave His only begotten Son that whosoever 
believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” 

“The Blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.” 

These scripture truths I fully accept. But, ‘‘the Christian Doctrine 
of Atonement” includes more, and the fuller revelation makes the 
Gospel more intelligible :—more evidently “the wisdom of God.” 
1 Cor. i, 23, 24. 

Let Scripture be our sole basis, and let us start with the first 
revelation of God’s Gospel. Gen. iii, 15, “ It shall bruise thy head, 
and thou shalt bruise his heel.” This implies victory through 
suffering, a victory of conquest of the Evil one, and of deliverance 
of the enslaved. The New Testament tells us in clearer language 
of the Saviour “‘ becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death 
of the Cross.” ‘‘ Wherefore also God highly exalted Him, etc.” (Phil. 
ii, 8, 9). Christ came as the God-given Lamb of Sacrifice. But the 
typical sacrifices were NOT CRUCIFIED. Why was Christ crucified ? 
With the last quoted text compare Rom. v, 18, 19 “ As through one 
trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation ; even so 
through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to 
justification of life. For as through the one man’s disobedience the 
many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One 
shall the many be made righteous.” 

That ‘“ one act of righteousness” was the ‘obedience even unto 
death, yea, the death of the Cross.” The perfect victory over 
extremest temptation was “ well-pleasing” to God and effected 


54 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON 


Atonement, and the Reconciliation included Redemption ; as stated 
in Heb. ix, 12 “ by His own blood He entered in once into the pa 
place, having obtained eternal redemption.” 

The absolute perfection of Christ’s sacrifice of Himself in entire 
devotion to God through life and death was the “one act of 
righteousness” that ‘much more” than atoned for the former 
“one trespass” and also for our abounding sins, and therefore 
‘‘ where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly ; that 
as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through 
righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” 
(see Rom. v, 17-21). 

So we see that Christ’s tremendous victory was also the Atoning 
Act that pleased God, and it procured for the Reconciler the throne 
of grace and glory, and also the New Covenant of grace for 
mankind ; and by that Covenant He assures grace and glory to all 
who accept His salvation, and trust in Him. 

The Rev. JoHN TUCKWELL said that we could not add to that 
which God had Himself told us about the Atonement. He did not 
see that there was any force in the objection that had sometimes 
been made to the use of what had been spoken of as the “‘ commercial 
terms” in which the Doctrine of Atonement had been expressed. 
The Scriptures themselves spoke of “buying the truth,” and 
similar terms were in ordinary usage amongst ourselves; thus we 
would say of a man who had ruined his health by overstudy that 
“he paid a heavy price for his knowledge,” but here there was no 
question of anyone receiving that price. There was one view of 
the question which should not be overlooked. God was not only 
our Heavenly Father, fuli of mercy and love; He was also the 
Moral Governor of the universe, who could not look upon sin with 
the least degree of allowance. Light thoughts of Atonement 
generally went with a light estimation of sin. We can form no 
ideas of our own as to how it was possible for a just God to receive 
sinners back into favour ; He Himself must tell us ; the plan must 
be His entirely ; and His plan was seen in the sacrifice of the 
Incarnate Son of God. 

Mr. J. Scowartz, Junr., read quotations from the writings of 
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Mr. W. H. Mallock, Dr. E. B. Tylor, 
the Rev. George Henslow, and Sir Oliver Lodge to show that 
these writers were not in accord with Mr. Marston on the 


THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. a 


question of Atonement, and he held that the doctrine of the 
‘Blood ” did not appeal to the majority of the educated laity of the 
XXth century. 

The Rev. A. CocHRANE said: If it be true as the last speaker 
said in his. quotation from Sir A. Conan Doyle, that the rising 
generation has largely outgrown the Doctrine of the Atonement, 
he could only say that he was very sorry for the rising generation. 
As for Sir Oliver Lodge, and others like him, the language they used 
only revealed their great ignorance of the real teaching of the Bible. 
The questions that lie behind the statement, “the Incarnate Son 
incurred the entire liability of the race that He came to redeem” 
(p. 48), are “ Why did the Son take upon Himself the lability of the 
race,” and ‘‘ How could He do it”? The Apostle St. Paul in Col. 1, 
speaks of Him not only as “the First-born from the dead,” but also 
as “the First-born of all creation.” In verse 16, we read in the 
Authorized Version “by Him all things were created,” but in the 
Greek and in the Revised Version, it is ‘in Him.” This passage in 
the Epistle deals with a wider subject than the reconciliation of the 
human race alone. It speaks of the reconciliation of all creation. 
The Son was the original Head of all things, and before the fall of 
man, He formed a real link between God and the human race. 
After the fall, He followed that race, to which He was so closely 
linked, into its fallen condition, so that He might redeem it, and 
bring it back to God. It was as the original Head of man that 
Christ incurred and took upon Himself the burden of man’s sin. 
The great questions were not so much that of Atonement, as ‘‘ Who 
made the Atonement ?” and ‘“ What is His relationship to the human 
race ?” 

The Rev. F. B. JOHNSTON said that Mr. Schwartz had quoted from 
a number of writers, and claimed that the majority of educated men 
at the present time was on his side. Truth has always been held by 
the minority of men ; the carnal mind kicks at the Doctrine of the 
Atonement. 

The Rev. F. Ceci, LovEcy, rose to protest against the attitude 
Mr. Schwartz habitually took in putting forth views that were 
diametrically opposed to the constitutions of the Victoria Institute. 
Mr. Schwartz did not appear to have any desire to investigate 
Philosophical and Scientific questions of truth; but only to assert 
opinions, which were often offensive to those whose belief was 


56 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON 


‘based upon faith in the existence of one Eternal God, who, in His 
wisdom created all things very good.” 

Prof. LANGHORNE ORCHARD thought there could be no question 
as to the truth that “a profound and inviolable association linked 
the forgiveness of their sins with the shedding of the blood ot 
Jesus ” (p. 49). 

The value of the Paper—good as it is—would, however, have 
been enhanced had the author carefully explained the meaning of 
“sin” and the meaning of “ The Blood of Christ.” St. John tells 
us that “sin is lawlessness.” It is insubjectivity of will to the 
law of God. The proper penalty of sin is forfeiture of life, as 
stated in the declarations—‘“ The soul that sinneth it shall die,” 
“The wages of sin is death,” “Sin, when it is finished, bringeth 
forth death.” By his sin, man has forfeited his life. The penalty 
must be met, either by the sinner himself, or, if he is to be saved, by 
another—on his behalf. Thus, salvation involves the vicarious 
principle, and is impossible otherwise. . . . ‘The Blood of 
Christ ” is His life poured out upon the Cross, that we might live 
(cf. Lev. xvu, 11, 14, and St. John x, 10). 

The CHAIRMAN in closing the meeting said that he thought the 
Institute owed a debt of gratitude to Mr. Schwartz for he showed 
the “ leanness of the land” possessed by merely negative teaching. 

Mr. Marston had already left, but the meeting indicated very 
plainly its gratitude for the impressive address he had delivered on a 
subject of profound importance. 


SUBSEQUENT COMMUNICATIONS. 

Sir RoperT ANDERSON: To gain clear thoughts on this subject 
we do well to define the word “Atonement.” As Archbishop 
Trench tells us in his Synonyms, ‘“‘ When our translation (of the 
Bible) was made it signified, as innumerable examples prove, 
reconciliation, or the making up of a foregoing enmity ; all its uses 
in our early literature justifying the etymology, now sometimes 
called in question, that ‘atonement’ is at-one-ment.” 

No one, indeed, who will study the passages in which the Hebrew 
word occurs which our translators usually render “to make 
atonement ” can fail to see that under the divine law the at-one-ment 
was not the sacrifice itself, but a result of sacrifice, depending on the 


THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 57 
work of priesthood. And in keeping with this, iAdccoua is used 
in Heb. ii, 17, with reference to the Lord’s present and continuing 
work for His people, as High Priest. 

Now, however, the word has come to be accepted as equivalent to 
“ propitiatory sacrifice.” And in this sense, not only is atonement, 
as Mr. Marston says, older than Christianity, it is older than 
Judaism. For Abel offered a propitiatory sacrifice. And the 
record gives proof that he did so in pursuance of a preceding 
revelation ; for it was not by higher intelligence, but by faith that 
he offered a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain. The universality of 
sacrifice (and it is found among all the savage races of the world) 
can only be accounted for by a tradition based on a primeval 
revelation. For no rational being could evolve from his own brain 
the idea that by killing a fellow creature he would appease God. 
Its universality, moreover, gives proof that human nature 
instinctively responds to the Divine demand for a propitiatory 
sacrifice. And the infidel must account for this before we can give 
a hearing to his attacks on the Scriptural truth of the Atonement. 

The Rey. Chancellor Lis: The Christian Creed is a collection, 
not of dogmas, but of facts. It does not, in the first instance, 
that is, consist of propositions drawn up on paper and accepted by 
the mind (though these may result from it), but of fundamental 
facts believed by the heart, and realized by the conscience. The 
controversies which for centuries have desolated Christianity have 
not been on the facts of the Divine Order, presented in the Creed, 
but on the explanations of those facts which various schools of 
theology have given of such questions, as the Presence in the 
Eucharist ; the fact of Inspiration; the necessity of an Episcopal 
government of local churches. So on the question of Atonement, 
explanations have found acceptance which had the merit of 
simplicity, rather than that of duly estimating all the various 
conditions of a very complex problem. The great Father Origen has 
been credited with the theory that the price of our redemption was 
paid to the Devil; it is a matter of fact that he did deliver himself 
of such an obiter dictum, as of many other like suggestions. But his 
reasoned conclusion was that the mode of Christ’s Atonement 
involved a host of considerations, some lying on the very surface, 
but some of immense complexity and difficulty. There can be no 
harm whatever in endeavouring to find reasonable explanations of a 


58 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON 


Divine Mystery. But there has been, and unfortunately there is 
still, a tendency to represent human explanations of Divine facts as 
the only ones possible, and to insist on the whole Christian Church 
accepting them as a condition of salvation. 

The Rev. Dr. Invinc: The mention of McLeod Campbell might 
have suggested the desirability of a short critical analysis of his 
book, The Nature of the Atonement. No one work has perhaps done 
more, if so much, in the last half-century to lift the minds of 
students of theology above the low, carnal, and materialistic notions 
of ‘sacrifice ” found in pagan cults, and even in the Hebrew religion 
in its decadence. 

The New Testament certainly lifts the idea to that higher plane of 
thought everywhere, as the author contends. With St. Paul, 
“ Christ crucified” is “the wisdom of God in a mystery,” to be 
experimentally unfolded in the sacramental life of the Church. 
St. Peter tells us that ‘Christ suffered once for sins, the just | 
for the unjust, that he might bring us to God”; and this is in 
harmony with the Pauline idea of ‘“ reconciliation.” With St. John 
the contextual setting of the “propitiation” lifts it altogether 
above the mere carnal elements of “sacrifice ” to a revelation of the 
love of God, calling to a life of Sonship; and with the author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. x (Ep. for Good Friday), it is 
essentially the perfect surrender of a perfect will; a perfect 
response to the mind of God towards sin, revealing to man, at the 
same time, his own dire spiritual needs, while it awakens resentment 
in the carnal mind of the unregenerate man (cf. p. 47). 

As the freedom from condemnation enables the spirit of th 
believer to “‘ walk after the spirit,” according to the law of the 
spirit of the life “in Christ Jesus”; as ‘the blood of Christ purges 
the conscience from dead works,” (ix, 14) and sets free all the powers 
of the soul “to serve the living God,” it is seen (in the light of 
Christian experience) that ‘‘A moral and spiritual atonement stands 
in direct relation to a moral and spiritual salvation, Christ giving 
Himself for our sins to our having in Him the life of Sonship.” 

Mr. Wm. Woops SmytH: Apart from modern science we have 
no rational interpretation of the Atonement. Mr. Marston confesses 
that he offers no theory of the Atonement. In this he is supported 
by the following high authorites. The Hon. and Rev. Arthur 
Lyttelton in Lux Mundi says: “The central mystery of the Cross 


THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 59 


remains a mystery and must wy ays be an insuperable 
difficulty to those who depend on reason.” ‘The Bishop of Oxford 
(Dr. Gore) takes a similar position. The late Professor James Orr 
puts the question very clearly: “The difficulty does not lie in the 
innocent suffering for the guilty; this is common. And the world 
is full of substitutionary, of vicarious, of voluntary suffering endured 
for the sake of others.” But, he continues, “ suffering for another’s 
sins has of itself no expiatory character. It is an aggravation of the 
sin, not an atonement for it . . . If going further we press the 
question of how Christ in this way bore our sins,—what made His 
endurance of suffering and death an atonement for sin—we have to 
confess ourselves in the presence of a mystery on which only partial 
light is available.” Now to darken with mystery a central truth 
for man’s salvation is for our race a terrible calamity. 

Turn now to the full light of modern science, in which we are 
instructed that man was created by a great ministry of Natural 
Law in which animal sacrifice was the predominant factor. 
“Sacrifice” is the word used by Herbert Spencer in this connection. 
And in a brief sentence he unconsciously overturns all opposition 
to the Atonement when he says: ‘The benefit accruing to the race 
from these sacrifices is the sanction for the sacrifice.” 

Now in the light of modern science the fall of man takes on 
dimensions far beyond anything hitherto thought of; because he 
fell from the awful eminence it took millions of years to reach. 
But, inasmuch, as he climbed to this high eminence through a 
stupendous ministry of animal sacrifice it is manifestly most rational 
that he should be restored again by a great ministry of sacrifice ; 
first in type in the ceremonial Law, and then in reality in the Cross 
of Christ. 

Lt.-Col. M. A. Atves, R.E.: If we stick to Scripture, and 
jettison tradition, we shall see that man by nature has a spirit of 
life the same in substance, if we may use this word, as that of lower 
animate creation. We shall see also that destruction, not ever- 
lasting conscious existence, is the lot of this “soul,” as it is 
sometimes called. 

The Christian Doctrine of the Atonement appears to be fully 
revealed for the first time in St. John’s Gospel, where a glorious and 
endless future life is promised to true believers as an assured present 
certainty—the doctrine of the Resurrection, in fact. The burnt- 


60 THE REV. A. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON 


offering seems to foreshadow this, the skin of any man’s burnt-offering 
becoming the priest’s who offered it; compare Gen. iii, 21, and 
Ley. vii, 8. This is the best denied doctrine of Christendom. 

So much for general remarks. 

That (see page 43, clause 4) “the Atonement is prior to 
Christianity and wider than the Bible” is, I think, unquestionable. 

There are allusions in the book of Genesis to sacrifices and other 
ordinances ; and the descendants of Noah must have carried away 
with them traditions which they either lost by neglect or corrupted ; 
for I do not think that natural human ingenuity would ever have 
discovered the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice. 

The reader (see page 45, clause 1), rightly says that “ exegesis is 
the key to theology ” ; but (see page 45, clause 3) when he says “ the 
New Testament ought to have the first and the last word in this, as 
in all religious enquiry, etc.,” I must demur. 

Old and New Testaments have one author, God the Holy Spirit ; 
and, until we have studied the Old, we cannot properly understand 
the New. Further, the Old Testament was our Lord’s and the 
Apostles’ only Bible; its grammatical and idiomatic construction 
are more in accordance with man’s linguistic instincts than those of 
Greek, and many of its idiomatic forms are, to coin a word, 
‘“transverbated ” into the New Testament Greek. Learned 
expositors, ignoring this last fact, have been led into writing hopeless 
jargon. 

In connection with this (see page 45, last line) is a reference to 
“the stability of the laws of language, and especially of the Greek 
language.” What are these laws? The Greek, and all other 
languages but one, began at Babel, the seat of confusion, and 
different languages have different laws. Chinese and Greek are 
antipodean to each other in construction. 

In the same paragraph (on page 46) it is suggested that ‘“ the books 
of the New Testament should be studied with the grammar in our 
hand.” I suggest that for the words ‘the grammar” should be 
substituted “a phrase-book of Hebrew idioms,” which are, I believe, 
much nearer the instincts of human expression of thought than the 
elaborate and interminable inflections of Greek. 

I cannot go with the writer when he says (see page 48, clause 4) 
“thus is effected an actual release from the habits and even from 
the impulses of sin.” It is important for a Christian to know what 


THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 61 


the New Begettingis, and what it is not. That the Gospel gives a 
desire and a power to fight habits and restrain impulses is true ; 
but many devout Christians have found long established evil habits 
very hard indeed to cast off. This teaching seems to me to tend 
towards “sinless perfection.” The Apostle Paul does not seem to 
have been freed from the impulses of sin; nor Peter, when Paul 
withstood him to the face at Antioch. Such teaching would tend, 
in my judgment, to cause arrogance in the strong, and undue 
depression in the weak. 

The key to the Atonement, or rather to its need, seems to me to be 
found in Jeremiah xviii, 7¢ the potter’s house; first creation a 
failure, the heavens included ; the second a success. For us men, a 
new and Divine Spirit of Life to take, in the Resurrection, the place 
of the old spirit of life (dropped at death) ; a spirit which, though a 
separate creation, we hold in common with the lower animate—and 
perhaps inanimate—creation. For evidence of this, see in a 
Concordance the various uses of the words ‘ V-shdmdah’ and ‘ Ridéch’ 
in the Old Testament. This seems to me to be Bible teaching for 
Christians. 

I close with repeating my thanks to Mr. Marston with whom I 
doubtless agree much more than I disagree. 

Mr. Edward J. G. Tirrerineton, M.A.: Mr. Marston remarks 
(page 50) that a preponderant measure of the strength of the Church 
must be ascribed to the faithfulness with which the doctrine of the 
precious blood of Christ has been maintained. It would have been 
interesting if we could have heard a testimony from some present, 
whether, in their wide experience, as well as in history, Christian 
work is not fruitful, and honoured of God, largely in proportion as 
the doctrine is faithfully proclaimed. This, in fact, is the true 
answer to one speaker, who asked whether, if it were presented to 
us for the first time when we had arrived at years of maturity, we 
should not have rejected it as preposterous. “For the preaching of 
the Cross is to them that are perishing (Grk.) foolishness ; but unto 
us which are being saved it is the power of God.” 

One was glad to hear the emphasis placed during the discussion 
upon what may be termed the wider aspects of the reconciliation 
effected: in Christ Jesus—both as regards His own glory, and as 
regards the creation as a whole. These are aspects which receive 
comparatively little attention, but are none the less of first 


62 THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 


importance. In addition to Col. i, may one be permitted to refer 
to Rom. viii, 18-23, and to numerous passages in np: Rev., ete. ; 
even, one might say, to Gen. i? 

Are we not, in fact, tempted often to ignore even what Calvary 
means to ourselves? Every good gift of God is on account of that. 
“ Thou hast ascended on high, Thou hast led captivity captive: Thou 
hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also.” Even 
the fact that we can approach God in prayer and communion 
springs from this: we have ‘boldness to enter into the holiest by 
the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath 
consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh.” 

One speaker dealt very clearly with the distinction between the 
Christian Doctrine of Atonement and the idea underlying heathen 
sacrifice. Can we not sum up the distinction by saying that 
heathen sacrifice is based on the assumption that we are able to offer 
God something which is pleasing unto Him; Christian sacrifice (by 
which I mean the sacrifice of Calvary, together with all ritual 
sacrifice prefiguring this, from the time of Abel onwards) is based 
on the recognition that this is not so. The one springs from that 
central doctrine of heathenism, salvation by works, or merit ; the 
other embodies the doctrine of salvation by faith in the finished 
work of Christ, and by that alone. 


551st ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING, 


HELD IN THE ROOMS OF THE INSTITUTE ON MONDAY, 
FEBRUARY 16ru, 1914, AT 4.30 p.m. 


Mr. WILLIAM J. HORNER TOOK THE CHAIR. 


The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed. 


The SrcRETARY announced that Mr. H. C. Hogan had been elected 
as a Member, and Mr. Swinfen Bramley-Moore and Mr. A. Montague 
Newbegin had been elected as Associates. 


The CHaAirRMAN,then called upon the Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A., Chancellor 
of Llandaff Cathedral, to read his paper. 


PS FTE SO-CALLED © PRIESTLY CODE” OF POST- 
EXILIC DATH? By the Rev. CHANCELLOR J. J. LIAs, 
M.A., CHANCELLOR of LLANDAFF CATHEDRAL. 


EFORE entering into a Bue) examination of the portion 

of the Pentateuch, called of late “the Priestly Code,” it 

seems necessary to preface my analys sis by some preliminary 
observations. 

First of all, we have heard a great deal from some quarters 
about the final results of modern scientific criticism. But is criti- 
cism one of theexact sciences; and if not, can the word “scientific” 
be properly applied to it? Science is knowledge, but if know- 
ledge be not exact, at least as far as it goes, it is not knowledge. 
The value of physical science lies in the certainty of its results 
when once reached ; and this certainty, be it observed, is attained 
by the practice of testing theories by comparing their results 
with observation. A vast number of observations, combining a 
number of various factors in the result, produce practical 
certainty. This is the inductive method, so often misunderstood. 
It does not, as some have supposed, consist in taking guesses 
for granted. The guesses are, it is true, assumed as a basis of 
reasoning ; but only when the results of this process have been 
found to agree with observation are those results accepted as 
true. The apparent failure of some physical sciences to secure 
exact results is due to the premature publication of those 
results. Until all the conditions of a problem of vast range 


64 THE REV. CHANCELLOR J. J. LIAS, M.A., ON 


have been sufficiently examined, no satisfactory results can be 
attained. The comparative failure, again, of metaphysics as a 
science 1s that 1t so often is made to rest, not. on facts, but on 
hypotheses ; and that its conclusions have not always been tested 
by a comparison with facts. The science of psychology, when 
sufficiently advanced, will possibly do more to establish the laws 
of mental phenomena in afew years than has hitherto been 
effected in countless centuries. 

Critical investigation, then, as it is not at present thoroughly 
scientific in its processes, cannot yet be represented as exact in its 
results. Speaking generally, there is a very wide divergence in 
the conclusions of historical critics, and a still wider one in 
those of literary critics. And when we approach the criticism 
of Scripture, the divergences are greater still: first, because the 
enquirer, who believes himself to be a man of science, persists in 
ignoring necessary factors in the problem he sets himself to 
solve; and also not unfrequently takes extremely wild and 
arbitrary assumptions as his bases of reasoning. Thus, 
Wellhausen declares that he alone, in the long list of analytic 
critics whose researches have come down to us, has arrived at cer- 
tainty in his results, because “he has added historical to literary 
criticism.” But what doeshecall historical criticism? Hismethod 
consists in a liberal use of the argument ¢ sz/entio, and rests on 
the assumed right of the critic to “strike out from the authorities 
with which he ‘deals ever y statement which is not reconcileable 
with his preconceived opinions. His ultimate conclusions are 
therefore very far from being unassailable. The argument 
e silentio, for instance, has been used in Archbishop Whately’s 
celebrated jeu Wesprit to prove that the Alles never entered 
Paris in 1814, because no reference to the event is to be found 
in the Parisian journals of the next day! The truth is that the 
more obvious an historical fact, the more often it 1s passsed over 
sub silentio, because its existence is taken for granted. Obviously 
such methods of investigation would make history impossible. 

A third eccentricity of the so-called scientific investigator is 
the assertion that the “ Priestly Code,’ though a_post-exilic 
production, is not only a “ codification ” of laws which had long 
been in existence, but that it also contains additional laws and 
ceremonies which were brought into existence after the return 
of the Jews from captivity. This extraordinary expedient is 
adopted in order to explain away the mention in the previous 
history, should it occur, of: any laws which it has been found 
necessary to include in the Priestly Code. But as the critic has, 
so far, never attempted to tell us which provisions of that Code 


IS THE SO-CALLED ‘‘ PRIESTLY CODE” OF POST-EXILIC DATE? 65 


are, and which are not, post-exilic, his methods cannot possibly 
lead to any satisfactory result. 

So much for the “scientific criticism” of which we have heard 
so much of late. It not only establishes nothing, but it makes 
all attempts to establish anything impossible. It makes a great 
show of learning and ingenuity, but the learning is beside the 
point, and the ingenuity is wasted. For true inductive pro- 
cesses we must have ascertained facts on which to rely; the 
destructive criticism, now in vogue in the field of Scripture, first 
destroys all the facts, and presents us with undemonstrated 
propositions in their stead. 

Before I proceed to deal with the phenomena of the Priestly 
Code as evidence of its date, I must explain what is meant by 
the “ Priestly Code.” The phrase is an invention on the part of 
the modern critic ; we critics of the older school contend that 
there is no such thing, but that what has been so called is an 
integral part of the Law of Moses. When separated, by a process 
highly ingenious but altogether inadmissible, it consists of a series 
of extraets from the Five Books of Moses, based on the principles 
indicated above. Sometimes it consists of chapters, or portions 
of chapters, forming passages of considerable leneth, but more 
often it is made up of scraps of three or four verses, or even 
sometimes of half or a third of a verse said to have been intro- 
duced by a late editor into a compilation of his own from the works 
of earlier authors. But the whole Book of Leviticus forms part 
of it. It would take up too much time for me to go into details, 
but these may be found in Dr. Driver’s Jntroduction, or in any 
other book professing to describe the latest form which criticism 
of this kind has assumed. I may add that an important 
discovery has lately been made by Mr. Harold Wiener in 
connection with this subject to which I will presently refer. 

I shall now proceed to show (1) that the alleged characteristics 
of the Priestly Code are, scarcely any of them, post-exilic ; and 
(2) that the marked post-exilic Hebrew of Ezra and Nehemiah 
display characteristics which are as markedly absent from the 
Priestly Code. 

(1) Some introductory remarks may be needed before we go 
into detail. The delimitation of the so-called Priestly Code was 
first made when Wellhausen and Kuenen were contending that 
Ezekiel was “ the father of Judaism,” and that Ezra had in his 
hand the completed Pentateuch when he read it before assembled 
Israe].* Circumstances have since led their disciples to postdate 


aH Zra, 1X, o- 


66 THE BEV. CHANCELLOR +J 193. 1AS,- eA ON 


their “ Priestly Document.” It is remarkable, by the way, how 
often “the fixed and unalterable conclusions of modern 
scientific, criticism” have had to be altered and unfixed. 
Prof. Driver and his followers now deny that the Pentateuch 
was completed until after the return from the Captivity. 
Prof. James Robertson has complained of the want of 
frankness with which this change has been adopted.* Made as 
it has been, it would elude the attention of any but the closest 
observers. But Nemesis is always waiting for us. The slightest 
change in the elaborate house of cards, so often built up and 
knocked down again by the analytic critics during the last few 
centuries, brings it once more to the ground with a crash. In 
the days of Wellhausen and Kuenen, when Ezekiel, as we have 
seen, was regarded as the practical inventor of the Law of Moses, 
the words and phrases said to be characteristic of “P” would 
naturally appear in the book, written by its “founder.” Now 
it has become entirely post-exilic in its origin, and the theory 
that Ezekiel, not Moses, was the “founder” of Israelite 
institutions has been dismissed to the hmbo into which so 
many exploded theories have already disappeared. Many of the 
alleged characteristic expressions of “P” are not found in the 
post-exilic writings, and are not characteristic of the post-exilic 
period.+ Therefore the theory so laboriously built up falls to the 
ground. Were “P” indeed post-exilic, it would undoubtedly 
betray distinct traces of its origin. No such distinct traces 
exist. Thus the phenomena presented by “P” are not in- 
consistent with its Mosaic origin. The occurrence of its phrases 
in the later Hebrew may be accounted for by the fact that 
the later Hebraists, Ezekiel for instance, were diligent students 
of the Mosaic law. And the same diligent study would 
account for the fact that even the post-exilic prophets, 
though betraying their date by the use of foreign words,{ 


* Early Religion of Israel, Preface, p. x. His words are noteworthy : 
‘Statements such as these I have quoted amount in my opinion to a set 
of critical canons quite different from those of Wellhausen, and Dr. Driver 
would have been no more than just to himself if he had (as Koénig has 
done) accentuated the difference.” 

+ Prof. Driver (ntroduction, p. 138) says that “ Ezekiel’s book contains 
clear traces that he was acquainted with ‘what the critics now call the 
Law of Holiness’ (Leviticus, xvii-xxvi),” therefore “P” contains laws 
which were made before and after the Return from Captivity. Can the 
critics tell us which are the earlier laws and which the later ? If they can, 
why have they not done so? And until they have done so, of what use 
is their discovery ? 

{ Pachadh, for instance in Haggai, i, 1, for “governor”  shebat 
(Zechariah i, 7), the name of a month. 


IS THE SO-CALLED “‘ PRIESTLY CODE” OF POST-EXILIC DATE? 67 


could cast their prophecies into the earlier and purer Hebrew 
form, whilst simple narrators, like Ezra and Nehemiah, betray, 
as will be hereafter seen, the fact of their long sojourn in a 
strange land at every step. “P,” of course, has its narrative 
passages, as well as its legal specialisms. But never once does the 
“Priestly Code” fall into any expression which betrays 
Beeson or Persian origin, as the returned exiles continually 
do.™ 

I—We proceed to discuss the critical question in detail. The 
words and expressions specially characteristic of “ P” are stated 
by Dr. Driver to be 45 in number, beside geographical terms. 
These last need not be discussed. To avoid wearying my hearers 
and readers by technicalities unfamiliar to them, I shall only 
discuss some of the most significant instances; I shall relegate 
some more to the notes, where the reader can investigate them, 
it he pleases, at his leisure. For the rest | must refer those who 
read this paper, or hear it read, to two papers in the American 
Libliotheca Sacra for January and Apru, 1910.f I must also 
premise that although I and II Chronicles are allowed on all 
hands to be post-exilic books, a formal analysis is impossible ; 
because, as Prof. Driver declares, Hebrew historians were 
compilers, and their method of compilation consisted almost 
entirely in transferring bodily to their pages the passages they 
extracted from those whose works they used. ‘Therefore, as the 
Chronicler tells us that he quotes many pre-exilic authors, some 
portions of his narrative must have been written by himself, and 
some, ages before his time. This would make a linguistic 
analysis of his work practically impossible, though it might be 
a useful exercise for the critic in a region where we possess 
some information whereby to test his assertions. 

1. The Name of God.—As everyone who studies the subject 
knows, this has been, and sometimes stillis, represented to be 


* English law terms now in use frequently take us back to the days 
when French was the language of the law courts, but Haggai and 
Zechariah, Ezra and N ehemiah, use words denoting offices of state and 
the like, which are indubitably of Babylonian or Persian origin. 

+ London Agent, C. Higham & Son, Farringdon Street. 

{ I showed years ago in Lex Mosaica that this statement of Dr. Driver 
is far from correct. But he has continued to repeat it. If he is right, 
I am justified in regarding Chronicles as full of exact quotations, though 
Dr. Driver asserts (without proof) that the Chronicler did not use the 
authorities he pretends to follow. As a fact, he sometimes introduces, 
bodily, portions of Kings, and sometimes re-writes them. We may take 
it, therefore, that he has dealt with his other authorities in the same 


way. 
F 2 


68 THE REV. CHANCELLOR J. J. LIAS; M.A., ON 


the determining test by which the documents are to be separated. 
But this test has really been abandoned long since, both by 
Hupfeld,and Dr. Driver himself. Moreover Dr. Driver, in his 
analysis, “ excepts ” Genesis xvii, 1; xxi, 1b. This is simply a 
confession of failure. How can “Jehovah” occur in two 
verses of “P” when the basis of reasoning is the supposed fact 
that the author of “P” is an Elohist? It is also asserted 
that, as soon as the Priestly Codist gets to Exodus vi, 2, where 
Elohim reveals Himself as Jehovah, the former strict use of 
Elohim ceases. But Elohim still continues to be used ; only, 
after this revelation of the Covenant Name of God,the use of 
Elohim ceases to be a distinction of authorship. But then, 
how can it be contended that it ever was a distinction of 
authorship ? The ideas involved in the Name Jehovah may as 
well be supposed to have been projected by a later author into 
history of the past as employed in the later history. 

2. There are 11 words or expressions out of the 45 adduced, 
which only occur in “P.” Obviously they constitute no proof 
that “P” is post-exilic.* 

3. There are 9 which only occur in “ P,” Ezekiel or Jeremiah. 
These give no countenance to the post-exilic theory of “ P’s” 
origin. The two prophets may have been, and there is very 
little doubt now that they were, quoting a document of the 
Mosaic age. This disposes of 20 of the 45 instances, and thus 
materially diminishes the evidence that “ P” is a post-exilic 
fragment. 

4. Dr. Driver, once or twice, strangely describes the 
“ Deuteronomist ” as deriving his use of such a word as min 
(translated “ kind” in Genesis 1 and elsewhere) from “P.” As 
the “ Deuteronomist ” is asserted to have preceded “P” by 
some two or three centuries, it 1s difficult to see how this could 
be. Dr. Driver makes the same remark about the word sheretz, 
“to abound” or “swarm,” which occurs (noun and verb) frequently 
in the Pentateuch.t 

5. There are 12 words or phrases said to be characteristic of 
“ P ” which oecur elsewhere, and are therefore not characteristic 
of “P.’ Some are said “to occur in poetry,’—a good argument 
for the very early originof “P,” but none for its being post- 
exilic. Everyone knows how often poets, whatever their 


* Some of these occur in Chronicles, but for reasons already given are 
not counted. 

+ As to the word min, it is obviously a technical word, corresponding 
to the technical word genus, as now used by zoologists, and was doubtless 
thus used by Ezekiel. 


IS THE SO-CALLED “ PRIESTLY CODE” OF POST-EXILIC DATE? 69 


country and language, make use of archaic words, which have 
long fallen out of use in conversation or ordinary narrative. 
Sometimes the text of the passages outside “P” in which the 
word occurs, is said to be “doubtful.” Though a “doubtful ” 
text is not necessarily corrupt, it is certainly worthless in 
controversy. One word, “congregation” (ghedah), is said by 
Dr. Driver to be “rare in the other historical books.” But, as 
the other historical books were written long after Israel had 
settled in Palestine, there was every reason why the use of the 
word should have become rare. 

6. The words peculiar to “P” are thus reduced to 13 in 
number. It is scarcely worth while to discuss all these in detail. 
One of them, said “not” to be “the usual word” for “half,” 
does occur in Nehemiah. This might have furnished an argu- 
ment had it not been confessed that the word appears in 
I Kings xvi, 9. Concerning a second expression out of the 13, 
Dr. Driver adds in a parenthesis, that he does not give “a 
complete enumeration” of the passages in which it occurs. 
Then how does it come in asan argument ? A third word (vecush) 
“substance ” or “ possessions” and the cognate verb not only 
occurs in “JE” as well as in“ P” but it occurs several times in 
Genesis xiv, of which the critics have denied the genuineness, 
assigning it to a special document thoroughly inconsistent with 
the rest of the narrative.* It does occur in the post-exilic 
narratives, but is 20¢f peculiar to them and P. 

II.—I propose now to reverse my former process, and to show 
that post-exilic historians (Chronicles excepted for reasons above 
given) contain a large number of words and phrases entirely 
absent from “ P.” I fear that space will prevent me from going 
further than an analysis of Ezra, and indeed the subject is, as a 
rule, too technical for a general audience. I will first give a 
brief analysis of each chapter, and then proceed to comment on 
some words and phrases which present points of special interest. 
But I shall be obliged by the rules of the Institute to stop short 


* The case of Genesis xiv is a very unfortunate one for the critics. 
Many of the names mentioned occur in contemporary tablets, such as 
Amraphel, Arioch, Ellasar, Tidal. The word translated ‘‘ nations ” (gozm) 
also appears in the tablets. Aedur and Lagamar (Chedorlaomer) appear 
in the tablets, though not together. Worse than all, Genesis xiv seems to 
hint at the subsequent subjugation by Amraphel of his former leader 
Chedorlaomer. It should be noted that the vowels were seldom introduced 
in the early oriental texts. The only possible line of defence is that the 
names are not, and cannot be, the same, but the vehemence with which 
the defence is made suggests that the position is not too defensible. 


70 THE REV. CHANCELLOR J. J. LIAS, M.A., ON 


before I come to the end of these. I have already hinted that 
the prophecies of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, are, as a rule, 
written in the ancient Hebrew. But when they touch on 
historical names and offices, they use post-exilic names for them. 
“P” never, by any chance, does this. If they could not avoid 
it, how did he manage to do so ? 

Chapter 1—In Ezrai, 1, occurs a word, which, in the sense 
used here, is only found in “P” and the post-exilic books. 
This is nearly ali the evidence the critics have found in their 
favour. Per contra, there is in this verse a word, meaning a 
royal decree (lit. “a thing written”) which does not occur in 
“P,” or in any pre-exilic book (admitted to be such) in this 
sense. In the Pentateuch it means “a writing.” The rest of 
the chapter contains as many as ten expressions which are not 
found in “ P.” Some of them are altogether post-exilic; some 
occur only in the exilic or post-exilie writers; some are found 
as early as Judges. Instances of peculiar turns of expression 
are more important than single words. They point to altera- 
tions in the style of a language, which indicate a difference in 
date,—alterations such as Americanisms and “ journalese ” are’ 
now making in the once grand old English language, and may 
be found by the score in every copy of our daily papers. The 
changes in the use of prepositions, one of which occurs in this 
verse, into which “ P,” had he been a post exilc-writer, would 
have been sure toslip, are among the most significant signs of 
transition in a language.* One of the words used is Aramaic, 
and occurs also in the portion of Ezra which is written in the 
Aramaic. Aramaic was the language of the country outside 
Judea, and was kindred to Hebrew and to the Babylonian 
language. Another word is “ probably” of the same origin. 

Chapter 11 consists chiefly of names. But the words for 
“ province,’ two words for “ register” (lit “ writing,’—not quite 
the same word as ini, 1); the word Zvrshatha for“ governor,’ the 
words for “singing men” and “ singing women,’ are peculiar to 
the post-exilic books. The word for “mules” appears first in 
II Samuel. “P” never slips by accident into any of them,— 
not even in his Egyptian history, which bears marks of close 
acquaintance with Egypt and its customs. Surely these facts 
demand some notice from the critics, though so far it has not 
been accorded to them. The MNethinim are mentioned in this 


* The Greek of the New Testament displays traces of the tendency to 
similar changes which have become fixed in modern Greek. 
+ See Nehemiah frequently. 


29 


IS THE SO-CALLED “‘ PRIESTLY CODE” OF POST-EXILIC DATE? 71 
chapter. They were probably the substitutes for the Gibeonites, 
whom Saul slaughtered. (II Samuel xxi, 1, 2; see also Joshua 
ix, 23-27.) “P” “knows nothing,”—a favourite phrase of the 
German critics—of the Nethinim. Another point, too, demands 
further consideration. “P” “knows nothing” of porters (or 
gatekeepers). Of course not, for they were not wanted in the 
wilderness. The word here used occurs naturally enough in 
the historical books. But how was “ P,’ who, we are told by 
the critics, made so many, and such terrible blunder s, able to 
keep clear of it? He had, we are asked to believe, considerable 
powers of invention. Why did he not invent gatekeepers? The 
word for “ treasury,’ used here, occurs in “ JE,” though never in 
“Pp.” Itis therefore probably a word of the Mosaic period. 
Also a verb meaning “ to give willingly” occurs in Judges and 
the post-exilic books. “ P” always uses a substantive and a 
suitable verb for such gifts. 

Chapter i. —Fifteen words which are not in “P” occur 
here ; some of them date as far back as I Kings. Six of them are 
peculiar grammatical turns of expression, or words used in new 
senses. Two are Aramaic, and one of them is found in 
chapter vi, 9,the Aramaic portion ot the book. One or two of them 
are very unusual constructions, and give considerable trouble to 
the translator. One is found in Isaiah Ixv, in the post-exilic 
authors, and in Numbers xiv, but in this last the passage in 
which it appears is assigned by the critics to “JE.” Now, as in 
Numbers xiv, verses 1, 2 (in the main), 5-7, 10, 26-38 are 
assigned to “P,” it seems difficult to understand why this 
particular verse was not also assigned to him, as it would have 
made an additional argument for the post-exilic origin of that 
portion of the Pentateuch. Obviously, the fact was not 
discovered, or doubtless the passage in question would have 
been assigned to “ P.” 

Chapter iv.—The use of bahail actively, for “terrify” (Piel and 
Hiphil), is a mark of the later Hebrew. The word malkuth for 
“kingdom ” is rare in the earler Hebrew, but frequent in the 
post- -exilic writings. It occurs in Balaam’s prophecy. Was that 
a case of early Aramaic ? 

From iv, 8 to vi, 18, the text 1s in Aramaic. We therefore 
proceed to vi, 19. The word golah for “captivity” has been 
already discussed. Sadal, when implying moral separation, is 
not used.in “ P,” where it means physical removal (Numbers 
xvi, 21, where, however, the assignment to author is of the 
arbitrary kind so frequent with the critics). 

Chapter vi.—In the first nine verses,—of which the first six 


72 THE REV. CHANCELLOR J. J. LIAS, M.A., ON 


consist almost wholly of names,—we find three unusual 
expressions which are not found in“ P.” The first is found in 
the Psalms, the Proverbs, and in Isaiah xvi, 32; and though 
the word occurs in “ P” and in the earlier Hebrew, it is used in 
a different sense. The other two are only found in the post- 
exilic books. All three words and expressions relate to quite 
ordinary ideas, but the words for expressing them have become 
different in the post-exilic period. One is the “hand” or “good 
hand” of God. All these expressions might obviously have 
occurred in “P,” but they never do. Verses 12-26 are a copy 
of a letter of Artaxerxes in Aramaic. 

Chapter vii.—One word in this chapter does occur in “P” 
and the later Hebrew, but it also appears in what the critics 
call the “ Book of the Covenant” (Exodus xx—xxii), which the 
more moderate critics (they are by no means all agreed) assign 
to the Mosaic period ; so it cannot be used to prove that “ P” 
is not of Mosaic origin. Another word which occurs frequently 
n “ P” and in the later Hebrew occurs also in Deuteronomy, 
which the critics consider to have been written some three 
centuries before “ P.” Thirteen other expressions, some of them 
very peculiar post-exilic idioms, or clearly post-exilic words, are 
found in this chapter; “ P” never uses them.* 

Chapter ix.—Here occurs the only other instance (see 
chapter i, 1) of an expression which is confined to “P” and the 
post- -exilic writers. It may be dismissed as purely acccidental. 
Per contra, many and most remarkable instances of peculiar 
words and expressions of the post-exilic period, including the 
use, or rather misuse, of prepositions, occur in this chapter. I 
am sorry that the limits to which I am confined do not permit 
me to particularize them. They are most significant. Some of 
them may be due to a corrupt text, though they are far more 
likely to be due to the mistakes of men who had learned to 
speak the kindred Babylonian language or the Aramaic dialect. 
One of them is admitted by Dr. Driver to be “a distinctively 
late idiom,” and “ common in post-Biblical Hebrew.” Again he 
neglects to tell us that it never occurs in “PP.” Several of 
these passages,—and there are a good many elsewhere,—have 


* One of them appears in some copies of Moses’ Song (Deuteronomy 
xxx, 2), but there is another reading. One relating to governors of 
subordinate rank appears in 1 and 11 Kings, in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra, 
Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai and Malachi, but never in “ P.” 

+ [have treated them at length in my paper on this subject in the 
Bibliotheca Sacra for April, 1910. 


eo 
. 


IS THE SO-CALLED ‘“‘ PRIESTLY CODE” OF POST-EXILIG DATE? 70 


evidently given much trouble to the Revisers of the Authorised 
Version.* Some of them can only be the result of the attempt 
to write a language with which the writer was imperfectly 
acquainted. In his notes on Ezra iii, 3, 4, Prof. Driver 
remarks that expressions there noted appear in the Aramaic 
portions of Ezra. Ezra, therefore, was acquainted with 
Aramaic,t and was unable to refrain from introducing 
expressions from it in his attempt to write pure Hebrew. 
Strange and unintelligible expressions appear continually 
throughout the book. But in chapter ix they are very 
numerous, and unusually interesting to a student of Hebrew. 
But I am afraid, did I enter into further detail, it would weary 
those unacquainted with Hebrew. 

III. I have not attempted to analyse Nehemiah, Esther nor 
the post-exilic prophets, nor the other books which are supposed 
to have been written subsequent to the exile, for reasons already 
given. These latter are largely poetic, and poets, as we know, 
are apt to use archaic terms. But Prof. Driver has given in 
his Lntroduction, a list of words and idioms peculiar to the books 
of Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles, and I propose to conclude 
with some remarks upon that list. 

It consists of about 50 words and turns of expression. Out 
of the 108 words and turns of expression in Ezra already 
passed in review,t only two are peculiar to it and to “P.” Of 
Dr. Driver’s list, consisting of about 50 words and turns of 
expression “ distinctly post-exilic,’ as he admits some of them 
to be, and “ common Aramaic words,” as he admits others to be, 
only one is peculiar to the post-exilic writers and “P.” It is 
true that Dr. Driver contends that there are two, but he forgets 
that the passage (Numbers xiii, 27) in which the second word 
occurs is assigned by himself to “JE,” while Joshua xxu, 16, 31, 
which he also cites, is assigned by him to an “ uncertain” source. 
Therefore, in this case the word is common to the Pentateuch 
(“JE” and “P”), “an uncertain source,” and the post-exilic 
authors. So that the general conclusion to be drawn from the 
enquiry is that, of the admittedly post-exilic words and phrases, 
no more than one in about 50 is common only to the post-exilic 


* As may be seen in their marginal notes. 

+ Unless we are “scientific” critics of the school of the later critics of 
Isaiah, and divide the writer of the book of Ezra into ten or twelve 
different persons. 

{t Many of them are found-in Prof. Driver’s list, which, however, I did 
not consult before writing my remarks on them. 


74 THE REV. CHANCELLOR J. J. LIAS, M.A., ON 


authors and to “ P.” And in the one exceptional case, the post- 
exilic writers might have had the completed Pentateuch before 
them, and have been quoting it. All this tends to confirm the 
traditional theory that “P,” as well as the rest of the 
Pentateuch, was written before any other books. 

Nor is this all. In spite of all this elaborate study of words 
altogether absent from the earher books, and of the numerous 
involved, foreign, and sometimes quite unintelligible con- 
structions, noted by Dr. Driver in the post-exilic books, he 
never once drops a hint that none of these expressions appear 
in “P.”* Is this because he is so obsessed by the idea that “ P” 
is post-exilic, that it never occurs to him to notice any fact 
which throws doubt on that theory? It is at least fair to point 
out that observers who can only see the particular side of the 
case which they have elected to take are not thoroughly 
qualified for their task. 

The fact, once more, that Ezra, unlike many other post-exilic 
authors, never uses the well-known post-exilic abbreviation sh 
for asher (“ which”),f may be accounted for by the fact that he 
was a “ready scribe,’ and was therefore more familiar with 
Hebrew than most of the other writers of his period. The 
occurrence of the definite article for the relative pronoun, 
however, pronounced by Dr. Driver to be very unusual, and of 
doubtful occurrence elsewhere, is a construction found only four 
times in Chronicles and twice in Ezra. That it is absent from 
“P” is, as usual, a fact not noted. Moreover Dr. Driver adds 
that “ Hardly a verse occurs written by the Chronicler himself 
which does not present singularities of style, though they are 
frequently of a kind which refuses to be tabulated.” 
Peculiarities of style then are admittedly a characteristic of the 
post-exilic historians. Can it be a sound criticism which fails to 
observe that no such eccentricities have ever been detected in 
ae aaa 


* T have gone into a detailed examination of Dr. Driver’s list in the 
article already named. 

+ It occurs frequently in Judges, where it is obviously a provincialism. 
The book was probably written by a northern Israelite. 

{ I find that I have neglected to remark on the fact that the post-exilic 
writers have quite a different coinage from that of ‘“‘P” and writers of 
earlier date. The earlier writers (“ P” included) know of nothing but 
shekels. The post-exilic authors occasionally speak of darics (coms of 
Darius). The Chronicler himself ventures on this point to introduce the 
more modern word into his narrative of earlier days. There are two 
such words used in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. One of them, that 
used in Chronicles, might mean the Greek drachma. 


IS THE SO-CALLED “‘ PRIESTLY CODE” OF POST-EXILIC DATE? 75 


IV.—A few general remarks may conclude this paper. We 
commenced with the assertion that criticism, as at present 
conducted, is not one of the exact sciences, and that if on some 
points it may claim to be exact, those claims are confined within 
very narrow limits indeed. The instances given in this paper 
will be held by many of my hearers to confirm this assertion. 
And the way in which Wellhausen and his followers use what 
they call “historical” criticism, by adding which to literary 
they claim to have arrived at indisputable conclusions, will be 
regarded by most historical critics as altogether unique. The 
real fact is that, as the late Prof. Orr has reminded us, the 
authors of the latest form of analytical criticism, Graf, Well- 
hausen and Kuenen, were convinced that what is called “the 
supernatural” has no existence. It is on that basis that their 
enquiry is conducted; but, as [ trust we have seen,* an inquiry 
on that basis requires canons of historical criticism which are 
altogether inadmissible. Consequently, so far from being 
“ scientific,’ the methods employed are the very opposite. The 
destructive critic, moreover, in assuming the impossibility of the 
supernatural, makes assumptions which have always been 
strongly contested, have frequently been disputed by scientific 
investigators, and at the last Meeting of the British Association 
were largely declared to be unnecessary and unreasonable. 
The presuppositions that every religion was evolved from 
fetichism, and that it advanced through animism and polytheism 
to monotheism, are not only shown to be incorrect by ascientific 
thinker so well known as the late Mr. Andrew Lang, but they 
can only be maintained by striking all assertions to the contrary 
out of the Old Testament Scriptures, and by turning their 
contents inside out and upside down. Their strongest and most 
solemn affirmations on religious matters are contradicted, and 
declared to be forgeries of a far later date,t The majestic 
Mosaic Law, with its extraordinarily minute foreshadowings of 
the Life and Teaching of the Redeemer of mankind, is, we are 
told, not Mosaic at all, but is “evolved” out of the most 


* See above, pp. 64, 65. 

t See Pentateuch, passim, as to the fact that the whole civil, legal and 
ecclesiastical polity of Israel originated with Moses. As to the fact that 
the Old Testament asserts that from the first the religion of Israel 
differed fundamentally from that of the surrounding nations, see 
Deuteronomy v, 14, 15 ; viii, 19, 20; xi, 28 ; xiii, throughout ; xvi, 2, 7; 
Xvili, 9,12, 20, Also Leviticus xviii, 2, 24-28; xx, 22-24, 26 ; Exodus, 
XXxill, 23, 24 is admitted to be Mosaic by many critics who ‘deny the 
authenticity of the rest of the Pentateuch. 


76 THE REV. CHANCELLOR J. J. LIAS, M.A., ON 


unpromising material possible, and at a period of Jewish history 
the most unlikely to give an opportunity of such “evolution ” as 
could well be imagined. The most glorious. poet-moralist that 
ever appeared in this w orld, every chapter of whose prophecy is 
stamped with the characteristics of his unique personality, is 
split up, to the edification of youthful pupils in “Colleges and 
Schools,’: into eleven or twelve different individualities of 
different dates and divergent mental characteristics. The 
wonderful passages in which the history of the Coming Messiah 
was foreshadowed, first vaguely in the Pentateuch, then more 
definitely in the Psalms, in the four greater prophets and in 
some of the minor ones, are with extraordinary insistency and 
ingenuity assigned to persons who have never existed, or declared 
to refer to events which never occurred. It was only natural 
that the superstructures erected on so sandy a foundation would 
prove very unsafe, and, as Mr. Harold Wiener has lately 
shown, the eritics had reckoned without their host. They 
neglected textual criticism; they built their imposing critical 
structures on the Massoretic text, and lo! it has deserted them 
in their need. Even the author of the Commentary on Isaiah to 
which I have adverted has, as I understand, admitted lately 
that some, at least, of the critical work must be done over 
again. ‘Thus the edifice, which has been constructed with such 
infinite care and pains, will have to be taken down, and 
some equally insecure fabric, we may be pretty sure, erected in 
its stead. 

It could not be otherwise. True scientific investigation does 
not start on assumptions of infallibility ; nor does it decline to 
recognize the labours of men in a far distant past. It does not 
scorntfully refuse to be criticized; on the contrary, 1t recognizes 
the criticism of the critic to be a necessary mode of arrival at 
truth. It does not ignore the discoveries of others: 1t examines 
them, and, when fully established, incorporates them into its 
system. The “ traditional” critic, who is often in these days 
laughed out of court, has made discoveries recently, as well as 
others, and he is quite as anxious to arrive at truth as anyone 
else can be. We shall never advance swiftly and securely in the 
criticism of Scripture until critics of all schools make endeavours 
to understand one another, and are willing, in a spirit of 
brotherly emulation, freely to exchange opinions on all questions 
which tend, directly or indirectly, to increase our knowledge of 
the Divine Scheme for the education of the world. 

V.—I cannot refrain from adding a very few words on the 
general effect of such criticism, as I have been describing, on 


IS THE SO-CALLED ‘“ PRIESTLY CODE” OF POST-EXILIC DATE? 77 


Christian faith and morality. I have met with earnest believers 
in Revealed Religion, who have said to me that they did not 
care at what time the various books of the Old Testament were 
composed or compiled, because their contents were of such a 
nature that they compel every pious and godly person to bow 
before them as the voice of the Eternal God. The critics, too, 
have frequently endeavoured to gloss over the real tendencies of 
their criticism by arguing that it leaves the value of Scripture 
unimpaired or even enhanced by the hight that is thrown upon 
them. But is thisso? What is that “light”? It reveals to 
us, if the critics are to be believed, a volume which deliberately 
and perseveringly states what is untrue, because it has been 
deliberately and perseveringly forged in the interests of false- 
hood, which, in this particular case, happen to coincide with 
the interests of true religion. Any intelligent man, reading the 
Pentateuch as it stands, must feel that it distinctly asserts two 
propositions: first, that Moses was the ultimate source of the 
contents of that volume; and next, that he and he alone was 
the author of the civil and religious code which Israel has 
handed down to subsequent ages. The critics tell us that both 
these statements are false. I have no objection to concede that 
“JE,” as a portion of the volume is called, may claim to be 
exempted from the accusation of deliberate falsehood. Its 
authors may have collected to the best of their ability the 
unwritten traditions they found existing in their respective 
neighbourhoods some hundreds of years after the events 
narrated are supposed to have occurred. But the critics at 
least give us to understand that none of these traditions had 
any solid foundation, and that in the main they must be 
pronounced contrary to fact. And no excuse, at least, can be 
made for the author of Deuteronomy and for “ PP.” The former, 
we are asked to believe, deliberately composed his book in the 
name of Moses in the reign either of Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh 
or Josiah, in order that he might lay the foundations of a 
monotheism in which his forefathers had never believed, and 
carefully smuggled his book into the Temple, in the hope that 
it might be found there, and that this mignt lead to the idea 
that it was really an ancient document! So also we are asked 
to accept the postulate that the author of the Priestly Code 
knew perfectly well that Moses had not given the instructions 
contained in Leviticus; but so long as he could make the Jews 
believe that he had done so, it did not matter in the least 
whether his statements were true or false. Then again, we are 
asked to take it for granted. that a large number of scribes gave 


78 THE REV. CHANCELLOR J. J. LIAS, M.A., ON 


themselves to the task of interpolating and fusing all the 
histories in order to bring them into line with the forgeries of 
their own time. The morality of these proceedings is on a level 
with the probability that so shameless an imposture should ever 
have led an undeniably great nation astray. We are in the habit 
of reading the Scriptures in public at our worship. But can any 
man with a spark of honesty in his composition who believes in 
these astounding theories, ever read these books in the congre- 
gation without tellime the poor deluded creatures who are 
listening to him, that they must not for a moment imagine 
these stories to be true ? 

Moreover, having got so far, critical science is compelled to go 
further still. It now tells us that the Gospel of St. John, 
composed, as the liberal critic Harnack has admitted, within ten 
years of the period to which the Christian Church has for 
eighteen centuries assigned it, does not, as it pretends to do, 
contain the teaching of Christ; that it was deliberately forged 
in the name of the Apostle who leaned on His breast at the 
Last Supper; and that the Christian Church was tricked, no 
one knows how, into accepting it, and handing it down as 
genuine.* And yet Ireneus, who was the disciple of Polycarp, 
who was the disciple and personal friend of St. John himself, 
speaks of that Gospel as one of the four foundations on which 
the Gospel message to the world is based. It is not likely that 
I shall read another paper before the Victoria Institute; but 
the last words I am likely to speak here may well be a protest, 
in the Name of the God of Truth, on the part of one who has 
been a minister of Jesus Christ for 55 years, against such 
theories of the composition and transmission of books which, 
from at least three centuries B.c. to the twentieth century after 
His Coming, have been acknowledged by the Christian Church 
either to be authentic histories of the works and words of our 
common Master, or of the preparation for that Coming. It is 
a strange way of recommending Him to the present and to 
future ages, to contend that He, Who was the Truth as well as 


* Criticism which boasts that it is “scientific” does not scruple to 
ignore the fact that it must have been altogether impossible in the first 
two centuries of the Christian era to launch forgeries upon so unique a 
society as the Christian Church. Not only were the members of that 
society drawn closely together by mutual offices of love, but, as the Acts 
of the Apostles clearly shows, the constant mutual communication 
between its members in every part would make the detection of a forgery 
immediate and inevitable. 


1S THE SO-CALLED “ PRIESTLY CODE” OF POST-EXILIC DATE? 79 


the Way and the Life, has allowed His character and message 
to be obscured by falsehood and forgery, and that for the truth 
about Him He has left us to the researches of scholars who 
do not, and cannot, agree among themselves as to what He 
did or said. 


DISCUSSION. 


Mr. HAROLD WIENER regretted that he had been so busy since 
he had received his copy of Chancellor Lias’ important paper that he 
had had no time to examine into the details of his linguistic argu- 
ment, but the opinions of the critics in this respect had undergone 
great changes from time to time. For instance the word recush, 
referred to on p. 69, occurred in Genesis xiv, which had been 
generally ascribed by the critics to post-exilic times, but a recent 
critic, Sellin, now ascribed it to pre-Mosaic times ; the widest range 
possible. But indeed the linguistic argument of the critics rested on 
sand. Professor Eerdmans, the pupil and successor of Kuenen, 
after prolonged study of it, had been forced to discard it altogether. 
Inferences that had once been accepted as not mere theories, but 
immutable facts, were untenable, since the remains of Hebrew 
literature were much too scanty to supply the means of dating 
single words. 

But he would wish to turn from the argument drawn from 
language and ask them to consider the substance of the Priestly 
Code. Did it bear the marks of the post-exilic period, or lend itself 
to late surroundings? The dress throughout was purely of the 
desert life. It might be said that the originator of the Code tried 
to project himself backwards into desert conditions, and give his laws 
a desert setting, but if they looked beyond the mere phraseology, to 
ascertain what was the heart of the Code, they found conspicuous 
the duties of the Levites. One whole tribe was set apart for work 
connected with the Sanctuary—he would not use the word 
“tabernacle” as that was assuming the issue to some extent. The 
chief duties of the Levites were to take down, pack up, carry from 
place to place, and set up again the Sanctuary and its furniture. 
What sort of relation had this to the circumstances of the men of 
either the exilic or the post-exilic age ? How could such laws possibly 
apply to the second Temple? We must presume some degree of 
intelligence in the forger of the Code, but if we lay aside 


80 THE REV. CHANCELLOR J. J. LIAS, M.A., ON 


Deuteronomy, the Code assigns nothing else for the Levites to do. 
The book of Chronicles represents the completed Law in action 
according to the Wellhausen school, but if we compare its state- 
ments about the Levites with the rules of P, we find that, according 
to the latter, many of the duties assigned by the Chronicler to the 
Levites would have been visited with death by the author of P! 

If we take the Priestly Code alone, the priesthood is represented 
as being very simply constituted—one man, the High Priest, and 
his sons. If we turn to the first book of Samuel, to the account of 
Eli, we find that the High Priest has patronage and emoluments at 
his disposal :—‘‘ Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priest’s offices 
that I may eat 2 piece of bread.” There is no organization 
corresponding to this state of thingsin P. Further, Leviticus refers 
to a primitive time when men slew their own sacrifices. Later on, 
under the kings, when the people were more civilized, this duty was 
delegated to others, and Ezekiel complains that heathen were 
employed to kill the sacrifices. ‘Throughout P, the congregation is 
evidently within a stone’s throw of the Sanctuary. Thus in 
Leviticus xvii it is assumed that animals can be brought to the door 
of the Sanctuary for sacrifice, and in P if any man is ill or cere- 
monially unclean in the first month of the year, he is to keep the 
Passover in the second month. How would such provisions fit a 
period when there was a large diaspora in Babylon and Egypt? So 
with the provisions for leprosy. How was it possible fora man in 
Babylon in post-exilic days to bring a garment suspected of leprosy 
to Jerusalem, for the priests to examine it ? A very striking case is 
that of the daughters of Zelophehad. This must have been a case 
of common occurrence, when a peasant died and left no male heir ; 
it could not have been left to be regulated many centuries later by 
a forger. The inheritance of Zelophehad was confirmed tv his 
daughters, but it was objected by the other members of the tribe, 
that if these married out of the tribe, the inheritance would pass 
away from the tribe ; so it was enacted that they must marry with- 
in their own tribe. How could this law have been laid down after 
the exile when the tribes had ceased to have a separate existence ? 

Professor Eerdmans has dealt with Leviticus lately in ‘ Das 
Buch Leviticus” [1912], and however far we may be from accepting 
his construction the study contains a great deal of very valuable 
material. | 


IS THE SO-CALLED ‘‘ PRIESTLY CODE” OF POST-EXILIC DATE? 81 


The only criticism that he would make on Chancellor Lias’ paper 
was this, that the critics would always shuffle out from an argument 
resting on the linguistic basis. 

Mrs. MAUNDER pointed out that the critics ascribed the Priestly 
Code to the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus, when the Zoroastrian 
faith was in full vigour. The Jews had then been under Persian 
rule for 80 years, whereas they had been under Babylonian for only 
50. If this were the date of the Priestly Code, we ought to find some 
traces of, or reference to, the Magian and Zoroastrian doctrines. 
We do find such traces in the book of Tobit, the keynote of 
which is the pious action of Tobit in burying the body of a murdered 
countryman ; the author assuming that the burial customs at 
Nineveh in the days of Sennacherib were the same as he had 
experience of some centuries later at Rhagae and Ecbatana. Now 
in the whole of the Priestly Code we have no hint of the knowledge 
of such a custom as the exposure of the corpse to be devoured by 
birds and beasts, the fundamental practice of Zoroastrianism. We 
find from the Talmud that the later Jews imbibed a number of 
superstitions concerning devils and demons from the Persians ; 
there is no trace of any of these, either by way of recognition or 
condemnation, in the Priestly Code. In the Zoroastrian idea, the 
north was the abode of devils; it was forbidden to pour out, 
even one’s household water, towards the north, lest it be taken as a 
libation to them. But P orders in Leviticus i, 11, that the priest 
shall kill the sacrifice before the altar, ‘‘ northward ” before the Lord. 


Canon R. B. GIRDLESTONE hoped that so far from this being 
Chancellor Lias’ last paper to them, he would live twenty years 
longer and give them many more. He had been very glad to see 
that Mr. Wiener was there, and to hear what he had said ; 
especially as he belonged to the Israelite people. He was right in 
saying that they must consider the setting of the Code as well as its 
words. If they took Leviticus as a whole, and as a member of a 
still greater living whole, then they could see how admirably it 
fitted together. But on the other hand he was not willing to 
surrender the linguistic argument, which was most precious. They 
found in the Pentateuch old words, a definite coinage that vanished 
in the later books. When they compared the books of Samuel and 
Kings with Chronicles, and tested the Hebrew, sentence by sentence, 


they found that the Chronicler, whilst quoting from’ Samuel and 
G 


82 THE REV. CHANCELLOR J. J. LIAS, M.A., ON 


Kings, often varied individual words, substituting for the older one 
the word current in his own time. It was often extremely difficult 
to tell the date when a word originated ; when, for instance, did the 
words “slump ” and “meticulous,” which are now current, first come 
into use? But sometimes a word marked a date distinctly ; if, for 
instance, we found in a book purporting to have been written a 
hundred and fifty years ago, the word “ boycott,” we should feel 
suspicious. So the use of the “talent” as meaning a man’s gifts, 
could not well be earlier than our Lord’s parable. The omission of 
a word proved nothing, unless the context had required it to be 
used ; there must have been something suitable to introduce it. 
Sometimes, however, there were two words for one thing, as, for 
instance, there were two words in the Hebrew for a “sickle,” the 
one used in the earlier documents, the other in the later. So with 
the ‘‘shewbread ”; the first name for it, described its use; the 
second word, which might be more fitly rendered ‘ rowbread,” 
referred to the arrangement of the loaves in rows. Again the name 
of David is differently written in Samuel and Kings from that in 
Chronicles ; in the first there are but three letters, in the last there 
are four. There are also dialectic differences ; here in London 
there is a very distinctive dialect, one that he was thankful he 
had never been able to acquire—the Cockney dialect. Arabs at the 
present day have no p in their alphabet, and the Ephraimites were 
unable to say “shibboleth.” Leviticus is a book of Ritual, not of 
History, and abounds in technical words which need accurate 
translation. They run through the Old Testament. Whence came 
the word Ephah if not from Egypt? What has happened to 
the familiar Tabernacle of meeting between Leviticus and Ezekiel, 
so that whilst it is found dozens of times in the one book it is only 
in what may be called an antiquarian note in the other (chap. xli, 1) 
How is it that the “sheep” of Leviticus are conspicuous by their 
absence in Ezekiel? Similar questions may be asked—and will be 
asked about other words. They need patient study and will repay 
it. So will the terms of the great prophetic chapter (xxvi) if they 
are traced through the other books. 

Mr. E. WALTER MAUNDER drew attention to the statement in the 
first chapter of Genesis that the sun and moon were for “ seasons,” 
as well as for signs, and for days and years ; ‘‘ seasons” meaning 
times for solemn assembly for the worship of God. In the 


IS THE SO-CALLED “¢ PRIESTLY CODE” OF POST-EXILIC DATE? 83 


ceremonial law the sun and moon were for “‘ seasons,” in this sense. 
The sun, by its rising and setting, gave the seasons for daily worship ; 
the moon by its appearance as “new,” the season for monthly wor- 
ship ; sun and moon together, by the full moons of spring and 
autumn, the seasons for the two great annual feasts of Passover and 
Tabernacles. This system was raised to a higher piane by the 
sanctification of the seventh ; the seventh day was the Sabbath, the 
day of worship ; the seventh month was pre-eminently the month of 
worship ; it opened with the Feast of Trumpets, its tenth day was 
the great Day of Atonement; the seventh year was the Sabbatic 
year. And the week, whether of the day or of the year, was itself 
raised to a higher plane ;—the week of weeks in days from the 
morrow after the Sabbath of -Unleavened Bread, was the I*east of 
Pentecost ; the week of weeks in years terminated with the blowing 
of the trumpets of Jubilee after the High Priest had pronounced the 
solemn absolution of the people at the close of the Great Day of 
Atonement. This was the time of ‘the restitution of all things ” ; 
the nation was cleansed from its sins, the Hebrew slave regained his 
liberty, and the alienated inheritance returned to its former owner. 
But this period of a week of weeks of years is a ‘ restitution of all 
things” in the calendar ; to use an astronomical term, it is a Juni- 
solar cycle. The Jewish calendar was then regulated by actual 
observation ; the month began with the actual observation of the 
young crescent in the sky ; the first month of the year, Abib, the 
month of green ears, was that when the barley was sufficiently ripe 
for offering. But it would occasionally happen that the sky would 
be cloudy at the beginning of a month ; then some rule had to be 
followed ; and the priests had only to ascertain what was done in 
the corresponding month of the corresponding year of the preceding 
Jubilee period, to know what they should ordain. 

What connection has this with the date of the Priestly Code ? 
Just this. This system could only work as long as the Jews dwelt 
in the narrow compass of their own land, for the Jubilee cycle was 
not nearly accurate enough for use after they were scattered from 
Media in the north to Syene on the Nile in the south. But we know 
that they then had some means of arranging their calendar, for a 
number of commercial contracts have been found at Syene, bearing 
both Egyptian and Jewish dates. As we know the Egyptian calen- 
dar, the Jewish dates can be interpreted, and it appears that the 

G 2 


84 THE REV, CHANCELLOR J. J. LIAS, M.A., ON 


Jews were then able to predict the new moon. This they probably 
did by means of the luni-solar cycle for 19 years that gives us the 
Golden Number of the rules for finding Easter, in our book of 
Common Prayer. The present Jewish calendar is founded on this 
same Metonic cycle, as it is usually called. The dates of these con- 
cracts extend from the reign of Xerxes to that of Darius Nothus, so 
that the very period of the supposed origin of P is covered. It is 
clear that the Jubilee cycle was not, and could not have been, 
used for dating these papyri; and that once the 19-year cycle 
had been discovered, no new ceremonial system based on the 49-year 
cycle, which was only fitted for a small country, would have been 
invented amongst the Jews of the Dispersion. 

Dr. THIRTLE remarked that when examining the claims of the 
Priestly Code, we are compelled to consider other aspects of 
analytical theory as it regards the Pentateuch. Then we find that 
the entire budget of critical speculation goes together—and thanks 
to the labours of scholars in many lands, it is all going together in 
another sense ! 

Mr. Harold Wiener, to whom we have just listened, has put 
criticism “ off its feet’ in regard to its prodigious inferences from 
the distribution of the Divine designations. 

In the Pentateuch we have the priesthood and offerings ; in the 
so-called “ Code” the same features appear. The difference lies 
here, however: while the Pentateuch exhibits the institutions in 
relation to Moses, the law-giver of Israel, criticism represents them 
as coming on the scene after the time of the great prophets. The 
confusion is not one of documents merely, but of the objective con- 
tent of history, as it relates to the ways of God in dealing with the 
Israelitish nation. 

A short time ago, Rev. Iverach Munro read before the Institute a 
paper on the Samaritan Pentateuch and its problems. We do well 
now to recall that the facts of that well-known recension of the 
Pentateuch supply an unanswerable case against the post-exilic date 
of the Priestly Code, and for that matter of any part of the early 
books of the Bible. The schismatic history of the Northern Kingdom 
of Israel demands the institutions—that is, the material content— 
of the Priestly Code centuries before the exile. Without the aspect 
of schism, joined to that of rebellion, we cannot understand Israel- 
itish history, either as regards the Ten Tribes or the Two. 


IS THE SO-CALLED “‘ PRIESTLY CODE” OF POST-EXILIC DATE? 89 


The Rey. F. E. SPENCER said: I desire to apply as briefly as may 
be the scientific inductive method to the books of the Chronicles, 
and, I believe with the good will of Chancellor Lias, to draw con- 
clusions from this method which may supplement what has already 
been said. 

The Chronicles divide into parts, of which the sources are either 
given, or may be inferred. I propose to offer an argument, which 
may be called an argument strictly from what is called source 
criticism. The sources of the Chronicles are fairly certain. They 
consist of ancient genealogies; lists extracted from the archives 
which began with David ; speeches and histories derived from pro- 
phetic writings contemporary with the events ; a Psalm sung at the 
bringing up of the ark; and other like things taken from old 
contemporary documents. The Chronicler selects these with a clear 
purpose, hands them on in a manner which clearly evidences, as 
Graf has proved, one hand, and adds reflections of his own. As 
certain of these ancient documents are longer or shorter extracts, 
forty-five in number, from Samuel and Kings, we may clearly trace 
the hand and manner of the Chronicler in transcribing them, and 
arguing from this, and from treatment which is exactly on the 
same lines which we find in the other parts, we may infer that the 
way in which he has handled documents now inaccessible to us 
resembles his manner of treatment of Samuel and Kings. I think 
we are all along on completely safe ground. We are not forcing an 
hypothesis, but examining facts and explaining them. We have the 
advantage in this investigation of help from Girdlestone’s Deutero- 
graphs, Davidson’s very thorough researches, Graf’s monograph, and 
Kittel’s Critical Hebrew Bible. Davidson’s researches are of peculiar 
value in this matter. They date from 1862. They are quite free 
from prejudice, without the slightest apologetic leaning, and have 
no hypothesis to serve. Davidson also, in the Chronicles, is com- 
paratively free from that infusion of vinegar which vitiates his 
otherwise valuable Introduction for the ordinary reader. Graf, in 
1866, is bent on a hypothesis, but is still scientifically valuable. 

To gather up then the result. 

We find we have clear reason for attributing complete honesty to 
the Chronicler. Throughout he is compiling ancient sources. He 
did not invent David’s speeches. He was not competent to do so. 
He only modernised them. I think the more reasonable account of 


86 IS THE SO-CALLED “* PRIESTLY CODE” OF POST-EXILIC DATE ? 


the Psalm, very expressly said to have been sung at the bringing up 
of the ark, is, that the Chronicler is correct to his source. It was so 
sung. And the constituent parts of it were, either before or after, 
taken up into the official Psalm-book in a different way, 7.¢., it was 
either adapted from existing Psalms, or taken up into Psalms 96 and 
105 later. 

The Chronicler all along modernises and explains every one of his 
ancient sources. Perhaps the most striking instance is when in 
I Chronicles xxix, 7, he calculates the offering of David’s princes in 
darics, which were certainly not the Davidic currency. Nor did 
the Chronicler think so himself. We have the authority of Buhl for 
saying the word means darics, the Persian currency. It will not be 
necessary to labour the point that the Pentateuch discovers not a trace 
of this modernising and explaining. The Torah, on the contrary, is 
allowed on all hands to hand on traces of a much more ancient past 
in words and things. <A large part of it is only applicable to a 
camp in the desert. In the Chronicles much is altered. But none 
of these alterations, modernisings, or explanations have invaded the 
Pentateuch text in any way, though there are traces of later editing 
here and there. 

I hold, therefore, that it is a good and scientific inference that 
these facts point to the Pentateuch having come down to the 
Chronicler’s time as a sacred deposit—far too sacred to be tampered 
with—from the ancient times, which its own witness professes. 

If P was only recent in the Chronicler’s time, or if P was only 
then coming into being, traces of the Chronicler’s method and style, 
which was the method and style of his time, would infallibly have 
been found in it. 

Mr. MArTIN L. Rouse thought that no evidence of chronological 
custom should be based upon the Assouan papyri, since, to his 
mind, the genuineness of those documents was open to question. 

Prof. LANGHORNE ORCHARD congratulated the Institute upon 
this important paper, read to them by a distinguished scholar who 
knew so well how to yoke learning with logic, and harness them 
both in the service of truth. They all hoped that he would be 
spared to give them yet other papers as valuable as this, for which 
they heartily thanked him. 

The Meeting adjourned at 6.30 p.m. 


0952ND ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING, 


HELD IN THE ROOMS OF THE INSTITUTE, ON MONDAY, 
MARCH 2yp, 1914, AT 4.30 p.m. 


THE Rev, Canon R. B. GIRDLESTONE, M.A., VICE-PRESIDENT, 
TOOK THE CHAIR. 


The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed, and 
the SEcRETARY announced the election of Mr. George Avenell as an 
Associate of the Institute. 


LiCl ARACTIR OF THE BIBLE INFERRED. FROM 
ITS VERSIONS. By the Rev. T. H. Dartow, M.A., 
LITERARY SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BIBLE SOCIETY. 


ORE than forty years ago Henry Rogers, the author of The 
Eclipse of Faith, published a volume of lectures which he 
entitled The Superhuman Origin of the Bible inferred from itself. 
The lecturer set out to show that Holy Scripture cannot be 
accounted for as the mere product of human faculties and forces. 
He argued with singular power “that the Bible is not such a 
book as man would have made, if he could; or could have made, 
if he would.” 

The present paper only attempts to illustrate and develop 
one minor aspect of a corresponding argument. for several 
years it has fallen to my lot to study the history of Bible 
translation. And I venture to believe that certain conclusions 
in regard to the character of the Bible may be inferred from its 
versions In sO many varieties of human speech. 

To begin with, let us recall one fact which is so obvious that 
it escapes attention. To nine hundred and ninety-nine persons 
out of every thousand the Bible can only come in the shape of 
a translation. Even among the members of the Victoria 
Institute many would confess that they do not habitually 
read their daily portion of Scripture in Hebrew or Greek. 
And for the mass of mankind such reading of the original 
text is plainly impossible—and always will be. God’s Book 


88 THE REV. T. H. DARLOW, M.A., ON THE CHARACTER 


was meant to betranslated ; and God’s purpose is fulfilled as the 
Bible speaks to every man in his own tongue in which he was 
born. 3 

The command to go into all the world and to preach the 
Gospel to every creature applies to the Bible as well as to the 
Church; and to fulfil its mission God’s Book must needs 
become all things to all men. The translation of the Scriptures 
began in the earliest ages of the Church, and moves along the 
central tide of Christian history. This work did not wait for 
the formal decree of any Council; it proceeded from the deep, 
spontaneous Christian instinct that.every man must learn the 
Gospel in his own tongue. Early in the second century, from 
the Church at Antioch where the disciples were first called 
Christians, came the original impulse to turn the Scriptures 
into Syriac, which was then the common speech of the regions 
lying east of Antioch towards the Kuphrates valley. About the 
end of the third century, though in the Church at Alexandria 
men spoke Greek, the first Coptic version arose, made for the 
native Egyptians. In the fourth century, from the Church at 
Constantinople proceeded the early Gothic version, for the 
barbarous invaders of the Eastern Empire. From the Council 
of Ephesus a band of young Armenians carried back to their 
native land certain manuscripts, by whose aid the Armenian 
version was formed at the end of the fifth century, after 
Miesrob had for that purpose constituted the earhest Armenian 
alphabet. Similarly, in the ninth century, Cyril and Methodius 
invented what has since become the Russian alphabet and 
translated the Scriptures into Slavonic—the beginning of books 
and of letters for the great Slavonic race. The. Frankish and ’ 
Teutonic conquerors of the Western Empire accepted Latin 
as the common tongue which every educated man could 
read and speak; so Jerome’s Latin bible became for them not a 
sealed book, but literally their Vulgate, or common version, and 
remained the Bible of Western Christendom for a thousand 
years. When printing began in the middle of the fifteenth 
century, it was natural and fitting that the first complete book 
to issue from Gutenberg’s press at Mainz should be the Latin 
Bible. More than 100 editions of the Vulgate were printed 
before that century ended, and other versions speedily followed 
in the principal vernaculars of Europe. In Italy, for instance, 
the Italian Bible was printed a dozen times before the year 
A.D. 1500; and in Germany eighteen folio editions of the 
German Bible had already appeared when Luther published his 
New Testament. 


OF THE BIBLE INFERRED FROM ITS VERSIONS. 89 


But the history of Bible translation is too long to summarize. 
Let me only mention some results. So far as I can form an 
estimate, after research among printed editions of the 
Scriptures, I find that at least some book of the Bible has been 
translated and published in about 680 different languages and 
dialects. That total, however, includes certain obsolete languages 
represented by the printed text of early manuscript ‘trans- 
lations; and it also takes in as many as sixty-five existing 
dialects in which versions have been produced merely for 
philological reasons. Making these deductions, the fact remains 
that at least some book of Holy Scripture has now been published, 
with a religious or missionary purpose, in quite 600 distinct forms 
of human speech. 

Try for a moment to realize the significance of such figures. 
The Gospel speaks to the world already in ten times as many 
versions as can be claimed for any masterpiece of human 
literature, and the disproportion goes on increasing year by year. 
One other book does indeed pass that ratio. The versions of 
the Pilgrim’s Progress number more than ten per cent. of the 
versions of the Gospel, though they do not reach twenty per 
cent. But, as Prof. Moulton puts it, “the Pdlgrim’s Progress 
will not disturb any inferences we may draw from the primacy 
of the Gospel among books which exercise a universal sway 
over the mind of the world, primitive and civilized alike.” 
These manifold and multiplied versions of Scripture contribute 
anew and impressive chapter to the ever-growing volume of 
Christian evidences. God’s Book has conquered and subdued 
the Babel of human speech; already it lies open, more or less 
completely, in languages that are current among fully seven- 
tenths of mankind. 

Moreover we note that at the beginning of the nineteenth 
century, the Seriptures had been published in translations 
understood by only about two-tenths of mankind. Since then, 
the Scriptures have appeared in new versions which appeal for 
the first time to half the human family. Thus, in the history 
of the Bible during the last hundred years two outstanding 
phenomena confront each other: the age of fierce and remorse- 
less criticism has been also the age of unparalleled translation 
and propagation. 

The fact that according to God’s will Holy Scripture speaks 
to the world in translated forms, carries various implications. 
It shows, at any rate, that the divine and essential quality of 
the Bible—that which makes it to be “the Bible” and not an 
ordinary human book—must be something which does not 


90 THE REV. T. H. DARLOW, M.A., ON THE CHARACTER 


evaporate in translation. We know that, in the past, 
extravagant theories have sometimes been held as to the 
verbal inerrancy of the Scriptures. There was, for example, 
the claim put forth by certain Swiss reformers in the Formula 
Consensus Helvetici of 1675, which declared the vowel points 
and accents of the Hebrew text to be inspired by God. 
Orthodox Moslems hold the absolute verbal infallibility of the 
Koran, and feel bound, therefore, to discourage any translation 
of their sacred book, which must be read in its original Arabic. 
It was for similar reasons that the rabbis of Palestine, who 
worshipped the letter of their Hebrew Testament, regarded the 
Septuagint version as a national disaster. They called the date 
on which it was begun “the fast of darkness,” and compared 
it to the day on which the golden calf had been made. Yet we 
know how the Septuagint, whatever its defects, proved the first 
great missionary version of Scripture, and became, in God’s 
providence, one chief preparation for the spread of the Gospel. 

This whole subject of translation has a real bearing on the 
problem of inspiration. It suggests to us, as De Quincey has 
said, that “the great ideas of the Bible protect themselves. 
The heavenly truths of God’s Word, by their own imperish- 
ableness, defeat the mortality of languages with which for a 
moment they are associated. The truth of revelation is 
endowed with a self-conservative and self-restorative virtue ; 
it needs not. to be protected verbally by successive miracles ; 
it is self-protecting.”. The Word of God in the Bible is not of 
a nature to be affected by verbal changes such as can be made 
by time or accident. “It is like lightning, which could not be 
mutilated, or truncated, or polluted.” May we not say, further, 
that God’s revelation resides, not in any selected chapters, or 
texts, or phrases, but in the total content and purport of the 
Bible, supplemented and corrected by itself ? 

From the history of the versions of Holy Scripture another 
conclusion of grave practical import emerges. The world-wide 
experience of missionaries confirms the weighty dictum which 
Bishop Steere, of the U.M.C.A., wrote from Zanzibar—“ Our 
work must be all unsound without a vernacular Bible”; but it 
also proves that, for the Christian Church in any country, 
nothing is more vitally necessary to preserve its purity, nay, to 
secure its permanence, than the Scriptures in the language of 
the people. There are few more tragic chapters in ecclesiastical 
history than that which records how Islam was able to conquer 
North Africa, so that those coast-lands are now dominated by 
the Crescent which once paid homage to the Cross. How can 


OF THE BIBLE INFERRED FROM ITS VERSIONS. 91 


we explain the mournful fact that the Church of Tertullian 
and Cyprian and Augustine vanished, and the whole broad belt 
between Port Said and the Atlantic became, and has remained, 
almost entirely Moslem? Doubtless, Christianity in North 
Africa had departed far from the purity and simplicity of the 
New Testament. But Archbishop Benson suggested another 
secret root of the Chureh’s failure to stand fast against the 
Moslem flood: it had neglected to translate the Scriptures into 
the languages of its common people. The Latin Bible existed, 
indeed, but no early versions were made into those Punic and 
Numidian dialects which were the mother-tongues of the North 
African races. On the other hand, there were ancient Coptic 
versions of Scripture; and so the Coptic Church survives in 
Egypt—a remnant, but still alive after so many centuries of 
Moslem persecution and oppression. And there was an ancient 
Ethiopic version; and so the Abyssinian Church still survives, 
degraded with superstitions, yet not perished altogether. 
Looking further afield, we trace this same factor in the 
persistence of other ancient Churches—such as the Syrian, the 
Armenian, and the Georgian. In comparatively recent times, 
the infant mission Church in Madagascar endured a quarter of 
a century of ruthless persecution. But before the L.MS. 
missionaries were driven out of that island they had printed and 
distributed the Malagasy Bible. The books passed stealthily from 
hand to hand, and were read in secret, at the peril of their 
owners lives; yet they kept the sacred fire burning, and when 
the missionaries could return, twenty-five years later, they found 
that the little band of Malagasy Christians had grown from 200 
to over 2,000. We are tempted to believe that if the early 
Roman missionaries in China and Japan had popularized the 
Scriptures among the converts whom they baptized, their work 
might have proved less destructible. Perhaps there is no example 
of a nation, once Christian, having ever abandoned the faith, 
so long as its people have possessed the New Testament in the 
vulgar tongue. 

Another problem of curious interest finds illustration from 
versions of the Scriptures. People sometimes ask: Are all 
parts of the Bible of equal value? Which books are the most 
important ? Well, let us consider the experience of missionary 
translators, who may be trusted to understand what parts of 
Scripture are most necessary and useful for their converts. 
Almost without exception, missionaries begin their translation- 
work by making a version of a single Gospel—generally selecting 
St. Mark’s Gospel, as the shortest and simplest. Then they go 


92 THE REV. T. H. DARLOW, M.A., ON THE CHARACTER 


on to translate the other Gospels; probably they next take in 
hand either the Acts of the Apostles, as illustrating the growth 
of infant Christian communities, or the Psalter, as the hymn- 
book of the Universal Church. Before the New Testament has 
been completed they will often translate the book of Genesis, 
as the prologue to sacred history. It is curious to note how 
often the earliest of the prophets which missionaries translate 
is Jonah—doubtless because Jonah is the most missionary book 
in the Old Testament. The experience of Bible translators 
shows, further, that the first version of the New Testament is 
nearly always revised hefore a version of the Old Testament 
has been completed. Indeed, the vernacular New Testament 
appears to suffice for the ordinary needs of a native Christian 
community, until the time comes when converts are 
sufficiently advanced to be trained for ordination; it is for 
their training that a version of the Old Testament becomes 
urgent. 

In the preface to the second edition of his famous English 
version of Plato’s Dialogues, the late Master of Balliol laid 
down certain canons which must govern every successful 
translator: “ His object is not merely to render the words of 
one language into the words of another, but to produce an 
impression similar, or nearly similar, to that of the original on 
the mind of the reader.” . . . “The excellence of a transla- 
tion will consist not merely in the faithful rendering of words, 
or in the composition of a sentence only, or yet of a single 
paragraph, but in the colour and style of the whole.” 

“The metaphors admissible in different languages vary, and the 
translator will often be compelled to substitute one for another.” 

“The freest and the most literal rendering are not 
necessarily opposed; but the two principles can only be 
harmonized ‘by a series of corrections.” . . . “The result 
should read as an original work, and should also be the most 
faithful transcript which can be made of the language from 
which the translation is taken.” 

Such is the high and difficult ideal for the translator of the 
Bible. Not all have attained to it; there have even been 
crude and careless and defective versions of Scripture. 
Some translators have assumed that good intentions can com- 
pensate for slovenliness or ignorance. Some translators have 
not been ashamed to exhibit strong theological or ecclesiastical 
bias: I need only mention such par rtisan versions as the Polish 
Bible, known as the “ Socinian Bible,” published in 1563—and 
the notorious French Testaments printed at Bordeaux in 1661-3 


OF THE BIBLE INFERRED FROM ITS VERSIONS. 93 


and 1686. In this last, eg., we read in Acts xiii; 2: “Or 
comme ils offroient au Seigneur le Sacrifice de la Messe.’* 

Moreover, from the nature of the case, the first attempt to 
render the Scriptures into a fresh language must always be 
tentative and imperfect. No Bible translation emerges from 
the translator’s brain, as Athené was fabled to have sprung, 
full-panoplied, from the head of Zeus. The Bible learns to 
utter God’s thoughts in a new tongue as a child learns to talk. 
First in broken words, which oradually g vain shape and distinct- 
ness ; then in sentences, which, though disjointed at first, grow 
more and more closely connected, till ultimately the child’s 
words become a more or less complete vehicle of his ideas. 
Behind the finished Book lie its earlier sections, the New 
Testament or the Psalter or one or two Gospels; behind these, 
again, lie the first attempts at the Lord’s Prayer and a few 
scattered texts. Arduous preliminary labour is often necessary. 
About 200 languages have been reduced to written form and 
provided for the first time with an alphabet and a grammar, 
simply that they might become channels for the Gospel. 

Such was the life- history of the Bible prepared in New 
England by the earliest Protestant missionary, John Eliot, one 
of the Pilgrim Fathers. He began to study the language of the 
Massachusetts Indians, about the year 1643, with the help of an 
Indian who had been captured in war. Soon the infant 
Massachusetts Bible began to learn its new lesson, and growing 
day by day, it stood forth tw enty years later in complete man- 
hood. At the end of his Indian Grammar, Eliot lifts the veil 
from its history and tells us a little of what it cost. He writes : 
“JT have now finished what I shall doat present: And in a word 
or two to satisfie the prudent Enquirer how I found out these 
new wayes of Grammar, which no other Learned Language (so 
far as I know) useth; I thus inform him: God first put into my 
heart a compassion over their poor Souls, and a desire to teach 
them to know Christ, and to brine them into his Kinedome. 
Then presently I found out (by Gods wise providence) a preg- 
nant witted young man, who had been a Servant in an Enelish 
house, who pretty well understood our Language, better than he 
could speak it, and well understood his own Language, and hath 
a clear pronunciation: Him I made my interpreter. By his 
help I translated the Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and 


* It must in justice be added that these Testaments were afterwards 
repudiated by the ecclesiastical authorities. 


94 THE REV. T. H. DARLOW, M.A., ON THE CHARACTER 


many Texts of Scripture: also I compiled both Exhortations 
and Prayers by his help. I diligently marked the difference of 
their Grammar from ours: When I found the way of them, I 
would pursue a word, a Noun, a Verb, through all variations I 
could think of. And thus I came at it. We must not sit still, 
and look for Miracles: Up, and be doing, and the Lord will be 
with thee. _ Prayer and Pains, through Faith in Jesus Christ, 
will do any thing.” 

John Ehiot’s experience has been reproduced in the lives of 
multitudes of scholars, whose prayers and pains, joined with 
their faith, have moved away mountains of difficulty and opened 
out a way for the voice of God to hearts hitherto unconscious of 
His tones. Let us pay homage to the heroic drudgery of the 
noble army of translators who have toiled with endless patience 
to give men God’s message in their mother tongue. 

All great books must in some degree suffer when they are 
made to speak in what is not their native language. Even the 
best translation can be no better than the copy of a picture or 
the cast of a statue. When we take, for example, the master- 
pieces of human literature—the J/zad or the Divina Commedia, 
or Paradise Lost, or Faust, or Macbeth—and compare them with 
their finest versions in a foreign tongue, we begin to realize how 
much has been lost. The translation of an original poem is like 
the wrong side of a piece of tapestry —the sharp outlines 
vanish, the clear, bright colours are blurred. For a poet’s 
thought and language must needs be so fused together that it is 
half fatal to divorce his ideas from his diction. Indeed, the 
most perfect pieces of literature are the least capable of adequate 
translation. 

The Bible, however, comes to us, not as perfect hterature, but 
as essentially the medium and vehicle of God’s revelation. And 
the Bible has this unique quality that it may be translated into 
all the languages of mankind without sensibly losing its 
majesty and tenderness and spiritual power. The Scriptures as 
a whole can be rendered with but little sacrifice of their energy 
and their beauty. Into whatever barbarous tongue you trans- 
late the New Testament, it seems to fit that tongue as though it 
had been made for it: it was made for it! In every version the 
Book retains its power to pierce the thoughts of the heart; it 
still remains sharper than a two-edged sword : it still divides 
jot and marrow. It does its supreme work—compared with 
which nothing else matters. 

In his recent volume on Zhe bible, Professor Peake points out 
that “we may reverently and thankfully recognize that even the 


OF THE BIBLE INFERRED FROM ITS VERSIONS. 95 


choice of the languages of revelation was not left uncared for 
by the providence ‘of God.” It is no small thing that Hebrew, 
the mother-tongue of Israel—unlike Chinese or ‘Accadian—was 
a language with an alphabet. Moreover, the Hebrew language 
by virtue of its sunplicity and directness is unusually easy to 
translate. Bishop Oluwole, speaking of his own West 
African tongue, has said: “ Yoruba is a language into which the 
Bible phraseology goes easily. We find it very convenient to 
translate direct from Hebrew, more so than from English.” On 
the other hand, we may recall Luther’s exclamation: “Good 
God, how hard it is to make these Hebrew prophets speak 
German.” 

Again, it is not without significance that the Apostles and 
Evangelists wrote in Greek, which came nearest to a universal 
language in the ancient world. Moreover, they did not write 
in classical Greek, Of recent discoveries about the Bible none is 
more striking than the testimony as to the language of the New 
Testament which has been unearthed during the last few years 
out of rubbish heaps of waste paper and broken pottery buried 
in the sands of Egypt and dating back to the very beginning of 
the Christian era. What this new linguistic evidence demon- 
strates may be stated in the words of the distinguished scholar 
who has done so much to make it available in English: “ The 


conclusion is that ‘ Biblical’ Greek was simply the vernacular 
of daily life. . . . The Holy Ghost spoke absolutely in the 


language of the people, as we might surely have expected He 
would.” That is to say, the New Testament was composed in 
the common homely speech of those who first read its pages ; it 
was written literally in the vulgar tongue. 

The astonishing translatableness of Scripture has been 
explained on various grounds. Some point to the character of 
its metaphors, the frequent parallelism of its construction, the 
homely force of its images from common objects. Others 
emphasize the sublime and pathetic ideas which mingle with 
its contents. But the real secret hes in the subject-matter of 
the Bible itself. 

With the true classics of the world there is no respect of 
persons; they are concerned with those things which are 
common, with matters of enduring and universal interest which 
come home to everyone alike. Now we have one Book, and 
only one, which embraces all the heights and depths of human 
nature. The Bible belongs to those elemental things—like the 
sky and the wind and the sea, like bread and wine, like the 
kisses of little children and tears shed beside the grave—which 


96 THE REV. T. H. DARLOW, M.A., ON THE CHARACTER 


can never grow stale or obsolete or out of date, because they are 
the common heritage of mankind. This Book goes down to the 
root of our bitterest needs, our darkest sorrows. It speaks with 
accents that are not of this world about the only things which 
really matter at last to each human creature. Now the things 
common to all men are far more important than the things 
pecuhar to some men. And the Bible can speak in every 
language and come home to every race, because it is as catholic 
as the blood in men’s veins and the milk in women’s breasts. 

This is not the place to dwell upon the immense and inherent 
difficulties of rendering the Scriptures into the poverty-stricken 
speech of a barbarous people. In the language of New Britain, 
for instance, no verb could be found meaning to “forgive.” In 
the Ibo language, current among three millions of tribesmen in 
Southern Nigeria, Archdeacon Dennis tells us that the same 
word has to do for “right” and “night,” that “servant” and 
“slave” are synonymous, that “friendship” and “fornication” 
are scarcely distinguishable, and that “conscience” has to be 
transliterated. Such examples might be multiphed to almost 
any extent. They remind us that after all the crucial difficulty 
in translating the Bible is ethical rather than linguistic. Suir 
George Grierson, who is the first living authority on Indian 
languages, has described a tribe in Eastern India whose only idea 
of a feast was to get intoxicated on their native beer, and whose 
only word for festival meant literally “ much beer drinking.” 
In rendering into their speech the parable of the Prodigal Son, 
he was put to great perplexity, merely because he could find no 
word to express the rejoicing on the Prodigal’s return, which 
did not also suggest the idea of intoxication. The fact is that 
not only the heathen, but the speech of the heathen, must be 
converted... Their very language needs to be born anew. ‘Their 
words and phrases must be redeemed from foul uses and 
baptized into a Christian sense in order to be able to convey the 
ideas of the Gospel. 

Nevertheless experience proves in a wonderful way how even 
crude and imperfect and tentative versions of Scripture can 
accomplish spiritual results which bear witness to a power which 
is not of this world. Take one of the most recent cases. Last 
year the Rev. Copland King, of the Anglican New Guinea 
Mission, wrote to me describing how he had rendered St. Luke 
into Binandere for a tribe in Papua. By that tribe the seat of 
emotion is considered to be the throat, not the heart. Hence 
“bad throat’ means sorrow, a “throaty” man is a wise man, 
and to “take the throat.” means te love. In St. Luke vu, 45, 


OF THE BIBLE INFERRED FROM ITS VERSIONS. OF 


“ Thou gavest me no kiss” had to be translated “Thou didst not 
smell my nose.” No word could be found meaning “ forgive,” 
which had to be translated by “forget” or “do not punish.” 
Well, only a dozen years ago, the readers of this Gospel were 
using stone weapons and ‘practising cannibalism. But last 
Christmas twelvemonth the Holy Communion was celebrated in 
the Binandere language for the first time. 

Surely the spiritual potency of its versions in all languages 
and among all races, sets the New Testament immeasurably 
above every other book in the world. What is there to substitute 
for it? A dramatic. preacher onee pictured a missionary landing 
on some savage island in the Pacific, and addressing the cannibals 
who cathered round him in words like these: “ Wipe your 
blood-stained lips, and listen while I read you this passage, 
which I have translated into your own tongue, from Zhe Light 
of Asia.” 

The final evidence for the supernatural quality of the Bible 
lies in the moral and spiritual power with which it is speaking 
to-day in all the tongues of the world. God’s living voice 
uttered in the Scriptures still comes home to men’s consciences, 
and authenticates itself in their deepest experiences. On the 
title-page of an Italian pocket Testament printed at Lyons in 
1551 we read: Ll Nuovo ed Eterno Testamento di Giesu Christo— 
The New and Eternal Testament of Jesus Christ. This Book 
can never be called old, except in the serse in which time is 
old, while morning is always new. Its message is as mighty as 
ever to quicken human hearts and regenerate human characters ; 
it moves among the nations with the power of an endless Life. 


DISCUSSION. 


The CHAIRMAN said there were two great mysteries—Babel and 
Bible. What was the nature of the confusion which took place at 
Babel? Was it that men lost their memories, or was there a 
disturbance of their tongues or of their thinking powers? There 
were about 2,000 languages now current in the world ; how did they 
come into existence? In the New Hebrides, a dozen different 
languages sometimes existed in the same island. Probably the 
transliteration of the Bible began betore any translation ; a change 
of character probably took place in the time of Moses. In the 
book of Genesis, we found two ways of expressing the same thing ; 
thus Laban and Jacob gave different things to their stone of 

H 


98 THE REV. T. H. DARLOW, M.A., ON THE CHARACTER. 


covenant. The Lecturer had used the word “ Hebrew” throughout 
his paper, but nowadays some authorities, like Prof. Naville, 
spoke slightingly of Hebrew. He wondered what the distinguished 
and industrious scholar, Dr. Driver, whom we have just lost, would 
say if he had been told that there was no such language as Hebrew 2% 
What name. could they substitute for it ? Aramaic would not serve ; 
must they adopt Canaanite? A paper in the Lxpositor for January 
by Prof. Margoliouth, showed that the Gospel of St. Matthew had 
first been written in Hebrew, and then translated into Aramaic and 
finally into Greek. 

He had himself been head of the Translation Department in the 
Bible House for ten years, and knew something of the immense 
difficulties which translators had to face. How, for instance, was it 
possible to give any idea of the Bible animals to the natives of a 
country where there was no animal larger than a flea? In such a 
ease the missionary would require to take about with him a 
travelling zoological garden, or at any rate a good picture book. 
In translating an English sentence into Chinese, it was necessary to 
turn the sentence upside down, especially if it conveyed an 
argument, for the Chinese method of reasoning is quite contrary to 
our own. But when the Chinese get the Bible in their own 
language they love it, and a Chinaman has been known to say, “ The 
English Bible is very good, but if you want to know what the 
Bible really is, you must read it in Chinese.” The italics in our 
Bible are a testimony to the difficulties of translation and to the 
fidelity of our translators, for they indicate passages where in order 
to convey the sense, it has been necessary to introduce words which 
are not in the original. 

Mr. PHILLIps stated that he had a brother who was a missionary 
in Rhodesia and that he was now sending home for printing the 
book of the prophet Jonah, which was the first portion of the Bible 
which he had translated into Walamba. It was necessary that 
those to whom they preached should have some understanding of 
sin before the Gospel was proclaimed to, them. He further 
mentioned that the Superintendent of the London Missionary 
Society in Nyasaland refused baptism to those converts who could 
not read the New Tsetament, urging that they had had schools in 
that country for several years, and that for a convert not to be able 
to read it showed a lack of earnestness and zeal. 


OF THE BIBLE INFERRED FROM ITS VERSIONS. 99 


The Rev. F. C. Lovsty, B.A., thought that, as the previous speaker 
had mentioned the Walamba language, it might interest the meeting 
to know that the Book of Jonah, translated into the Walamba 
language, by Mr. W. A. Phillips, of Nyasaland, was at that time 
being carried through the Oxford University Press, by the 
Trinitarian Bible Society. 

Mr. P. F. Woop said he had very great pleasure in listening to 
Mr. Darlow’s address ; it was interesting in its subject, charming in 
its phrasing, and would prove very useful. We were not astonished 
at its excellence as we are accustomed to get good things from the 
Bible House. Christian people needed to be educated to understand 
the need for translations and the difficulties experienced in making 
them so that the Christian Church might learn to pray for translators. 

Mr. M. L. Rouse said that the fact recalled by Mr. Darlow that 
the Bible of Jerome was from earliest times known as the Vulgate, 
z.¢., version made for the people, exemplified the principle which 
was believed in at its making, and long afterwards, that the Bible 
ought to be turned into the common language of those to whom its 
doctrines are preached. Yet that very version had in later centuries 
been made the instrument of exclusivism; for the priests of the 
Church of Rome objected to any other being read: the people must 
not read the Word of God in their own language but only in Latin. 
A Roman Catholic priest had once told him that the Church 
had originally possessed an official Bible in Greek, which as 
regards the Old Testament, was a miraculous rendering from the 
Hebrew, but that Jerome thought it advisable to make a trans- 
lation from the Hebrew into Latin, “ because the Greek Septuagint 
did not give all the nice shades of meaning found in the Hebrew 
original ;” a strange thing to say of a version made correct by 
miracle! Since then, the Latin Vulgate had been the official 
Bible of the Church ; to allow another to take its place would be 
grossly to mislead the readers. He admitted, however, that there 
were other vernacular versions made from the Hebrew Old 
Testament and Greek New Testament before Jerome’s time; such 
as the first Syriac, the Coptic, and the Gothic ; so that the principle 
had been recognized that it was a good thing to give the Bible to 
a people in their own language and he could not mention any 
Church Council as having examined into the matter, and decided 
against such translations. He also allowed that in preaching he 

H 2 


100 THE REV. T. H. DARLOW, M.A., ON THE CHARACTER. 


frequently made an unofficial translation of the Latin Vulgate by 
turning one or more of its verses into French. Surely it was 
better for the people to have a translation of the Holy Scriptures 
carefully made direct from the Hebrew and Greek by anumber of the 
most learned and pious men in a nation, than to hear such fragmentary 
and unofficial translations as any chance parish priest might give. 

Mr. Martin, who had had some experience of the difficulty of 
presenting Christian truth in the Chinese language, spoke of the 
problem which had faced translators in finding the right term for 
God, whether Shun = Spirit, or Shang-Ti = Supreme Ruler. The 
former term is indefinite, and the latter, although used in Chinese 
Classics, has become obscured by the canonisation of a man in the 
first century A.D., to whom was given the title ‘“ Shang-Ti.” 
Hither term must be explained or “ converted” before conveying 
the required meaning. 

Many words in the language need deepening; there is no word 
for “love,” the nearest being “like.” Therefore, to express “love,” 
one of two words is added, “pain,” or “ dote,” viz., “to painfully 
like ” or “to dotingly like.” 

There is a lack of a word to express the Christian idea of sin, the 
nearest equivalent being “ to offend” ; tointensify this thought the 
words for “ vile” or “ evil” are added. 

But experience puts new meaning into language, and during 
recent revivals in China the old words for sin and love have taken 
on deeper meanings to the Christians. 

The Nestorian Church in China is an example of a Church 
without a Bible, which has perished, the sole memorial being the 
Nestorian Tablet, erected in A.D. 781 at Sianfu, in Shensi Province. 

The Rev. J. SHARP expressed his gratitude to Mr. Darlow for his 
admirable paper. He would not criticize any part of it, but add a 
remark on one or two points. Mr. Darlow pointed out that the 
Greek of the New ‘Testament was the vernacular of daily life ; the 
familiar language of home. In Eastern lands there was usually a 
great difference between the literary language and the home language. 
In India, for instance, the educated classes, and the pundits, wished 
to have their translation of the Bible in the literary language ; but 
they never used this themselves in their own homes, and the great 
mass of the people, and the very members of their own households, 
neither spoke it nor understood it. So the Bible Society was trying 


OF THE BIBLE INFERRED FROM ITS VERSIONS. ee 


to get simpler versions of the scriptures for India, and for North 
Africa. The allusion that had been made to the need for a 
missionary to carry a little “ Zoo ” about with him, in order to obtain 
vernacular names for animals mentioned in the Bible, recalled to him 
how some Indian natives had been taken to the zoological gardens 
in Calcutta and saw a cameleopard for the first time, and promptly 
named it the Long-Neck. People when they see an object will soon 
find a name for it. 

John Eliot was not the first missionary to learn a North American- 
Indian language ; the Spanish and French Jesuit, Franciscan, and 
Dominican missionaries were very industrious in this work ; but so far 
as he could discover their translations of scriptures did not go beyond 
the Paternoster, the Ave Maria, and occasionally the Ten Command- 
ments or the Beatitudes. This was a good beginning but they ought to 
have gone on to a Gospel—indeed to the whole New Testament. 
The point to be emphasized was, that in spite of all the difficulties 
attending translation, the Bible was the most translatable of books, 
and even imperfect translations of it were full of power to reach the 
heart and conscience. 

Col. MAcKINLAY and the CHAIRMAN expressed their gratitude to 
the author for a most valuable paper, in which the Meeting cordially 
joined. 

The Rey. J. GosseT-TANNER asked permission to add a single 
remark, namely, that in present-day Arabic they had a number of 
the very words which Moses himself was accustomed to use; for 
instance, the words for “right,” “left,” “ foot,” and so on, were those 
that appeared in the Pentateuch. And Arabic was now spoken by 
a hundred millions of men. 

The Rev. E. SEELEY thought that it would be most helpful to 
translators if they hada Bible picture book of animals, objects and 
incidents, for which names and words so often seem to be lacking. 
The people to whom the pictures were shown would often supply 
names and words that might greatly help the translators. 

The CHAIRMAN: That is a very good old plan. We find it in 
the second chapter of Genesis: ‘‘God brought the animals to Adam 
to see what he would call them, and whatsoever Adam called every 
living creature, that was the name thereof.” 

The Lecturer briefly returned thanks, and the Meeting adjourned 
at 6 p.m. 


5538rp ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 


HELD (BY KIND PERMISSION) IN THE ROOMS OF THE 
ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS, ON TUESDAY, MARCH 24ru, 1914, 
AT 4.30 P.M. 


THE VERY REVEREND H. WaAcg, D.D., DEAN oF CANTERBURY, 
PRESIDED AT THE OPENING OF THE MEETING, AND WAS 
SUCCEEDED IN THE: CHAIR AT 450 Pm; BY Pror, IDs: 
Marcouioutu, D.Litr., LavpIAN PROFESSOR OF ARABIC. 


The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed. 


The SecrETARY announced the election of Miss Noran URE MAcKINLAY, 
Pror. D. 8S. Margouioutn, and Dr. F. LAytron Orr as Associates of the 
Institute. 


The VERY REVEREND THE DEAN OF CANTERBURY opened the 
proceedings by expressing the great regret which all present must 
feel for the cause which had prevented the Rev. C. H. W. Johns 
from giving his expected lecture on ‘“‘EHarly Migrations of the 
Semitic Races.” The CHAIRMAN went on to say : 

That is a subject of very great importance on which Dr. Johns is 
one of our highest authorities, and I am sure you will wish your 
Secretary, Mr. Maunder, to convey to Dr. Johns on your behalf, 
your regret at the illness which has prevented him coming here on 
this occasion, and the hope that we shall be able to welcome him 
here at some later date. 

I have no doubt that we owe it to the kind influence of our new 
Secretary, Mr. Maunder, that this vacancy has been filled by so 
interesting a subject, and by so competent a lecturer as Dr. Chapman, 
the Chief Assistant of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, whom I 
have now the pleasure to introduce to you. There is perhaps no 
department of natural science which presents to us such interest, as 
that which deals with the vast astronomical facts which are being 
brought before us with ever increasing distinctness day by day. 
There is only one other subject of the same kind which can rival it 
in interest, and that is the astonishing minuteness of detail revealed 
to us by the microscope. What, by a legitimate metaphor, we may 


THE NUMBER OF THE STARS. 103 


call “ the stars of the microscope ” seem, according to what men ‘of 
science tell us, to be as numerous and as wonderful as the stars of 
the heaven above. And it is yet more extraordinary that the very 
movements of the atoms are like those of the solar system. I will 
not further encroach upon the time of the Lecturer, who has so 
much to bring before our notice, but I will now ask Dr. Chapman 
to address us on ‘‘ The Number of the Stars.” 


THE NUMBER OF THE STARS. By SYDNEY CHAPMAN, 
B.A., D.Sc., F.R.A.S., Chief Assistant at the Royal 
Observatory, Greenwich. 


& bees subject of my lecture is the Number of the Stars, a 

subject which I might almost say did not exist in ancient 
times, because 1t was then very generally believed that the 
stars Had no number: they were innumerable, infinite in 
number. In the Bible, for example, we frequently find the 
number of the stars classed with the sands on the seashore, as 
an expression for a “multitude which no man can number.” 
We shall see later on that this metaphor does but scant justice 
to the sands of the seashore, for the number of the stars is 
really very much smaller than that of the grains of sand. 

As we look up to the sky on a clear night, we see a number 
of stars so great that probably no one in this room has ever 
thought of trying to count them. The number visible varies 
with the clearness of the sky and the keenness of the vision of 
the beholder, so that different observers on different nights and 
from different stations see different numbers of stars. But the 
stars visible, separately and discretely, to even the keenest 
sight and on the clearest night are not nearly so numerous as 
might be supposed: their number is very lhmited. But since 
the stars vary much in their apparent brightness, so that they 
range from the brightness of Sirius down to those so faint that 
they are just on the limit of our vision, it is reasonable to 
suppose that there are stars fainter still, which, if we had better 
eyesight, we might be able to observe. That indeed is the 
case; the stars which we can see with our unaided sight have 
traditionally been divided into classes according to their 
brightness, classes which are known technically as “ magnitudes.” 
Oi these magnitudes, there are six for stars within the range of 
our unassisted sight. The stars of any one class or magnitude 
are not quite equal in. brightness, some being brighter and 


104 SYDNEY CHAPMAN, B.A., D.SC., F.R.A.S., ON 


some fainter than the average brightness of the magnitude. 
Nevertheless the classification is quite a good ee one, and 
scientifi¢ in its principle. 

A star is visible to us by the light which we receive from it, 
and this is focussed by the lens of our eye upon the retina. 
The impression which the light makes on the retina depends 
upon the brightness of the beam and its diameter as it enters 
the eye. Now the pupil of the eye is not always of the same 
diameter ; when we go into a dark place the pupil enlarges, so 
that more light can enter the eye; thus the amount of light of 
any given brightness that enters the eye may vary a little, and 
the impression which the light makes upon us depends upon 
the two conditions, of the quantity of light entering the eye 
and its brightness. Since, however, the pupil of the eye does 
not vary very much in diameter, we must resort to other means 
if we wish to perceive the light of stars that are intrinsically 
too faint to produce a sensible impression upon us. If we 
could enlarge the pupil of the eye indefinitely, stars fainter 
than the 6th magnitude would no doubt become visible. 
This is, of course, impossible in itself, but by means of the 
telescope, we can greatly increase the beam of light from the 
star which can be collected in the eye and focussed on the 
retina, so that the telescope enables much fainter stars to be 
seen than could possibly be viewed by the eye without such 
assistance. 

Every increase in the size of telescopes hitherto has led to 
an increase in the number of stars rendered visible to us, but 
in spite of the great advances that have already been made in 
telescopic power, not even our largest telescope has sufficient 
hght-gathering power to reveal to us half the number of the 
stars which undoubtedly exist. 

Before dealing with the question of the relation between the 
size of the telescope and the faintness of the stars which we 
desire that it should reveal to us, it is necessary to say a few 
words as to the definition of stellar magnitudes, that classifica- 
tion of stars according to their brightness which has been already 
mentioned. 

The light of two candles taken together is of course twice the 
amount given by one, and the excess of the light of the two 
over that of one corresponds to a definite difference in the 
brightness of the two. If now a third candle be added to the 
two, the increase in the quantity of light equals the increase in 
the hght when a second is added to a single candle, but the 
increase in brightness is less in the former case than in the case 


THE NUMBER OF THE STARS. 105 


last mentioned, #.e., the combined brightness of three candles is 
not greater than that of two in so high a proportion as the 
brightness of two candles is greater than that of one. To 
obtain the same proportionate increase in the brightness of the 
light, we must double the number of candles; we must add 
two to two, just as we added one to one; and if we wish to 
carry on the process, to obtain the same proportionate increase 
in brightness once again, we should have to add four additional 
candles to the existing four. 

So it is with the stars; an average star of the 2nd magni- 
tude gives less than half the light of an average first magnitude 
star; or, in general, two average stars of one magnitude are 
about equal in light to five average stars of the next. More 
precisely, a difference of five magnitudes in the light of a star, 
corresponds to a diminution of light in the ratio of 1 to 100; 
and a typical star of the 6th magnitude gives only one-hundredth 
the amount of light of a typical star of the 1st magnitude. In 
order, therefore, to bring fainter stars down to the 11th magni- 
tude just within the range of visibility of a telescope, we must 
increase the beam of light entering the eye one hundred times ; 
so that the telescope must have an object glass one hundred 
times the area of the pupil of the eye. In other words it must 
be between two and three inches in diameter. In order to 
reach to stars five magnitudes fainter still, that is to say to 
render visible stars of the 16th magnitude, the telescope must 
have an aperture of 28 inches in diameter. Upon this com- 
putation, the largest telescope in the world, which is five feet 
in diameter, will just show stars of between the 17th and 18th 
magnitude. This is the chief instrument of the Mount Wilson 
Observatory in California. A still larger telescope, now being 
built, which in its turn will be the largest telescope in the 
world, will have a diameter of 100 tnelics: but this will only 
enable stars to be seen about 14 magnitudes fainter than those 
visible by means of the great Avre-fout telescope, now at Mount 
Wilson. For, when telescopes of dimensions like these are 
reached, a very great further increase in size is required to 
obtain only a very small increase in its penetrating power ; an 
immense increase in the size of the instrument, in its cost, and 
in the difficulty of its manufacture and manipulation, enables 
the observer to go but a very little way further down the scale 
of faint stars. 

But, in the investigation of faint stars, astronomers are 
fortunately not confined to those that they can see, even with 
the aid of a great telescope, because here photography comes to 


106 


Magnitude. | 


- 16 
- 09 
=76-0 
Vv Nv 
0-0— 10 
L020 
2-0— 3:0 
3-0 4:0 
4:0— 5:0 
502.60 
60— 37-0 
T0180 
80— 90 
9-0—10°0 
10:0--11°0 
11:0—12°0 
12:0-—13°0 
13:0—14:0 
14:0—15-0 
15 O—16-0 
160170 
17:0—18°0 
18:0—-19-0 
19:0—20-0 


SYDNEY CHAPMAN, B.A., D.SC., F.R.A.S., ON 


Equivalent Light of 


| | Stars. 
- Number of | Total Number | 
Stars of each | of Stars to | Hgweraleaten| 
Magnitude. | Magnitude m Wher of Totals to 
Ist Magnitude os 
| Stars. ie 
Sirius 1 ily 1% 
Canopus 2 7, 
a Centauri ag 
8 11 14 SB) 
27 38 iy 50 
73 WEE 18 68 
189 300 19 87 
650 950 26 113 
2,200 3,150 35 148 
6,660 9,810 42 190 
22.550 32,360 56 246 
65,000 97,400 65 311 
174,000 272,000 69 380 
426,000 698,000 68 448 
961,000 1,660,000 | 60 508 
2,020,000 3,680,000 51 559 
3,960,000 7,640,000 40 599 
7,820,000 15,460,000 31 630 
14,040,000 29,500,000 29 652 
25,400,000 54,900,000 16 668 
38,400,000 93,300,000 10 678 
54,600,000 148,000,000 6 684 
76,000,000 224,000,000 3 687 
All stars fainter than 20”0 3 690 


THE NUMBER OF ‘THE STARS. 107 


their aid. The eye registers a momentary impression; the 
photographic plate registers a cumulative effect. The difference 
between the two can be illustrated by imagining that leaden 
bullets are being dropped upon a spring balance ; if the scale 
pan is flat, each bullet, as 1t falls, just depresses the spring, and 
then rolls off immediately, and the scale pan rises again. If 
the bullets are falling in a continuous stream, the balance will 
show a constant small depression of the spring. ‘This last 
condition is analogous to the impression of light on the eye, 
but if the scale pan is in the form of a cup, so that it collects 
and holds the bullets, instead of allowing them to roll off, then, 
as more and more bullets fall into it, the scale pan sinks lower 
and lower, and this offers us an analogy to the cumulative 
action of light on a photographic plate. If particles of dust 
were slowly falling on the scale pan of a spring balance, the 
balance would show no appreciable depression due to any one 
particle, but after a long time enough dust would collect to 
produce an evident and measurable depression. This example 
may illustrate how it is possible to photograph very faint stars 
with the telescope, because the photographic plate accumulates 
the effect of a constant stream of faint leht, concentrated upon 
it by the lens, and after a long time enables the impression 
to be recorded of stars far too faint ever to be seen directly 
by eye with the same telescope; the telescope registers 
the effect of the light accumulated over a long period of time, 
while the eye can only register the impression of the moment. 
Thus the photographic plate can supply us with the images of 
stars one hundred times as faint as the faintest which can be 
seen directly by the eye with the same telescope; that is to 
say, photography adds five magnitudes to our power of detecting 
faint stars. 

The above table gives the number of stars of each magnitude 
from the very brightest down to the 20th magnitude, those 
visible to the naked eye being grouped under magnitudes 1 to 6. 
There is some difference between the scale of magnitude for 
stars as registered on photographs from the scale adopted for 
observations. made directly by the eye, in other words the 
visual and the photographic magnitude scales are not identical. 
The difference between the two scales does not, however, affect 
the general principle, but whereas there are 3,150 stars down 
to the 6th magnitude on the photographic magnitude scale, 
there are in actuality some 6,000 stars visible to the naked eye. 
This means that the limit for naked eye observations stands at 
about the magnitude 63. ‘Of these 6,000 stars, of course only 


108 SYDNEY CHAPMAN, BlA., DsSCs, CRIA Ss PON 


one half can be seen at any one time, as only one hemisphere 
of the sky can be seen at any moment from a given station. 
Thus on the clearest night a person with good ey esicht can only 
see distinetly some 3,000 stars. Of course he can’ see the Milky 
Way, which is composed of millions of very faint stars, but he 
cannot isolate their images or see the stars individually. 

Down to the 9th magnitude, which is about the limit of 
visibility in a telescope of between two or three inches aperture, 
there are just about 100,000 stars, so that quite a small tele- 
scope enables us to see more than a dozen times as many stars 
as can be seen by the naked eye alone, a fact which indicates 
the tremendous increase in the power of vision which even a 
small telescope gives as compared with the naked eye. As the 
table is followed down to the fainter and yet fainter stars, by 
steps of one magnitude at a time, the number is seen to increase 
rapidly. Down to the 14th magnitude, the total amounts to 
over eight millions, or eighty times as many as were registered 
down to the 9th magnitude. The 14th magnitude is the limit 
chosen for the great International scheme for photographing 
the entire heavens in which this country, in conjunction with 
many others, has taken part, and for a large section of the 
heavens the stars have already been photographed on this plan, 
and partly catalogued. 

The table shows that if still fainter stars are embraced, and 
the survey is extended to the 17th magnitude, the total number 
is increased to 55,000,000, and this is the limit adopted for a 
series of photographs taken by the enterprise of the late 
Mr. Franklin-Adams. This remarkable work owed its origin 
to a suggestion by the late Sir David Gill, pointing out the 
desirability of a photographic research into the structure of the 
Milky Way. Mr. Franklin-Adams subsequently extended the. 
programme to embrace the photography of the entire sky. 
With this end in view, he obtained in 1898 from Messrs. Cooke 
and Sons a 6-inch photographic lens, designed by Mr. Dennis 
Taylor to give good definition over a large field. This lens was 
so successful that a larger one of similar type was ordered ; it 
was delivered in 1903, and was of 10 inches aperture, and 45 
inches focal length, giving good images over a field 15 degrees 
in diameter. 

Mr. Franklin-Adams and his assistant Mr. Kennedy used 
this lens at the Cape Observatory in the years 1903 to 1904, 
and the southern sky was photographed with exposures of two 
hours for each plate. After his return to England, Mr. Franklin- 
Adams built an observatory adjoining his house at Mervel Hill, 


THE NUMBER OF THE STARS. 109 


near Godalming. During the years 1905 to 1909, the northern 
sky was photographed, the exposure being increased to 2 hours 
and 20 minutes for each plate, and experiments were made 
towards the enumeration and classification of the stars and to 
ascertain the best means of reproducing the charts on paper. 
In the course of this work, it was found that the northern 
plates were so superior to those taken at the Cape, that 
Mr. Franklin-Adams decided to repeat the southern series. 
Illness prevented him from undertaking this work himself, and 
in 1909, he presented his 10-inch object glass to the Transvaal 
(now the Union) Observatory, and arranged for his assistant, 
Mr. Mitchell, to go to Johannesburg in December of that year. 
The new series of plates was begun in April, 1910. Mr. Mitchell 
was unable to complete the whole of the southern plates, and 
after his return to England, the series was continued by 
Mr. Wood under the direction of Dr. Innes, the Director of the 
Union Observatory 

Failing health rendered it impossible for Mr. Franklin-Adams 
to complete the two projects that he had in mind: the publica- 
tion of the photographs, and the statistical discussion of the 
number of stars of different magnitudes in different parts of 
the sky. It was arranged that the statistical discussion should 
be made at Greenwich, and the plates, 206 in number, and 
each about sixteen inches square were presented to the Royal 
Observatory. 

During the last three or four years, sample counts have been 
taken of these 206 plates, on small areas uniformly distributed 
over them, and. the number of stars in these areas have been 

carefully ascertained, the stars being classified according to their 

brightness. This has necessitated a sreat amount “of very 
heavy work, into the details of which it is not necessary now 
to enter. The actual brightness of these stars compared on a 
uniform plan with other stars over each part of the sky has 
been determined, and in this way the number in the whole sky 
has been estimated from the sample counts. Counts have been 
made from 5,000 selected regions, and the number of stars in 
the whole sky estimated for each magnitude down to the 17th, 
the table given above being based upon the results of these 
counts. The total number of stars down to the 17th magnitude, 
approximately 55,000,000, is therefore derived from this process 
of sample counts on the 206 plates covering the entire heavens, 
which the enterprise of ae late Mr. Franklin- Adams has 
provided. 

A consideration of the table will show that, as we pass to 


110 SYDNEY CHAPMAN, B.A., D.SC., F.R.A.S., ON 


fainter and yet fainter stars, their number increases very much, 
and at a hasty glance it might almost seem that their number 
was really infinite, that they increase without end. But if the 
table be examined more critically, it will be seen that the total 
number of stars down to the 6th magnitude, is nearly four 
times that down to the 5th; but that the total number down to 
the 10th ‘magnitude, is not quite three times that to the 9th; 
and the number to the 17th not even twice the number down 
to the 16th; so that though the number of stars down to any 
particular magnitude is always larger than the number down to 
the preceding magnitude, yet the ratio of the increase is 
continually diminishing. The number of stars of a given 
magnitude does not increase in so high a geometrical ratio for 
the fainter stars as for the brighter ones; and a mathematical 
examination of the actual numbers in the table shows that two 
conclusions can be drawn with regard to the whole number of 
stars, seen and unseen. 

In the first place it appears from this examination that there 
is a total number of the stars; that is to say that the number 
of the stars is not infinite. As we go from the number of stars 
of any one given magnitude to the number of the next fainter 
magnitude, we are dealing with a series which does not tend to 
increase without limit: the ratio of increase continually 
diminishes, and therefore a point will be reached beyond which 
the actual number of stars of any particular magnitude will no 
longer be greater than the number of the preceding magnitude. 
The series becomes a “convergent” one, and the total number 
of stars must therefore approach a limit; in other words it is 
finite; an extremely large number as we shall see, but quite a 
finite one. The stars therefore vary in brightness from Sirius, 
the brightest star of which we know, down to the 17th magni- 
tude, the limit for the Franklin-Adams photographs; and still 
fainter than any limit which at present we can possibly reach ; 
indeed very much fainter. In fact there are possibly stars of 
almost all conceivable degrees of faintness, but their total 
number is limited, and this conclusion is enforced upon us, and 
generally accepted, on other grounds beside those indicated 
above. 

In the second place, the series shown in the table and 
derived from these counts of the Frankln-Adams plates gives 
us an indication of the limit of magnitude to which we should 
have to penetrate to secure half the total number of stars. As 
we have seen, the plates themselves carry us down to the 17th 
magnitude with the images of some 55,000,000 of stars. This 


THE NUMBER OF THE STARS. td La 


is very far short of half the total number. To attain that 
limit, we should have to penetrate down six or seven magnitudes 
fainter still; zc, to the 23rd or 24th magnitude. It is probable 
that the great 5-foot telescope of the great Mount Wilson 
Observatory, which is at present the largest telescope in the 
world, could by photography, with very long exposures, just 
reach down to this limit; so that half the stars could now be 
registered if anyone wished to take the trouble to do it. 

The calculations above referred ‘to, lead to the conclusion that 
the total number of the stars is not less than 1,000,000,000, 
and that 1t cannot much exceed twice this amount, so that 
perhaps we are warranted in saying that it is probably less than 
3,000,000,000. 

It is interesting to notice that this is comparable with the 
population of the earth, which is estimated to be about 
1,500,000,000. This is also about the number of spores which 
are produced by half-a-dozen mushrooms. 

With these figures before us, we may proceed to enquire what 
and where are the stars. Omitting details and explanations, 
the facts that have been already ascertained may be summarized 
as follows :— 

The stars are suns, generally similar to our own in structure, 
but at immensely great distances from us. The nearest star, so 
far as we know at present, is that known as Alpha Centaar 
and is twenty million of million milesaway. In the neighbour- 
hood of the sun, that is to say, within distances not extravagantly 
ereater than this, the stars are probably scattered with some 
fair approach to uniformity i in space, but their brightness varies 
enormously from one star to another. We know of some stars 
that are actually one hundred times as bright as the sun, while 
there are others not nearly so bright, some giving indeed only 
one ten-thousandth part the light of our sun, On the whole 
the sun, as compared with other stars, is fairly high up in the 
scale of brightness. 

It can be shown mathematically that if we take any mixture 
of stars of varying brightness, and repeat this mixture uniformly 
throughout space, that is to say, if we have throughout all space 
a uniform distribution of staz rs, not all of the same brightness 
but the same kind of mixture everywhere, then the total 
amount of light which these stars would give to us would not 
be finite but infinite; the heavens would be one complete blaze 
of light. And on that basis of a uniform mixture of stars of 
varying brightness, the relative rate of increase in the number 
of stars from magnitude to magnitude can be calculated, and it 


112 SYDNEY CHAPMAN, B.A., D.SC., F.R.A.S., ON 


is found that the number of faint stars would increase far more 
rapidly than they do in fact. From these two arguments, that 
such a distribution of stars would appear to be infinitely bright, 
and the actual excess of the rate of increase in the number of 
stars as calculated over that which is observed, it is clear either 
that the stars must be distributed so as to become less numerous 
as we proceed outwards from the sun, or else they must become 
intrinsically fainter. There is also a third possible explanation, 
that the light may be absorbed before it reaches us. Without 
ruling out this latter possibility of there being in space a certain 
amount of absorption of the light of the stars, it appears that 
the stars do get less numerous as we proceed outwards from the 
sun, at any rate in most directions. As the size of telescopes 
is increased or the time of exposure of photographs is 
lengthened, more and more faint stars are detected, but it is 
probable that a point has now already been reached at which a 
large proportion of the faintest stars revealed are not stars 
fainter by reason of their greater distance, but are stars 
intrinsically fainter than those previously detected and that they 
are mingled amongst them. We are thus led to a conception of 
the universe as being of hmited extent, containing a ereat 
number of stars in the form of a huge oblate spheroid, encircled 
by that great stellar band which we term the Milky Way. 
This great stellar system is finite, and if we were to travel 
outwards from the sun, beyond a certain distance, the number 
of stars would be found to thin out, and finally we should come 
to a region where there were few stars or none at all. 

The stars then are gathered together in a single great system, 
and much is already known about it. It is a system 
characterized in its motions (for the stars are moving), 
its composition (for that is largely known), and in its structure, 
by unity and order, not less than by its almost unending 
variety. All these combine to make the stellar universe the 
inost magnificent object of contemplation in the whole range of 
material things. 

The stars may be regarded from another point of view, 
from which, perhaps, they appear to lose that impressiveness 
which these large numbers give to them. Yet this is only at 
first sight, as will speedily appear. When we pass from the 
total number of the stars to the total amount of light which 
they give us, we pass from quantities that are impressive by 
their extreme vastness to quantities that are almost insignificant, 
for though the stars are so numerous, yet all their vast numbers 
combined together yield to us very little light indeed. Yet, if 


THE NUMBER OF THE &TARS. ri 


we do not realize how faint the great majority of the stars are 
as they appear to us, we shall not understand how distant they 
must be, and how great must be that universe which can 
contain bodies really so vast and so intensely bright, and 
yet, on account of their distance, apparently so extremely 
faint. 

The table given earlier showed how rapidly the number of 
faint stars increases, as we go from magnitude to magnitude in 
the order of decreasing brightness. Their greater faintness, 
combined with their enormously increased numbers, allows of 
two possibilities. Does the increase in number as we proceed 
from one magnitude to the next fainter make the total bright- 
ness of each fainter class of star increase, so that the number 
of stars between one magnitude and the next may be sufficient, 
in spite of the increased faintness of each star, for their total 
light to exceed the total light of the magnitude one higher up, 
or does it make it diminish? The table gives the answer to 
this question by showing the number of stars of the Ist 
magnitude which would give an equal amount of light with the 
stars of each successive fainter magnitude. Stars of the Ist 
magnitude are the brightest of those that we see by the 
unassisted sight, and of these a few are really considerably 
brighter than the average Ist magnitude star. The brightest 
star is Sirius, which gives eleven times as much light as a 
typical star of the 1st magnitude. Then comes Canopus, 
giving six times the light of a 1st magnitude star, and Alpha 
Centauri, our nearest neighbour in the stellar depths, which is 
equal to two Ist magnitude stars. Hight stars follow down to 
the typical 1st magnitude star which together are equal in light 
to fourteen stars of the 1st magnitude, twenty-seven stars 
between the Ist and 2nd magnitudes, give an amount of light 
equal to seventeen stars of the adopted standard, and seventy- 
three stars between the 2nd and 3rd magnitudes are equal to 
eighteen stars of the standard magnitude. As the table is 
followed downward, it will be seen that the equivalent light 
given by each succeeding magnitude increases till we reach 
the 10th magnitude, after which it begins to diminish. Thus 
some idea can be formed of the extreme faintness of these 
fainter stars. Two million stars between the 12th and 13th 
magnitudes only give lhght equal to fifty-one of the standard 
lst magnitude, and as we pass to still fainter stars, twenty-five 
millions between the 16th and 17th magnitudes are only equal 
to sixteen standard stars. 

Beyond the 17th magnitude, the numbers are not derived 

I 


114 SYDNEY CHAPMAN, B.A., D.SC., F.R.A.S., ON 


directly from observation, but have been calculated from the 
numbers higher up, by a simple mathematical formula, and from 
this it appears that the stars between the 17th and 18th magni- 
tudes would only give an amount of light equal to ten standard 
stars, and that the whole mass of stars fainter still would be 
barely equal to twelve of the Ist magnitude. Thus the total 
light of all stars, seen and unseen, would, it appears from this 
table, come to about that of 700 typical stars of the lst magni- 
tude. It has already been mentioned that half the stars are 
fainter than the 23rd or 24th magnitude, but their total light, 
though they number several hundred millions, does not equal 
the hght of a single Ist magnitude star. Perhaps that single 
consideration gives as good an idea as we can possibly form of 
their almost unimaginable faintness. 

But the table reveals another curious circumstance. The 
stars visible to the naked eye render to us only about one-fourth 
the total amount of starlight. If, therefore, all the stars that 
we can discern individually by our unassisted sight were blotted 
out, the total amount of starlight would only be diminished by 
one-quarter. The midnight sky would not be seriously less 
luminous than it is at present, though it is needless to say its 
beauty and interest would suffer woefully. 

The light which the stars send to us can be measured in 
another way by comparing it with the ight of the full moon. 
It is, of course, clear to everyone that when there is a full 
moon the night is much lighter than when there is no moon at 
all, and we are dependent simply upon the light of the stars. It 
has been calculated that the total light of all the stars is only 
one-hundredth that of the full moon. Or the total starlight 
may be compared to the light of an ordinary electric lamp 
of 16 candle-power placed at a distance of from 45 to 
50 yards. Such a lamp would give us as much light as we 
receive from all these many millions of stars put together. 

But the light of the stars does not reach us with the 
uninteresting homogeneity which characterizes the hight from 
the ordinary electric lamp. The starlight is differentiated not 
only in direction and colour but in many other ways, and from 
these variations, as we learn to interpret them better, we shall 
gain more and more knowledge of the stellar universe. It is 
this tiny stream of light, though in its brightness it is only 
equal to that of an. ordinary 16 candle-power lamp, placed at a 
distance of 45 yards, that has furnished us with all the know- 
ledge of the heavenly bodies which we possess. It is to this 
that we owe the profound influence which astronomy has 


THE NUMBER OF THE STARS. 115 


exercised upon our ideas of the universe, of man’s place in it, 
and of the almighty power of God. 


DISCUSSION. 


The CHArRMAN (PrRoFessor D. S. Marcgo.ioutu): Ladies and 
Gentlemen, it is my very pleasant duty to ask you to join with me 
in thanking the Lecturer for his exceedingly lucid and admirable 
discourse upon a subject which I am convinced is of the greatest 
interest to all of us. I am sure we all have to thank him, both for 
his lucidity and also for the beautiful slides with which he has 
illustrated his lecture. I have, myself, heard a great deal on the 
subject of the International Photographic Map of the Heavens, 
because Professor H. H. Turner, the Savilian Professor of Astronomy 
in Oxford, is a colleague of mine with whom I am much associated, 
and we in Oxford are very glad to get an opportunity of obtaining 
fresh information on this abstruse subject when he is lecturing upon 
it. . . . I do not wish to speak for anyone else in the audience, but 
for my own part, I can only say that a considerable number of the 
facts which Dr. Chapman has brought before us this afternoon, were 
new to me, and I now know a good deal more about the Number of 
the Stars and the light which we receive from them than I did when 
I entered this room. I feel sure that all here will join with me in 
thanking the Lecturer most heartily for his admirable discourse. 

Mr. E. WALTER MAUNDER: I think Mr. Chairman, that we owe 
a very great debt, indeed a double debt, to Dr. Chapman for having 
come here this afternoon for, as you know, he is not down upon our 
published programme. The lecture we had expected to have this 
afternoon, was one which Dr. C. H. W. Johns had promised to give 
us on “ Early Semitic Migrations,” but just before the last meeting 
of the Institute, we received a letter from Dr. Johns saying that 
failure of health would prevent his fulfilling his engagement. In 
this great difficulty, I wondered to whom I could turn for help in 
order that this afternoon should be filled up, and as I knew that 
Dr. Chapman had just completed an important research upon the 
subject of the Number of the Stars, I turned to him. I felt when I 
approached him that it was hardly a fair request that | was making 
to ask him at such short notice to come and give us an address of so 
much importance. But he acceded to my request at once with the 

oR 


116 SYDNEY CHAPMAN, B.A., D.SC., F.R.A.S., ON 


greatest possible good grace and willingness, and I think we are very 
deeply indebted to him on this special account, seeing that he had 
so short a time to prepare the paper for us. We owe a further 
great indebtedness to him in that he has given us the very latest 
results of his own special work. It was only at the last meeting of 
the Royal Astronomical Society that Dr. Chapman read a paper on 
the Total Light of the Stars, a subject which he has included in the 
address to which we have just listened. ; 

The work from which Dr. Chapman has derived the results which 
he has given us this afternoon has been an extremely toilsome one ; 
it has involved not only the counting of the star images in five 
thousand areas, carefully distributed over the heavens, but it has 
meant the creation of standards of stellar magnitude for each order 
of magnitude under examination, and the estimation of the magni- 
tude of every star image examined. Our debt, therefore, to 
Dr. Chapman is exceedingly great, both for the self-sacrificing way 
in which he has come forward to supply our need, for the interest, 
the value and the freshness of the information which he has given 
us, and for the admirably clear way in which he has presented it. 

THE ASTRONOMER Royat (Dr. F. W. Dyson) said that the last 
time he had had the pleasure of hearing an address in that hall it 
had been one given by the late Sir David Gill, who was, he believed, 
one of their Honorary Correspondents. He could not help thinking 
as he listened to Dr. Chapman’s address how pleased Sir David 
would have been to hear of the progress that had been made, and 
was still being made, in this particular branch of astronomy, and he 
could imagine how delighted he would have been with the account 
which Dr. Chapman had just given of the results which had been 
obtained—largely from an enterprise which Sir David himself had 
originally inspired—in this interesting and difficult subject of the 
dimensions of the stellar universe. He thought that they were 
warranted in saying that there was on the whole a general agree- 
ment amongst astronomers that the universe of stars was bounded : 
it did not stretch out infinitely. They had now a definite idea as to 
the number and extent of the stars, and their knowledge concern- 
ing them was comparable with, but nothing like so accurate as, their 
knowledge of the solar system. Modern astronomers were largely 
concerned with the problem of finding out some analogy to the 
bright points of light that the stars present to us. The point of 


THE NUMBER OF THE STARS. pea ar 


view of astronomy is really a descriptive one; astronomy is a 
descriptive science, and he supposed that that was very largely true 
of science in general. It gives no precise answer to the questions, 
‘“« How does this come about ?” or “ Why does it come ?” The answers 
that it gives are mainly to the question, ‘‘ What does it resemble ?” 

In thinking about the Number of the Stars, although that subject is 
so interesting in itself, it is almost as interesting to recollect how 
this knowledge has been acquired. It has been acquired by thought, 
but the thought itself has been supplemented in very curious fashions. 
It was certainly remarkable that had it not been that people had 
learnt to shape pieces of glass so as to make spectacles, and had then 
gradually developed this art of figuring glass until they formed the 
lenses of which Dr. Chapman has spoken, had it not been for the 
development of that art, our knowledge of the stars must have 
remained extremely limited. The telescope was a beautiful and 
wonderful instrument, simply on the ground that it magnified our 
faculties so much. ‘The same remark applied to the microscope, 
and those electrical instruments by which whole series of phenomena 
had been discovered of which otherwise we should have known 
nothing at all. When they considered the heavens and the number 
and brightness of the stars themselves, he thought they would all 
feel still more impressively that as religious man had always looked 
with wonder and reverence on the skies, so that the more we learnt 
concerning them, the more that wonder and reverence was increased. 

A MEMBER enquired how it was possible to find out the rate of 
movement of the stars by means of the spectroscope. Also what 
was, approximately, the centre of the stellar universe. 

Capt. McNEILE asked whether there were not many dark stars, 
and Mr. M. L. Rouse asked how long it was since it was thought 
that the stars were suns. 

The LECTURER in reply, said: The first question was as to our 
knowledge of the motions and of the constitution of the stars 
revealed to us by the spectroscope. I suppose that we all know, or 
have been told, that when a railway train is approaching us, and 
steam is being let off, so that its whistle is blowing, the note appears 
shriller than when it is going away from us. The sharp note as the 
train approaches is due to sound waves in the air, which travel with 
a certain definite speed. If the source of these waves is approaching 
us, we receive the waves more quickly than if the source were at 


118 THE NUMBER OF THE STARS. 


rest, and if the source is receding from us, we receive fewer waves in 
a given time. The sensation of shrillness is greater or less accord- 
ing to the greater or less rapidity with which the waves reach our 
ear. That is analogous to the behaviour of light. The eye is able 
to discriminate between the rays of light which come to us with 
different numbers of waves each second, and it discriminates between 
them by means of the colour sense. The spectroscope enables us to 
learn of what colours are the various rays of light which go to form 
a given beam, and by means of it we are able to measure the number 
of waves reaching us per second in the case of the different com- 
ponent waves. Certain stars, however, send us light, of which the 
number of waves reaching us per second varies from time to time, 
and this has been interpreted in the same way as the analogous 
phenomena of sound, as showing that the source of light is alternately 
approaching and receding—probably (certainly in some cases) due to 
the revolution of one star round another just as the earth revolves 
round the sun. As to the centre of the stellar universe, no one 
knows exactly where that is, because we do not know the bounds of 
the universe at all correctly. The centre, like the North Pole or the 
Equator of the earth, is probably not marked by any definite object, 
but it is generally considered that our solar system is near the centre 
of the universe. One reason for this conclusion is that the Milky 
Way, which appears to be a great band of stars encircling the universe, 
is seen by us nearly as a great circle in the sky, and is of approxi- 
mately equal thickness in its different parts, so that we are apparently 
near the centre of the galaxy, and therefore, according to our ideas 
of the universe, we must be also near the centre of the latter. 

A question was asked about dark stars. In one sense most of the 
stars of which I have been speaking, are dark stars ; that is to say, 
we never see them with the naked eye. But there are also stars 
which we have never been able to photograph, which are known only 
from their effect upon others. With regard to the stars being thought 
to be suns, it was about the middle of the last century, or perhaps a 
little earlier than that, that the distances of some stars were first 
measured. It then became, for the first time, possible to calculate 
from their distance, the brightness that they would have if they 
were as near us as the sun is, and consequently how they compared 
with the sun as to the actual amount of light which they radiated 

The Meeting adjourned at 6.20. 


554TH ORDINARY GENERAL’ MEETING, 


HELD (BY KIND PERMISSION) IN THE ROOMS OF THE 
ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS, ON MONDAY, APRIL 6r1u, 1914, 


AT 4.30 P.M. 
Mr. Davin Howarp, V.P., TrooK THE CHAIR, 


The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed. 


The SEcRETARY announced that Mr. Martin H. F. Sutton and 
Mr. Charles Barnard Wigg had been elected Associates of the Institute. 


The CHaArRMAN then called upon Mr. E. Walter Maunder to read his 
paper. 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. By E. WALTER 
Maunper, F.R.A.S., late Superintendent of the Solar . 
Department, Royal Observatory, Greenwich. 


UR subject this afternoon is the First Chapter of 
Genesis.* 
I take it that all here are agreed upon two poimts :— 
First :—We beheve that God is. 
Next :—We believe that He made the world; that is the 
entire material universe. 

There is a third proposition which we must also accept 
absolutely, if we are to discuss our chosen subject to any profit. 
That third proposition is:—God is Himself the Author of this 
chapter which tells us how He made the world. 


I.— GENESIS I IS A REVELATION FROM GOD. 


For there are only two possible sources for the chapter: God 
Himself, the Creator, Who knew the mode and order of creation, 
or man, ‘who did not ‘know, but imagined it. 

It is manifest that the act of creation cannot have come under 
human observation ; it predated man, 1t escaped his experience 
entirely. Nor could he learn of it by tradition; there was no 


* In the first chapter of Genesis I desire to include the first three 
verses of the second chapter, which in the division of the Bible have 
obviously been detached from.their proper connection. 


120 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


one to hand down any account of it to him. Nor could he infer 
it from any study of what we term the processes of nature. For 
the act of creation* is not one of the processes of nature: it 
preceded them all as assuredly as it preceded man himself. 

So tradition, history, science are all helpless to give man any 
knowledge as to the act of creation. All our knowledge of 
nature and.of the processes of nature, arises out of, and is based 
upon, our observation of nature. If this first chapter of Genesis 
is the invention of some man, or of some school or succession of 
men, or the outcome, it may be, of the speculations and 
inventions of many men, slowly developing through long ages ; 
if, in short, its origin is human, not Divine, then it is worthless. 
It supphes us with fiction only, not with fact; it preserves to 
us no testimony of any witness, no record of any observer ; and 
it would not be worth your while to listen to me as I discuss 
it; it would not be worth my while to ask for your 
attention. 

That which men can observe and experience and have 
recorded is of value to all whom the record reaches, but if the 
record rests upon no experience, upon no observation, if it deals 
with facts that lie outside all human experience and observa- 
tion, and is built up merely of suppositions, then it has no 
value: it is the baseless fabric of a dream. This first chapter 
of Genesis is only valuable if it comes to us from knowledge. 

We are thus brought face to face with the fundamental 
question of the actuahty of Revelation, for whatever may have 
been the process by which this first chapter of Genesis was 
given to man, the chapter is either a revelation which came 
from God, or it tells us nothing. If we are reasonable, truth- 
loving men, we must reject it altogether, as void of worth and 
significance, unless we accept it as a revelation given by God 
Himself to man: a “ primitive revelation” in the most precise 
sense of the term. 


II.—GeENEsIS I IS A REVELATION OF THE CREATOR RATHER 
THAN OF THE THINGS CREATED. 


Most men are content to accept the universe just as they 
find it, without enquiry as to how it came into existence or 
speculation as to its beginning. But there are also those in 


* We use the word “creation” in two connected but distinguishable 
senses: to designate either the act of creation or the totality of things 
created. I purpose to use it in this paper only in the first sense, and to 
employ the terms “nature” or ‘the creature” to express the second. 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. ball 


whom the sight of the order and beauty of the universe raises 
deep thoughts and questions. “Whence and how did this 
mighty frame of things arise? What was its beginning?” 

The Beginning. Had the universe a beginning? Some have 
thought not. It is now, it was yesterday; why not for 
yesterdays without end? May it not have existed always ? 

This is the doctrine of the eternity of matter, a doctrine that 
appears under several different forms and names. Pure 
Materialism recognizes matter as the only existence; Pantheism 
professes to recognize the existence of God, but only as 
inseparable from the material universe ; Monism asserts their 
complete identity. 

But most thinkers are clear that these are unintelligent ways 
of evading the very question which is raised by the presence of 
the visible universe. Why should matter have had no 
beginning? Human life, the highest product of the changes 
through which the universe has passed, certainly had a 
beginning ; organic Jife in general had a beginning; why not 
the complete structure out of which they arose ? 

We may put back the beginning for millions of ages, and 
these we may multiply by millions again, but still thought 
enquires “ What came first of all?” And even if we predicate 
the eternity of matter, we have silenced, but not answered, the 
question that is still insistent, “Whence came that eternal 
matter 7” 

Another attempt to answer the question “ What was the 
beginning?” likewise evades the question without answering 
it. This attempt affirms that the universe is without 
beginning ; not because it always existed, but because it never 
did so. The universe is declared to be “ the great illusion” ; we 
have indeed a conception of it, but outside that conception it 
does not exist ; the conception has no correspondence in reality. 
Here again the ordinary experience of men leads them to reject 
this evasion, as it leads them to reject the evasion of materialism. 
It we reason at all about the ordinary experiences of life, we 
know well that we reason differently, und order our intellectual 
operations according to different rules from those adopted by the 
philosophers who assert, either that the universe has always 
existed, or that its present existence is a mere phantasm. 

To most men who have thought on this subject, probably to 
all in this room, 1t seems self-evident both that the universe 
does exist, and that it had a beginning. 

We desire then to know how the universe came into 
existence. Many who put this question desire, and indeed 


122 KE. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S8., ON 


expect, that. the answer should be expressed in the terms of 
natural science. They have so ill-defined a conception of the 
character and scope of science that they suppose that the 
answer falls within its powers. 

But science has its limitations as well as its powers. As an 
example of one of the sciences, and as type of all the rest, let 
us look at’astronomy: the oldest, the widest, and the most 
advanced of all the physical sciences. 

It began with the observation made by men that there were 
two great lights in the heavens above us; the greater that gave 
hght by day, the lesser that gave ight by night, and there were 
the stars also. Then men noted that these two great hghts, by 
their movements, furnished divisions and measures of time. 
Next came the observation that there was a correlation between 
the changes of vegetation on the earth, and certain apparent 
changes in the heavens ; in the path of the sun across the sky 
by day, and in the groups of stars visible by night. Later on, 
some of the stars were perceived to move freely amongst the | 
rest, and, after long-continued watching, those movements, 
which at first had seemed irregular and lawless, were so com- 
pletely reduced to system that the positions of these wandering 
stars could be predicted for times far in the future, and now 
the prediction of. the movements of the heavenly bodies has 
become the pre-eminent example of man’s achievements in 
exact science. Step by step men have proceeded from the first 
mere recognition that there were lights above us, to the know- 
ledge of their distances, dimensions, weights, chemical constitu- 
tion, and changes of surface and condition. Nay more; the 
scrutiny of bodies removed from us by distances which it is not 
possible for us to realize, has taught us the existence of 
chemical elements before we have recognized them upon the 
earth, and has even instructed us concerning their molecular 
constitution. 

3ut astronomy has its hmitations: inevitable limitations that 
apply not to it only, but to all the sciences. It deals only 
with relations: its observations, its deductions, are only 
relative. The movements of the sun were noted, first, because 
they were movements relative to the earth; the movements of 
the planets were relative to the stars, and so on; of absolute 
motion we know nothing. 

Now in every case, we ourselves, we men, furnish the primal 
relation. Astronomy—and every science—is in its origin, 
practice and expression, essentially anthropomorphic ; not 
because the heavenly bodies are themselves human, but because 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 123 


man is the percipient. The original unit, in terms of which we 
measure the distance of the sun, is the average human pace, 
and in like manner our appreciation of the angular movement 
of a planet is derived from the muscular effort which it costs 
us to move the head, or turn round upon the heel. What in 
mathematics we speak of as “ polar co-ordinates ” were, in their 
origin, sunply walking forward and turning round. 

Further, the discoveries of science give us no final explana- 
tions ; for, when an explanation is discovered for some mystery, 
the explanation itself consists in the bringing to light of some- 
thing, perhaps of many things, that are themselves unexplained, 
and for the time inexplicable. 

Again astronomy knows nothing of the ultimate. In its 
most modern form, it ranges from the interior structure of an 
atom to the farthest extremity of space which a telescope can 
pierce, and indeed, inferentially far beyond. But, however far 
we go in any direction, whether in time or space, the enquiry 
of science will still be, “What is beyond?” And, if it were 
possible to give the decisive answer ‘ There is nothing beyond,” 
then science would find that it had passed the limit of its 
powers; it would have no further ability to deal with the 
situation. In order that science may deal with an event, that 
event must have both an antecedent and a consequent; in 
whichever direction we follow the chain of reasoning, science 
can never bring us either to “the first thing,’ or to “the last 
thing ;” it has no protology and no eschatology. 

The progress of science has been marvellous, and we may 
expect that its future will be much more wonderful than its 
past. But the very fact that it is progressive carries with it a 
necessary drawback. Science has no finality; we can never 
rest and be thankful that there is no more to learn. The 
hypotheses, which men accept to-day in science, may be 
rejected to-morrow, and will certainly be modified. It is with 
things that change that science concerns itself, and with their 
changes, and it is the changing thought of men concerning 
them. 

From each and all of these considerations we see that the 
limitations of science preclude it from giving us any message 
on that which is avowedly the subject of the first chapter of 
Genesis—the Beginning. 

And the first chapter of Genesis does not give us the message 
of science. One example is sufficient. Astronomy i is the oldest 
of all the sciences, but there is not a hint of even its earliest 
discoveries, not a single astronomical technicality is introduced ; 


124 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON ; 


even the sun and moon are not named; we are told nothing 
except what an intelligent child might perceive for himself: 
namely, that there are in the heavens a greater light, a lesser 
hight, and the stars also. There is nothing contrary to science 
told us, but neither is there any scientific revelation. Herein 
the chapter stands in striking contrast to all other accounts of 
Creation. These, without exception, either give us false and- 
unscientific explanations of the heavenly bodies, or the results 
of long-continued scientific observation. Thus the Babylonian 
story mentions the planets, the poles of the heavens, and the 
artificial divisions of the ecliptic. 

If Genesis I had been a revelation of Nature to man, that is to 
say, if it had given him instruction in natural science, it would. 
have been worse than useless. The highest benefit which any 
science confers upon man is not the increase of his information, 
but the development, training and increase of his natural 
powers. Astronomy has been a utilitarian science from the 
beginning. From his observation of the heavenly bodies, man 
has learnt to divide, that is to measure, his time; next, to find 
his direction over land or sea; third, to determine his position, 
that is his longitude or latitude. But all these, though of high 
importance, form a very small part of astronomy to-day. From 
a directly utilitarian point of view, Ruskin’s contemptuous 
remark that he did not care to know what gas Sirius smelt of, 
is justified; but though it is no service te us to have found out 
that hydrogen exists in Sirius, yet the process of finding out, 
with its consequent development of observation and thought, 
has been of untold service. But if it had been revealed to us 
in the first chapter of Genesis that Sinus contains hydrogen, 
the statement would have been unintelligible until man had 
found it out for himself, and the revelation might well have 
retarded man’s mental development, and delayed the discovery. 

The Rev. T. H. Darlow told us in his paper, read on March 
2nd, “On the Character of the Bible,’ that “the Bible is not 
such a book as man would have made if he could, or could have 
made if he would.” The accounts of Creation which have come 
down to us well illustrate the truth of this statement, for all of 
them,—except that of Genesis,——whether they proceed from 
savage or from cultured nations, attempt to explain the origin 
of the universe by supposing it to have been built up out of 
similar materials. Thus, in the Babylonian story, Marduk builds 
the heavens and the earth from the body and bones of Tiamat 
and the sons of Bor, in the prose Edda, use the flesh and blood 
of Ymir, the frost giant, for the same purpose, so that the 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 1eeA5 


heavens and earth are composed of substances which are 
assumed to be as inaterial as themselves. Similarly, Haeckel and 
the school of which he is a representative, build the heavens and 
the earth from the primordial atcm, but less logical than the 
pagans of old, they deny the existence of any person or force 
outside the universe thus self-constructed. 

It is not possible to explain in terms of itself that which 
needs explanation. But the answer of the first chapter of 
Genesis 1s of another kind :—“ In the beginning, God.” Here the 
origin of the universe is found, not in itself, but elsewhere. It 
is true that, if God be also unknown, we learn nothing ; but, if 
God can be known, then His bringing the world into existence 
is no longer unexplained, though it may transcend our under- 
standing. The method of His working may escape us, yet if we 
can know God Himself, we can learn something of His purpose, 
and therefore the significance of what He has Ww rought. The 
true explanation of created things is found in the Creator. 


II.—WeE KNow Gop BY REVELATION ONLY. 


How can God be known? The analogy of science may help 
us. That which men have learnt concerning sun, moon, and 
stars, they have learnt in one way and in one way only: it is 
from the sun, moon, and stars themselves that men have derived 
their knowledge of them; the sole foundation of astronomy is 
Observation. As the science has developed, and become more 
complex, there has been division of labour; and now some men 
are observers, others are computers, and others again subject 
the results of computation to further discussion and analysis ; 
but actual observation comes first and last and in between ; 
the whole structure of the science is built upon it. 

So with the other sciences ; as geology, biology and the rest. 
We have learned of the rocks from the rocks ; of life from life. 
If we would learn of God, our knowledge of Him must come 
from Himself: there is no other source possible. Some scientific 
men have argued as if, since they have learnt of nature from 
nature, by observation of nature, and through their natural 
powers, they could also learn of God from nature, by observation 
of nature, and through their natural powers, without God having 
aught to do with their learning of Him. 

‘Astronomers are sometimes asked, “ But can you photograph 
the stars?” The answer is “Yes.” “When do you do it?” 
“At night.” “But how can you possibly photograph them at 


126 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


night, when it is dark? You must have a very powerful light 
in your observatory to take a photograph at night.” 

It is obvious what is the line of argument in the mind of 
such an inquirer. He knows that if he wishes for a photograph 
of himself, he must either go to the photographer by day when 
the hght is bright, or if he goes at night, the photographer will 
be obliged to use an artificial hight to illuminate him, and he 
supposes that the heavenly bodies need to be illuminated in just 
the same way. 

It is not so. We photograph the sun by the light which 
proceeds from him, the moon by the ight which proceeds from 
her (though that light is not inherent in her), and the stars by 
the hight which proceeds from them: there is no need to try 
to add to their radiance by any hight thrown upon them from 
an earthly source ; indeed the one thing which the astronomical 
photographer is specially anxious to guard against is the entrance 
of any kind of terrestrial illumination, The heavenly luminary 
needs no earth-light to assist it: this can only “fog the plate,” 
and dim or hide the impression that it is desired to secure. 

So God is the only source of hght concerning Himself. We 
know of Him that which He has told us ; we can learn nothing 
more: He is our only possible source of knowledge in this field; 
it is only in His hght that we can see heht. 

And if He gives us light concerning Himself, no matter by 
what method, then that hghtis Revelation. ‘“ Noman has seen 
God at any time” ; He is not perceptible to our senses ; so that 
Observation, the source of our knowledge of material things, is 
not possible here. And speculation is worthless. It is quite 
true that not a few men believe that speculation is a source of 
knowledge with respect to external nature, and scientific men 
often receive accounts of “ discoveries” which the ignorant have 
evolved out of their inner consciousness. The progress of 
science has been marked by the ruthless extermination of such 
“ discoveries” ; it has destroyed many ; it will destroy more; it 
knows no toleration for anything of the kind. It is upon facts 
that have been definitely recognized, not upon unsubstantiated 
speculations, that the structure of science has been founded. 

And what is true of science, is true also of theology. As we 
know nothing of nature from guesses, so we know nothing of 

God from guesses. Our knowledge of Him must. rest upon 
established facts ; that is to say it must come from Him alone. 
Our knowledge of Him must have been His gift to us, or we 
have no knowledge of Him at all. 

Here then is the importance of the first chapter of Genesis. 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENKSIS. 127 


It is no record of events that came within human experience : 
it is no inference from human speculation ; it is the word of 
God Himself to man ; what is the message which He desires us 
to hear ? 


LV.—GENESIS I REVEALS SEVEN TRUTHS CONCERNING GOD. 


There are seven great truths, which, I believe, are taught in 

this chapter :— 

That God is. 

That He Himself created all things. 

That He created all things, not in one act, but in 
several, 

That He made man in His own image. 

That He gave man dominion over all the Earth. 

That He rested from creation on the seventh day. 

That He hallowed the seventh day. 


The first two of these truths are, I believe, accepted by all in 
this room; at least the Victoria Institute proclaims its “ faith 
in the existence of one Eternal God, Who in His Wisdom 
created all things very good.” 

But it is worth noting how these truths are taught and the 
opposing errors condemned. Here it is that the third truth 
becomes of importance,—that God created all things, not in one 
act, but in several. There is no enunciation of a series of 
dogmatic propositions, positive or negative; we are presented 
instead with the record of a succession of facts ; facts of “ history,” 
if we may extend the term “history” to include events before 
the advent of man, events of which God Himself was the only 
Narrator. 

But the bearing of these facts on theology and religion is of 
transcendent weight. Mankind has worshipped the objects of 
nature and the powers of nature, such as the broad expanse of 
sky, the solid earth and restless sea, trees and plants and the 
powers of vegetation, sun, moon and stars, and the varied forms 
of animal life, or the spiritual essences that are supposed to 
indwell them, but this polytheism receives its condemnation in 
the first chapter of Genesis. Here we are told that all these 
are not gods, but things ; “creatures of His hand,” called into 
existence by the word of His power. 

Not less definite is the condemnation of dualism ; the doctrine 
of two opposing principles in creation, one good, the other evil. 
There is but one God, and He has created all things very good. 


2 bo 


TTS OU 


) 


128 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


Still more striking, if possible, 1s the condemnation of 
pantheism. We are often told that the progress of religion has 
been from fetishism to animism, thence to polytheism, and 
finally to monotheism. But this last step is not in the order of 
evolution ; the natural heir and successor of polytheism is not 
monotheism, but pantheism. Nature worship is still nature 
worship, even though the worshipper no longer discriminates 
between the deities of air and earth, of mountain and plain, but 
in order to satisfy an intellectual syncretism, prefers to 
integrate the whole. 

Monism is a late form of pantheism; like it, yet to be 
distinguished from it. Pantheism seeks to be philosophical, 
monism to be scientific; with the result that pantheism is 
unscientific monism, and monism is unphilosophic pantheism, 
both being integrated forms of paganism; the first from the 
more spiritual side, the second from the more material. 

No such thought can be reconciled with the first chapter of 
Genesis. If God made light first, saw it and pronounced it 
good, and proceeded to make the firmament and so through a 
succession of distinct acts, the pantheistic or monistic position 
is impossible. God is Light, it is true, but light is not God: 
He transcends it. 

The fourth truth revealed in this chapter is that God made 
man in His own image. Were it not for this, there could be no 
revelation of God to man. We have seen that man’s science is 
essentially anthropomorphic, not because nature is human, but 
because man is the percipient. So man’s knowledge of God is 
also necessarily anthropomorphic, not because God is human, 
but because man is the recipient of God’s Revelation of 
Himself. Just as we arrive at some dim apprehension of the 
distance of the stars from knowing the length of our stride, so 
if man is to know God, there must be something in man that 
answers to God, and can therefore respond to Revelation, and 
lead man to an apprehension of what is in God. 

The fifth truth is that God gave man dominion over all the 
earth. Here we have the charter of science: the right to that 
freedom of research which the man of science demands. 
Whether man exercises this dominion wisely and rightly or not, 
is not the question we are debating now; suffice it to say that 
in nothing is man’s dominion over the earth more clearly shown 
than in the progress which he has made in the various 
departments of science. 

Sixthly, God rested from creation on the seventh day. The 
significance of this fact from the scientific point of view is 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 129 


this:—From the time that man came, there has been no 
discontinuity in the natural order; no new energy has been 
introduced; no new order founded. Here we find the 
theological basis of that which is the primary assumption of 
science; the unbroken continuity of nature. Let it not be 
forgotten that this assumption of continuity, “ which may be 
called the law of causality, cannot be proved but must be 
believed; in the same way as we believe the fundamental 
assumptions of religion with which it is closely and intimately 
connected.” * But we must alsoremember that for science it is 
a necessary assumption; it is only within the limits of this 
assumption that scientific reasoning can take place. 

Lastly, God sanctified the seventh day. The full significance 
of this expression is not brought out in Scripture until we meet it 
again aS a quotation in the fourth of the “Ten Words” of 
Sinai; but from its context there, it is clear that the sanctifica- 
tion of the seventh day meant that man was differentiated from 
the lower animals. Six days only was he to labour for his food ; 
the seventh day was not his, but God’s ; a day on which he should 
worship God and enter into communion with Him. 

These seven great truths present us with the true relations of 
man to God, his Creator, and to nature, his fellow-creature. 
Above man is God, the infinite and eternal Creator ; below man 
is the great and glorious universe which God has called into 
being; between the two stands man; in himself, small, feeble 
and insignificant, but by virtue of God’s patent, conferred upon 
him, endowed with power to have communion with God, 
and dominion over nature,—to follow Religion, and develop 
Science. 

To bring out these seven truths from the chapter before us is 
no triumph of forced and ingenious exegesis: they lie upon its 
surface, plain to every man. If the chapter be read to a child 
or to an unlearned peasant of ordinary intelligence, both would 
draw from it the same conclusions that I have done; indeed in 
almost every case I have used the very words of the chapter 
itself. And these seven truths are fundamental: the teachings 
of this chapter are necessary, necessary for all men. They 
furnish the great safeguard against idolatry and polytheism and 
all the unspeakable degradations of body, mind and spirit 
to which these lead. This chapter declares to man from the 


* T. N. Thiele, Director of the Copenhagen Observatory, Theory of 
Observations, p. 1, published by Charles and Edwin Layton, 56, Farringdon 
Street, London, 1903. ; 


K 


130 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


outset his true position in the universe, and enables him to take 
his first step in the knowledge of God, which is Religion, and 
his first step in the knowledge of nature, which is Science.* 


Vie= SC OnasaiD:: 


The basis of all the science of to-day is found in the 
principle of continuity ; the principle that like causes produce 
like effects, or, to use less debateable terms, that hke ante- 
cedents are followed by like consequents, and that the 
phenomena perceived to-day follow necessarily and continuously 
from the phenomena of yesterday. 

The first chapter of Genesis is not concerned with such 
continuity. Six times it is recorded “ And God said”; and in 
answer to that Word, a change in the condition of nature 
followed immediately. Two different words are used in con- 
nection with that change,—“ God created,” and “ God made,’— 
and some commentators have laid great stress upon the 
distinction between these two terms. It lies outside my 
province and present purpose to debate this distinction. In one 
thing they agree: they indicate a change in the course of 
nature, which, but for the command of God, would not have 
taken place. If the word had never gone forth, “ Let there be 
light,” then the darkness that was on the face of the deep 
would never have been dispelled. The creation of light on the 
first day was good and compiete in itself, but contained no germ 
or potentiality of the creation of the second day. The 
command “ Let there be a firmament” was as necessary in its 
turn as the command “ Let there be light” had been before it ; 
but again the condition produced had no germ or potency of 
the creation of the third day. So in like manner if the 
command of the third day “ Let the waters under the heaven be 
gathered together into one place and let the dry land appear,” 
had not been issued, our continents and islands would never 
have risen above the waters to bring forth grass, herb, and 
tree. 

So with the remaining days. The meaning of the chapter is 
missed if the work of the sixth day is regarded as the necessary 


* There isa misleading phrase—The Conflict between Religion and 
Science”—which, unfortunately has become almost proverbial. But 
because it is so familiar I wish, throughout this paper, to use the two 
terms, Religion and Science, in the senses in which they occur in this 
phrase, Religion as meaning that knowledge of God which is founded on 
Revelation, and Science that knowledge of Nature which is founded on 
Observation. 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 134 


evolution and development of the fifth, and that of the fifth 
day, as arising in like manner continuously from that of the 
fourth, and so backward from the beginning. The fiat of the 
Almighty, repeated six times over, implies the introduction of a 
new principle on each occasion, and the commencement of a new 
continuity, which held from that time forward and raised the 
Creature in each case to a higher plane. We often speak of 
Creation as a single act, and there is a sense in which that holds 
good. But this first chapter of Genesis declares the truth that 
God accomplished Creation, not in a single act, but in several ; 
—there were several creations. 

This was not because the first creation broke down or was a 
failure. The creation of the first day was good and complete 
in itself; it has never been superseded ; light is with us to-day 
in all its beauty and worth; it was created good, it remains 
good. And so with the other creations, each in their turn. 

But because these separate fiats were creations, they escape 
the research of science. Science deals only with relations, the 
relations between created things; it can only consider secondary 
causes, and it is limited by the continuity of their operation. 
That which precedes the continuity of nature is creation ; that 
which follows creation is continuity. Hence the two terms are 
mutually exclusive; any event or phenomenon that falls within 
the range of continuity is not creation, and the act of creation 
is no incident of continuity. 

In considering most of the discussions that have been 
held over this chapter, discussions which have had for their 
purpose to ascertain the bearing of science upon it, whether to 
confirm or to contradict its record, it will, I think, be recognized 
that generally the real question raised has been whether the 
order of events as given in Genesis is the same as the order of 
development as suggested by evolution. 

Surely this is a fundamental mistake. We must believe that 
if God had thought fit, He could have spoken the word “ Let 
the world be~ and it would have ine ay followed that “the 
world was”; and it would have been potentially, if not in out- 
ward form and appearance, all that we behold of it to-day. 
This is, in effect, the assumption made by both the contending 
| schools,—equally by those who hold that the course of ev olution 
confirms the narrative in Genesis, as by those who claim that it 
is contradicted thereby. It was not once only, but six times, 
that God spake and it was done; and that statement implies 
ot six stages in a single continuous evolution, but six distinct 
exertions of creati ve power. - 

K 2 


132 E, WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


VI—‘“IN SIX DAYS THE LORD MADE HEAVEN AND EARTH.” 


What was the nature of these days of creation? What was 
their length ? And where are we to place them in the course 
of time? Many different opinions have been formed upon 
these questions, which may be summarized as follows :— 


(a) “At one time the chapter was interpreted to mean 
that the entire universe was called into existence 
about 6,000 years ago in six days of 24 hours each. 

(b) “Later it was recognized that both geology and 
astronomy seemed to indicate the existence of matter 
for untold millions of years instead of some 6,000. It 
was then pointed out that, so far as the narrative was 
concerned, there might have been a period of 
almost unlimited duration between its first verse and 
its third; and it was suggested that the six days of 
Creation were six days of 24 hours each, in which, 
after some great cataclysm, 6,000 years ago, the face 
of the earth was renewed and replenished for the 
habitation of man, the preceding geological ages being 
left entirely unnoticed. 

(c) “Some writers have confined the cataclysm and renewal 
toa small portion of the earth’s surface—to ‘ Eden’ 
and its neighbourhood. 

(d) “Other commentators have laid stress on the truth 
revealed in Scripture that ‘one day is with the Lord 
as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,’ 
and have urged the argument that the six days of 
Creation were really vast periods of time, during 
which the earth’s geological changes and the evolution 
of its varied forms of life were running their course. 

(ec) “Others again have urged that the six days of Creation 
were six literal days, but instead of being consecutive, 
were separated by long ages. 

(7) “And yet, again, as no man was present during the 
Creation period, it has been suggested that the Divine 
revelation of it was given to Moses or some other 
inspired prophet in six successive visions or dreams, 
which constituted the ‘six days’ in which the chief 
facts of Creation were set forth.” (Astronomy of the 
Bible, pp. 20-21.) 


It does not lie within my province to discuss the bearing 
upon these interpretations of the meaning of the Hebrew word 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 133 


yom, here translated “day ”—that is for Oriental scholars. 
But the question appeals to me as an astronomer from a 
different point of view, one that has received little or no con- 
sideration. An astronomical day, or rather let us put it, “a 
day of man,” involves four things :—(1) an earth that has obtained 
definite form ; that (2) has begun to turn on its axis; (3) a sun 
that shines ; and (4) aman upon the earth to see. In order that 
“evening” and “morning” may indicate definite points of 
time, a fifth condition is necessary :—a selected locality upon 
the turning earth, from which the sun may be seen to set and 
to rise. 

The chapter before us gives us no hint that, at the moment 
when the word of command of the first day was spoken, the 
earth had received any definite form. There is no hint of its 
rotation, nor of any choice of a special locality. It was not 
until the fourth day that the sun was set in the firmament to 
give light upon the earth; nor until the sixth day that there 
was a man to perceive the succession of evenings and mornings. 
Surely then the seven days of Creation are not seven days of 
man, but seven days of God. But this must give them a 
stronger, not a weaker, claim to be rightly called days. If God 
regards them as days, then days they were in the fullest sense ; 
no matter how difficult, nay perhaps impossible, it may be 
for us to define them in our vernacular. Yet, since man was 
made in the image of God, it may well be that the days of man 
are faint types or images of the days of God; the six days of 
man’s labour, of God’s six days of creative work; the seventh 
day of man’s rest, of the day which God blessed and 
sanctified. 


VII.“ THE EVENING AND THE MORNING.” 


But if it is impossible for us to define the days of God in the 
terms of our human experience of time, is it impossible that 
God should translate them for us? We find that the record of 
each day’s work is concluded by the same formula—* and there 
was evening, and there was morning.” ‘This expression is both 
unusual and striking, particularly in the case of the first day 
“ And there was evening and there was morning, day one.” 

The suggestion to my own mind is that each “day” was 
bounded by its evening and by its morning. The natural objec- 
tion to this view is, that the interval between evening and morning 
is not “day” but “night;” but the objection itself recalls the 
interpretation (/) given above, of the seven days of Creation as 


134 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


seven successive dreams given to some prophet of old. This is 
the suggestion once put forth by Hugh Miller, and adopted by 
the late Rev. Prof. Charles Pritchard, in his work, Nature 
and Revelation ; and it deserves careful attention. 

If Genesis I is a revelation from God, it must have been made 
originally to some man; it is through some man that we have 
received it. We have instances in Scripture of many types and 
kinds of revelation. Sometimes the prophet has heard an 
audible voice ; sometimes the Divine message has been impressed 
inwardly in his spirit; sometimes his own organs of speech 
have been moved by the Divine power ; sometimes he has fallen 
into a trance and seen a vision; sometimes the revelation has 
come to him in the dreams of sleep. 

Now the language of this first chapter of Genesis deserves 
special attention ; it is unlike all other Scripture. No man 
was present ; God was the Actor and the only Historian ; yet 
we have nowhere the prophetic formula: “ Thus saith the Lord.” 
God is always spoken of in the third person; vet, though no 
man could have been present, the record reads as if it were that 
of an eye-witness, who saw the whole succession of events 
passing before his sight, though he took no part in them and no 
word was addressed to him. If we think of the chapter as the 
record of some seer to whom the whole was revealed in a week 
of nights, the dream of one creative day each night, the 
expression, “and there was evening and there was morning, 
day one” comes with the simplicity and graphicness of a 
personal narrative by the prophet. The sun went down and 
darkness fell upon the landscape: then, as with Eliphaz the 
Temanite, “a thing was secretly brought to him, and his ear 
received a little thereof. In thought from the visions of the 
night, when deep sleep falleth upon men” (Job iv, 12-13). 
Between the evening and the morning the vision came to him, 
the vision of the first day of Creation—“ ther as evening and 
there was morning, day one.” 


Vili—“ Gon saw. 


But this was a vision,a dream. Visions have their place 
and purpose, but as scientific men we crave for the actual, as 
religious men for the real. If the vision was true, there must 
have been a reality which it represented and expressed. 

Five times over in the chapter we read “God saw. How 
often have these words been read as if they ran, “ man 
saw”? It is not the same thing, for “ the Lord seeth not as 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 135 


man seeth, for man looketh on the outward appearance.” 
(1 Samuel xvi, 7.) Man sees the outward appearance, the 
effect, the phenomenon; God sees the inward substance, the 
causes, the reality; that which hes at the basis of nature, as 
well as that which is at the basis of character. 

This thought is strikingly expressed in the 139th Psalm :— 


“My substance was not hid from Thee, 
When I was made in secret, 
And curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 
Thine eyes did see my substance yet being unperfect ; 
And in Thy book all my members were written, 
Which in continuance were fashioned, 
When as yet there was none of them.” 


And these words are as applicable to the weaving of the 
wondrous fabric of the Cosmos as to that great mystery, the 
formation and growth of the yet unborn child. 

“ Which in continuance were fashioned.” The continuity of 
nature is the dominant note of science to-day, the thought that 
nature as 1t now is, has been “ fashioned in continuance ” from 
its condition in the past. It is a new thought in these, our 
times; it has hardly found general recognition for three 
generations of men; yet it is clearly intimated here and else- 
where in the Scriptures in documents that were written nearly 
3,000 years ago. 

We have seen that creation precedes continuity, and is not 
an item in its course, but when did creation take place? The 
answer to that question is not so obvious as some have been 
ready to suppose. 

The existence of man as recognized by God Almighty, did 
not begin with man’s own consciousness of it, but with the 
beginning of that continuity of nature which eventually resulted 
in man’s coming into living, conscious existence. He existed to 
God long before he existed to himself. This truth is set forth 
with great distinctness in the address of Wisdom, in the book 
of Proverbs, where the work of creation is especially referred to. 


“The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, 
Before His works of old. 


I was set up from everlasting from the beginning, 
Or ever the earth was. 
* * * * * 
When He gave to the sea His decree, 
That the waters should not pass His commandment : 


156 E, WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


When He appointed the foundations of the earth. 

Then I was by Him, as One brought ee with Him : 

And I was daily His delight, 

Rejoicing always before Him: 

Rejoicing in the habitable part of His earth ; 

And My delights were with the sons of men.” (Proverbs 
vill, 22-31.) 

Six times God uttered the creative word; six times that 
word was followed by the instant coming into existence of that 
which had been commanded. But when God beheld that which 
He had made and saw that it was good, does it follow that, 
could a man have been there to look on, there was anything 
present which would have been apparent to his sight ; anything, 
that is to say, that he could have recognized as an accomplish- 
ment of the command? Turn back to the text which I have 
already quoted: “ Thine eyes did see my substance yet being 
unperfect, and in Thy book all my members were written, 
which in continuance were fashioned when as yet there was 
none of them.” Is not the Psalmist here enunciating a truth 
that concerns much more than his own bodily existence? If 
this earth of ours had consciousness and spirit, as well as mass, 
might it not repeat the very words of the Psalmist? Might 
not sun and moon and all the heavenly host join in the same 
ascription and so with all the forms of life and energy ? 

And this, not only because God is all-knowing, foreseeing the 
end from the beginning, and beholding the thing that is afar 
off as if it were near ; but because He can perceive and gauge 
the outcome of the hidden forces now secretly in operation. 
To Him the far-off results are present, both because He is not 
subject, as the creature is, to the limitations of time, and 
because He sees the causes that are working towards the final 
effect. When God spoke it was done, and God saw it, and saw 
that it was good, for He had then put forth the power that 
would accomplish His entire purpose. “So shall My word be 
that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me 
void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall 
prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Isaiah lv, 11.) 


ITX.—TuHE WorRK OF THE SEVEN DAYS OF CREATION. 


The detailed examination of the work of the separate days of 
creation is far too large a subject to be dealt with at the 
conclusion of a paper, already inordinately long, yet I would 
like to make a few brief suggestions— 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 137 


THE FIRST DAY.—The third verse of the chapter tells us 
«“ And God said Let there be light, and there was light.” But 
light is a form of energy ; therefore the creation of light involves 
the creation of energy. Further, though we conceive of matter 
as being distinct from energy, yet we cannot conceive of them 
apart the one from the other ; that therefore which is hinted at 
here, is the creation both of matter and of energy as we know 
them: the material of the Cosmos. 

Did anything exist before the Cosmos, before matter and 
energy? This appears to be hinted at, both in verse 2, and in 
Hebrews xi, 3: “Through faith we understand that the worlds 
were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen 
were not made of things which do appear.” 

But we cannot conceive of any such state, for our conceptions 
are limited by our experiences, and these are confined to the 
Cosmos. Any description of the pro-Cosmos, if such there were, 
must be cosmomorphic ;—~z.e., expressed in terms of the Cosmos 
—such as the “waste and empty” of verse 2, and the suggestion 
of an infinite ocean in absolute darkness: a plenum of empty- 
ness, if the paradox may be allowed. 

The creation of light, that is of matter and energy, involves 
also the creation of Time; for Time enters in as an essential 
element of light. Hence we read “There was evening there 
was morning, day one.” 

“Day one.’—The “one” here is absolute, not relative. This 
first day was the original and type of all later days; Time 
now began to be. 

How far hght extended at the moment of its creation, we 
cannot say. No hint is given as to whether the new-born 
energy permeated at once to the utmost extent of space, or 
whether it developed, as if from some small germ—if the 
figure may be permitted—until the whole of the pro-cosmic 
darkness was leavened. Neither are we told how long, accord- 
ing to human reckoning, that first day lasted; whether it was 
but a mere instant, or an extended eon, or whether perchance 
it was equal in length to one of our own human days. We 
are told only that “light was”—-it came into existence; and 
its creation came between the evening and the morning of a 
day of God. Thus the work of the first day was not only the 
beginning of creation, it was the prototype of the work of 
each of the days that followed. God spake and it was done. 
There was evening, there was morning; darkness gave place to 
light ; non-entity to entity. 

Iam not inclined to follow those who connect the work of 


138 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


the first day, directly or indirectly, with any form of that which 
is known as “the Nebular Hypothesis.” And this, for three 
reasons: (1) I can trace no reference to the hypothesis in the 
chapter. (2) The nebular hypothesis is concerned with the con- 
tinuity of nature; that is to say, with the continuousness of 
its evolution, not at all with its creation. And (3) there is no 
form of that hypothesis, at present recognised, which does not: 
offer serious scientific difficulties. 

A SECOND DAY.—The significance of the Divine command on 
this day is, as it appears to me, that God then set in action the 
forces which should finally result in the separation of the 
Earth—that is to say, the globe on which we live—from the 
rest of the Cosmos. If this be so, the omission of the verdict, 
“it was good,” is natural; nothing new was called into existence 
this day; it was the selection of a portion of the universe to 
be the scene of the great Divine drama. From this time forth, 
the narrative is essentially concerned with the Earth. 

A THIRD DAY.—Here the point which I wish to make is this: 
We know that the creation of hght.and the separation of the 
material of a planet from the rest of the universe do not 
necessarily involve that that planet shall ever present a surface, 
partly of land and partly of water, or shall ever become the 
home of plant life. If we accept the doctrine of evolution, 
even in its fullest range, that carries with it no necessity that 
the course of development on a given planet must be analogous 
to that which has taken place upon our Earth; or that it 
should ever attain there the same results that it has done here. 
For example, so far as we can ascertain anything concerning 
other worlds, we may feel contident that none of the planetoids, 
such as Eros, ever has been, or ever will be, the home of any 
form of organic life. That our Earth has “habitable parts ” 
involves, therefore, that a definite provision to that end was 
made by the Creator. 

A FouRTH DAY.—Here let it be noted that, though our system 
has a single sun, this is far from being the only type among 
stellar systems and, therefore, is not an inevitable result of 
stellar evolution. Similarly, though every planet in our system 
is lighted by the sun, yet our Earth alone possesses a moon in 
the true sense of that term. Several other planets possess 
satellites, but these are all negligible in mass as compared with 
their primaries, and negligible, too, in the light which they afford. 
That our Earth has a greater heht-giver to rule the day, and a 
lesser lght-giver to rule the night, involves, therefore, that a 
definite provision to that end was made by the Creator. 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 139 


This was but the fourth day, and man had not yet been 
created. Yet the Wisdom of God already was rejoicing in the 
habitable part of His Earth, and His delights were with the 
sons of men. For the greater light and the lesser ight were 
not only for signs and for days and years, they were also for 
“seasons”; that is to say, for the solemn assemblies for the 
worship of God. 

A FIFTH DAY.—“ And God said Let the waters bring forth 
abundantly, the moving creature that hath life.” This would 
seem to imply, not the creation of new material, but rather the 
raising of existing material to a higher plane of activity; in 
other words, life was brought forth from non-living matter. 
We have, as yet, no scientific experience of any change 
of this kind, and we may well say concerning it, “This is the 
finger of God”; it is peculiarly His operation. But should 
such experience be ours in the future, it is well that we should 
remember that such a change is already chronicled here as 
having taken place in the past. 

THE SIXTH DAY.—“ And God said Let Us make man in Our 
image, and after Our likeness, and let them have dominion.” 
This was the word of God; He spake and it was done; He 
did not create new material, but He called into existence then 
and there the powers and conditions which shall lead up 
to this glorious consummation. But it was not within a 
period of twenty-four hours from the time of the speaking of 
that word, nor yet for thousands of years to come after, that 
the image of God was fully seen in a Man, Who was God 
manifest in the flesh. And we still wait for the “dominion” 
in its fulness ; “we see not yet all things put under Him.” 

THE SEVENTH pAY.—“ And God blessed the seventh day and 
sanctified it.” I would only note here that, to the senses of 
man, there is no difference observable between the seventh day 
and the other six; the distinction between them does not he 
in the region of phenomena. Yet God has distinguished 
between them, and He calls upon man to do the same, and man 
is able to fulfil that command; so that though one day is in 
itself like the next, yet man can consecrate and keep holy the 
seventh day, and make an essential difference between that and 
the rest. And in so doing, man thus far fulfils the purpose of 
his being, for he shows forth the image of God, “ Who rested on 
the seventh day from all the work which He had made, and 
blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.” 


140 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


X.—“ IN THE IMAGE OF GOD.” 


In the foregoing paper I have tried to bring out the thoughts 
which this first chapter of Genesis have impressed upon me. 

I think it tells us of the Beginning; that God created all — 
things; that He created all things in seven days of God. By 
creation I do not understand the bringing of all things into 
their final manifestations, but the bringing into operation of 
the essential powers and principles, which should lead to those 
manifestations in the fulness of time. 

I do not know when the Beginning took place; I do not 
think the slightest hint is afforded to us. I do not think that 
we can determine how long in human measure were those seven 
days of God. The suggestion pleases me, I must admit, that 
they were revealed to man in symbol and in vision, in seven 
consecutive nights ; that between the evening and the morning, 
the seer, whoever he was, saw in dream the work of the 
successive days of God’s Week. It may be, but we cannot tell, 
that God, in His acts of creation, may have consented to limit 
Himself by the very limitations of time which hereatter would 
be the necessary limitations of His predestined creature, man, 
and that the Week of God may have been, in absolute duration, 
exactly equal to a week of man; it may be, but unless God 
tells us so in so many words, we cannot know, and I do not see 
that it matters to us. 

So far, for the chapter itself. One word further on the 
alleged conflict between Religion and Science, for, when that 
supposed conflict is mentioned, it is this chapter that is generally 
in the speaker’s mind. 

The Astronomer Royal, in the admirable speech which he 
made to us on the occasion of our last meeting here, said that 
astronomy was descriptive only; and that which is true of 
astronomy is true of all sciences: they seek to describe things 
as they are. 

Astronomy, geology, biology ;—these are especially the three 
sciences which are supposed to contradict (or to confirm, for 
some writers take an opposite view) the chapter before us. 
Wherein can the contradiction (or confirmation) lie? There is 
no allusion whatever to geology ; no hint as to the respective 
ages of carboniferous and cretaceous strata, or even as to the 
existence of strata at all; and the allusions to objects that 
come within the domains of astronomy and biology go no farther 
than the merest mention of less than a dozen of the most obvious 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 141 


natural objects. I must confess that the attempts which have 
been so frequently made to discuss this chapter as if it dealt 
with the results of scientific investigations, astonish me with 
their unreasonableness, and fill me with admiration at their far- 
fetched ingenuity. 

The first chapter of Genesis is no handbook of science, no 
epitome of the course of evolution. It is the revelation of 
God :—“ God said”; “God saw”; “God created”; “God 
called” ; “God made”; “God appointed”; “ God divided” ; 
“God ended”; “God rested”; “ God blessed and sanctified.” 

If I am right, it is through missing this essential thought that 
the idea has arisen that there is some conflict, some opposition 
between the teaching of this chapter and the discoveries of 
science. 

But if any still allege that such a conflict exists, let me point 
out that they have two positions to make good. First, they 
must prove that the discovery that they adduce is one, the 
significance of which in this relation cannot possibly be altered 
by any discovery which the future may bring to light: a 
position no truly scientific man would adopt. Next, they must 
show that this chapter contains a contravention of 1t: a position 
impossible to anyone who has read the chapter with attention. 

Science deals only with the relation of created thing to thing 
within the continuity of nature, and can, in no direction, extend 
its researches to its origin and beginning, its creation. 

This chapter does not deal with the relations of thing to 
thing, but reveals God the Creator, the Origin and Beginning of 
all things. Our powers of observation and reflection were given 
to us by God in order that we might acquire the knowledge of 
external nature for ourselves. But the Creator Himself is here 
revealed to us, because our natural powers of observation and 
reflection are incompetent to make Him known to us. 

And this revelation is for the purpose of teaching man his 
true relation both to God and to nature. He is made in the 
image of God, after His likeness. Here is the high dignity of 
man, his solemn responsibility ; the duty is laid upon him of 
showing forth to his fellow-men and to his lower fellow-creatures, 
the love and mercy, the truth and justice, the wisdom and 
patience of Almighty God, the God Whose image he was created 
to bear, and to make manifest. 

Here lies his right to dominion over nature; not in his own 
essential worth, but in the fact that he is God’s chosen 
representative. Independent power and authority he has none ; 
as the son of God, made in His image and likeness, deriving all 


142 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


his life and power and authority from Him, God “hath put all 
things under His feet.” 

Here has arisen the conflict between Religion and Irreligion— 
there is none between Religion and Science. “ Religion” means 
“the binding of man to God”; a binding which, if he is to 
manifest God’s image, and to rule as God’s representative, is 
essential. Jrreligion means the dissolution, the denial, or at 
least the neglect of this relation. Hence there are many who 
are ready to admit in words that there isa“ Great First Cause,” 
but in practice they ignore Him; He is to them gs wee 
negligible factor.” 

The brute beasts know not God, and cannot hold aiencoeee 
and communion with Him; they follow their natural pro- 
pensities and passions, for they are not capable of any ne 
higher. 

‘But if man, by creation the son of God, made in the image of 
God and to manifest His likeness, holds himself separate from and 
independent of God, the beauty and perfection of created nature 
is destroyed, aud man, the highest of created things, becomes 
most out of harmony with the purpose of his being. __ 

Every man, indeed, perceives in his neighbour and must 
recognise in himself, that the image of God which he presents 
is, at best, blurred, broken, imperfect and defaced; but if, 
instead of striving after the Divine likeness, he is content to 
manifest only the likeness of the beast, whether it be in the 
indulgence of its passions, or in its ignorance of God, then there 
is seen in him, not only sin against God, but sin against his 
own essential Manhood. For Manhood consists in this, that 
Man show forth God’s image and make manifest His likeness. 


DISCUSSION. 


® The CHAIRMAN expressed his special satisfaction in presiding on 
that occasion as it was the first opportunity he had had of welcoming 
Mr. Maunder as their Secretary. He thought that in the paper that 
had just been read, Mr. Maunder had handled a very difficult sub- 
ject on the lines which the Victoria Institute had laid down for 
itself in dealing with such questions. The object of the Institute 
was the frank and full discussion of questions in relation to religion 
and science, but in a reverent spirit. They did not ask all to 
conform to strict orthodoxy ; they did not ask that everyone should 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 143 


think exactly alike, but they did ask that all should discuss the 
important problems, which were always springing up, in the same 
spirit of reverent desire to arrive at the truth. 

He was bound to say, that after a very long experience, having 
heard this first chapter of Genesis fought over ever since he was a 
small boy, he knew of no better answer to the questions on both 
sides than the paper to which they had just listened. Their first 
duty was to take the words of the chapter as they found them and 
not the words as they might wish to make them. 

Mr. M. L. Rouse had listened with delight to this admirable 
paper, with its concise logic and rhythmical and harmonious 
language, and had been struck by several thoughts contained in it, 
which appeared to be wholly new. 

The theory to which the author inclined, that the six days of 
creation were six nights of vision, in each of which a distinct 
operation of God was revealed, appeared consistent with the fact 
that each day seemed to be limited by ‘‘an evening” and “a 
morning.” Yet it would have been difficult to have phrased the 
sentence otherwise, if it had been intended to express a full day of 
24 hours, and he thought “evening” and ‘ morning” might have 
been used, rather than “night” and “day,” simply to avoid the 
ambiguity between the two meanings of the word “ day,” which 
might signify either the period ‘of daylight, or the whole 24 hours. 
The older nations such as the Arabs and the Pheenicians put the 
evening before the morning, beginning their day at sunset, but that 
ordinary days of 24 hours were here meant appeared probable from 
the fact that the seventh day was of this kind, being one that Adam 
enjoyed in communion with his Creator, while the Ten Command- 
ments put the six days in the same class as the seventh. 

He was a believer in the theory marked (b) on page 132 of the 
paper. In Hebrew where the verb “to be” would simply be the 
copula, it was usually omitted, but it was expressed where it meant 
‘“became,” or ‘“‘came to be,” asin verse 3. Now the word “ was” 
was expressed in the first clause of verse 2, but not in the second, 
so it might be inferred that the first clause meant that the earth had 
become “ waste ” (thu), “and void,” in harmony with Isaiah xlv, 18, 
—“T created not the world a waste (tou) I made it to be inhabited.” 
Geology taught that, just before the appearance of man, the earth 
had passed through the cataclysm that brought on the glacial epoch. 


144 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


Lest anyone should declare that the second chapter of Genesis 
gave an account of creation conflicting with that found in the first, 
he would point out that in this case the account in the second 
chapter would be a very strange one, for neither fishes nor creeping 
things were mentioned as created at all. Genesis 1, 4,—iv, 26, was 
one of ten sections into which, after the Divine preface, the whole 
book was divided, each of the ten beginning with the phrase 
‘These are the generations,” and each starting with the summary 
of the chief subject treated of in the preceding section. 

Mr. Maunder had said that there was no difference in signification 
between “God created” and ‘God made.” He thought that there 
was. Dara, rendered “created” each time that it occurred in the 
chapter, was the only word that the Hebrew had for created, whereas 
asah, rendered ‘‘made,” usually signified manufactured out of exist- 
ing tangible material, so if the light-holders (verse 14) were said to 
have been “ made,” whereas man was said to have been “ created,” 
the meaning might simply be that after a longer obscuration the 
light-holders then again became visible. | 

The DEAN OF CANTERBURY said that he had read Mr. Maunder’s 
paper with very great interest, and joined in offering hearty 
thanks to him for it. It was one, however, which he thought they 
could not adequately judge upon a first hearing. It gave a great 
deal of material for thought, and he should not like to express an 
opinion about all its suggestions without much more consideration 
than had yet been possible. He was particularly grateful to 
Mr. Maunder for the emphasis he had laid on the fact that this 
chapter was really more a revelation of God, and of God’s relation 
to man, than an historical or scientific account of the creation of 
the world. He also dwelt on another point of profound importance : 
that it was a chapter which could not have been derived from any 
mere human source. It could not have been derived from experience, 
or even by inference. The scientific facts which pointed to that 
gradual development of the earth which it described were not known 
to man at the time. To his mind, despite all the difficulties which 
surrounded it, this first chapter of Genesis afforded conclusive proof 
of direct Divine revelation. They had listened to a discussion on 
the words “evening ” and ‘‘ morning,” and “created” and ‘“ made.” 
He remembered, however, a remark once made to him when some small 
point was being raised respecting a newspaper article. A great 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 145 


master of public writing said to him, “ Never mind that ; you have 
to do scene painting.” He did not think it was sufficiently realized 
that whoever wrote this account of creation in 25 verses had to do 
scene painting. It was impossible to be minutely complete and 
accurate on every particular point. In scene painting a general 
effect was produced ; and he took it that that was what had been 
done here. He had sometimes been bold enough to ask himself 
whether if some great master of science were put into a room with 
a sheet of paper, and told to produce a general account of the 
creation of the world within the limits of that sheet of paper, he 
would produce anything very different from that first chapter of 
Genesis. That was not a mere suggestion of his own, for a 
great master of science in his day, Sir William Dawson, definitely 
stated in one of his books that he did not think a more effectively 
true account of the development of the earth could have been written, 
in the same space, than that contained in the first chapter of 
Genesis. Whether Sir William Dawson was absolutely right in that 
statement or not, to his mind the amazing thing was that such an 
observation should be possible with any approach to truth about a 
chapter of a book written many thousands of years ago. In con- 
nection with that, he should like to say one other word. It had 
been the fashion for some time to talk of these accounts of creation 
as having come from Babylon. For what reason? Merely 
because there was some distant resemblance in them to things 
contained in the Babylonian tablets. That did not prove that the 
Babylonian records were prior to these. It was equally possible, 
and more probable, that this was the original revelation, and that 
the other accounts were corrupted from it. There was another 
thing abeut this chapter, and the second chapter also, which ought 
to take us far above the vulgar dispute between religion and science ; 
namely, that it undoubtedly contained, apart from theological 
questions, the most profound revelation of man’s position on earth, and 
of man’s nature and relation to God. Itwasa very striking thing that 
the germinal idea of Bacon’s philosophy was derived from this chapter, 
namely, that the function of man was to have dominion over nature, 
so that it might to a certain extent be regarded as the original 
starting point of the great ideas of modern science. One read a 
great many philosophies, at least one did when one was young, but 
in all philosophy, so far as he was acquainted with it, he never heard 
L 


146 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


it said that the business of man was to increase and multiply, and to 
replenish the earth and subdue it. That was the revelation of the 
function of man upon earth made in this chapter, and nowhere else ; 
and he was proud to think there was one nation in the world which 
had to a great extent lived up to it, and that was the Anglo- 
Saxon race. It was because the Anglo-Saxon race had been 
increasing and multiplying and replenishing the earth and sub- 
duing it, that it had obtained the predominance it enjoyed. He 
only hoped it would go on fulfilling that commandment in all 
respects. He was bold enough to make another suggestion about 
the second chapter of Genesis. There was a passage which very 
much puzzled a good many people. It said Adam was entrusted 
with the naming of the creatures. It seemed to some people a 
curious function to be assigned to Adam, and they were puzzled to 
know how he carried it out. He ventured to suggest that’ that 
description of Adam naming the creatures was an Oriental suggestion 
of the function of man as a scientific creature. The function of all 
science might to a large extent be described as that of naming things 
which involved distinguishing, and classifying them. He ventured 


to think that we were very prosaic people, in comparison with those 


who wrote these books. He would suggest they were both poetry 
and history—history couched in an Oriental, semi-allegorical style, 
which it svas very difficult for us to comprehend. He was sure that 
many of our difficulties in the Bible, and even in the New Testament, 
came from our taking in the cold blood of modern prose expressions 
spoken, and meant to be understood, with the large meaning 
conveyed in this Oriental language. At all events, apart from all 
the details, the marvel of it was that we should have in our hands 
a chapter which dated back beyond the dawn of literature, yet 
which nevertheless contained the great central truths of man’s nature 
and of his relation to God and to the world. Looking at it from 
that point of view, it affords conclusive testimony, at the very out- 
set of the Holy Scriptures, that they came from the hand of God. 

Mr. W. Woops SmyYTH considered that Mr. Maunder had treated 
his subject in a new and original way. And his opening words 
rang out clearly the foundation truth, namely, that “there are only 
two possible sources for the chapter, God, Himself, the Creator, 
who knew the mode and order of creation, or man, who did not 
know, but imagined it.” 


a e 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 147 


But the English version, which Mr. Maunder had _ generally 
followed, as much misrepresented, as represented, what God had 
written for our learning. There was much truth in the contention 
of the Jews that the Hebrew Bible was the only inspired Word of 
God. 

Mr. Maunder spoke of a Divine fiat on each day—not so the 
Hebrew. The imperative, was never used. Again, the word 
“create” in Hebrew was used about eighteen times outside the 
chapter, but never to denote a special Divine act, always to indicate 
the production of things by a natural process. The one apparent 
exception, Numbers xvi, 30, really supported this rule. The Targum 
found in this Hebrew word the idea of selection. 

The continuity which the English version led Mr. Maunder to 
believe to be absent from the chapter, on the contrary, was every- 
where present. The so-called tenses of the Hebrew verbs were 
almost entirely in the imperfect, and signify, according to Gesenius, 
“the incoming,” “ the continuous,” and according to the late Canon 
Driver, “the progressive continuance or development of the past,” 
or to Ewald, ‘‘ the relatively progressive.” Hven the perfect tense 
indicated ‘‘ that which has been in the past, and is still going on,” 
while the expression “the generations of the heaven and the earth 
in their being created” signified organic succession and completed 
the proof of continuity. The first chapter of Genesis was, therefore, 
as even Professor Haeckel perceived, an evolutionary document. 
The intellectual Fathers of the Church saw this fact from the Greek 
version, and St. Augustine said, ‘‘the animals were created by a 
process of growth, from imperfect to perfect forms, which the after 
time brought forth.” The tenses for each day’s production are also 
in the Hebrew causative voice, Hiphil, thus recognising all that 
modern science tells us of the influence of environment. 

In relationship to the so-called creation of light, Mr. Maunder 
says, “therefore the creation of light involves the creation of 
energy . . . that, therefore, which is hinted at here, is the 
creation both of matter and energy,” etc. Even the English Bible 
showed this to be a mistake. The first verse of the chapter spoke of 
“the heaven and the earth,” thatis the universe. The second came 
down to the earth itself, and said, “the earth” (not the earth and 
the heaven) was fohu va bohu, “waste and empty ” “and darkness 
was on the face of the deep,” that is on the ocean deep—literally 

L 2 


148 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


the raging deep—and at that era it was so. ‘‘ And the spirit of God 
brooded ‘on the face of the waters. And God said, let there be 
light.” ~Where? In some: place in the universe? No. ~The 
subject was not now the heaven and the earth, but the earth only. 
The light, therefore, was shown where the darkness had _ been, 
namely on the face of the deep. Before the solidity of earth 
permitted of land standing out of the waters, the water covered the 
whole earth to the depth of about two miles. The translation “ in 
the beginning ” was misleading ; there was no article in the Hebrew 
here, although very plentifully used in this chapter. It was not, 
therefore, the beginning of all things, asof energy and matter, ete., 
that was intended, but a beginning relating nly, to this pear 
one-mooned world. 

When we considered the facts that the time ratios of Genesis and 
of our leading geologists agreed ; that the order and distribution of 
life, beginning first in the waters, also agreed with those stated by 
Sir Archibald Geikie ; that the day divisions in Genesis agreed with 
the divisions of Professor Haeckel; that the days were called sons 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and were so understood by all the 
Greek fathers; then we dared not doubt the reality of Divine 
revelation and the truth of the Bible. 

Dr. A. T. SCHOFIELD thought the beauty of Mr. Maunder’s paper 
consisted in what it contained, and that a good deal of its wisdom 
consisted in what was left out. He thought Mr. Maunder’s remark 
that the words “ Let there be light ” implied the creation of energy 
might be open to question, but he would ask whether it was quite 
certain that the words ‘‘Let there be light” necessarily implied the 
original creation of light in the universe. He would like to allude to 
Dean Wace’s wonderful words about the breadth and scope of the 
magnificent painting in this chapter; he ventured to suggest that, 
being painted by the Divine Artist, its accuracy in respect to the 
minutest word used was as conspicuous as the majestic breadth of 
the painting. Now one speaker had already pointed out that the 
word “was” occurred twice in the second verse but was only 
expressed once. ‘‘ Darkness upon the face of the deep ” ; the ‘‘ was” 
not expressed ; but “the earth was without form and void,” the 
word “was” expressed ; the Hebrew usage suggesting that the first 
statement simply expressed that the darkness was there, and the 
second that the earth had become without form and _ void 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 149 


from its previous condition. If we further bear in mind that these 
last words never occurred in Scripture except in connection with sin 
and some judgment of God, we might perhaps get a fuller light 
upon that second verse. Then on page 133, Mr. Maunder said that 
each working day was bounded by the evening and the morning ; it 
would be well to bear in mind the fact that on the seventh day, 
when God rested, there is no mention either of evening or of 
morning. 

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that unfortunately very few of them 
there were accurate Hebrew scholars, and he was convinced that no 
one but an actual Hebraist ought to discuss the minute verbal 
details of this chapter. The marvel was that books of such infinite 
difficulty for minute analysis conveyed such a splendid and distinct 
impression on the average man ; it was one of the evidences of the 
Divine truth of the Holy Scriptures. 

Professor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD was sure that the very hearty 
thanks of that large meeting would be given to the author of the 
paper to which they had been listening,—a paper which, for 
originality and vigour of thought, linked with vivacity of style and 
diction, took rank among the best of the many valuable contribu- 
tions in religion, philosophy, and science, with which their Society 
had been favoured. 

The paper was adorned by many gems of truth. Genesis i is a 
revelation of God by Himself,—“God is the only source of light 
concerning himself” (page 126). The creation work on any one of the 
six days ‘“ was good and complete in itself” but “ contained no germ 
or potentiality ” of the work of a future day (page 130) ; before the 
work comes the fiat; man is made in the image, and after the 
likeness, of God (page 141). 

But though we concur with the author that the primary object 
of this revelation is religious and designed to teach men the seven 
great truths he brings forward on page 127, yet it may be pointed out 
that this is not a complete account of the matter. Genesis i 
contains also other truths. God has been pleased to put the 
spiritual jewel in an historical and scientific setting—a setting which, 
since He is the God of Truth, must (if the revelation be from Him) 
itself be true. The Divine Author of the chapter tells men several 
science-truths, unknown to science when the chapter was written 
and for centuries afterwards, ¢.g., the firmament in which the sun 


150 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


aud the moon are placed, is not a solid vault but is an “expanse” 
similar to that in which birds fly; grass (or sproutage) and herb 
yielding seed after his kind, etc., were earlier than the great whales 
(or sea monsters), which in their turn preceded cattle, succeeded by 
man. The fact that these and all other science statements are in 
complete accord with modern science goes to attest the Divine 
Authorship of the narrative. 

The Rev. JAMES THOMAS expressed the earnest hope that the 
Council of the Victoria Institute would arrange for the special 
publication in separate form of this most important paper. 

The LECTURER thanked the Meeting for the great attention with 
which they had listened to him, and for the very kind reception they 
had given him. He would not attempt, at that late hour, to reply 
to the different criticisms that had been offered on his paper ; except 
to point out to Mr. Rouse, who had represented him as saying that 
there was no difference between “ God created” and “God made,” 
that he had really said that he would not debate the difference ; not 
quite the same thing. And to Dr. Woods Smyth he would reply 
that, however the words of the chapter were translated, it yet 
remained clear, that when God said “ Let this, or that be,” something 
happened which would not have happened if that word had not 
been spoken. 

The Meeting adjourned at 6.15 p.m. 


SUBSEQUENT COMMUNICATIONS. 


Mr. J. SCHWARTZ, Junr.: I agree with the two fundamental 
propositions of our lecturer, but I fear that he will consider me 
quite unqualified to discuss this subject to any profit, as I cannot 
accept absolutely the third proposition that God is Himself the 
Author of this chapter. | 

There is no more evidence of this assertion than for the similar 
claims of priests and the like all the world over for their own 
traditions. The vast majority of men of liberal education, including 
a number of the clergy, accept to-day his alternative that it was 
written by men who did not know but imagined it. I admit that 
it seems self-evident both that the universe does exist, and that it had 
a beginning, and that we desire to know how it began. Our author 
has put exceedingly well the relativity and limitations of our know- 
ledge, from which it follows that such wish is never likely to be 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 151 


realised, as we can never hope to get final explanations, or ultimate 
knowledge. 

Much of the Bible that is taken literally by the orthodox appears 
to many of us to be meant figuratively, but this story of the 
Creation, which from the richness of the details clearly refers to the 
manufacture of the Universe, including our World, and all therein 
in six literal days, is taken figuratively. Geology, anthropology, 
and astronomy have demonstrated that this literal account is quite 
inconsistent with the established truths of evolution. It would be 
a strange form of revelation that caused Christians for seventeen 
centuries to accept this plain tale of Creation about 6,000 years ago, 
and to resist the growth of natural knowledge which has ultimately 
disproved it and established modern civilization. This new knowledge 
is being spread broadcast, and our author, by linking these obsolete 
traditions with the ethical inspiration of the Bible, is ensuring the 
rejection of both, or, as the German proverb puts it, is ‘ throwing 
away the baby with the bath.” 

The Rev. J. IverAcH Munro, M.A.: The value of this paper, 
showingas itdoestheimpossibility of true Science coming into collision 
with the religious aspect of the universe revealed in Genesis, chapter i, 
is very great. The aspect pertaining to Physical Science must be 
left to men of Science, but with regard to Biblical Science, and in 
connection with the sublime reticence of the narrative, and the lofty 
conception of God, as alone the Author of all, attention may be 
drawn to a single point, viz., there is room in the narrative for the 
creation and rebellion of angels prior to the creation of mankind, 
and for their destructive influence. 

Contrary to the usual opinion, the Hebrew narrative actually 
appears to go out of its way to make room for this doctrine, which, 
developed in the Old Testament, culminates in the teaching of our 
Lord and His Apostles in the New. 

In the second verse the usual Hebrew construction to express 
continuous development would have been, as all Hebraists are 
aware, the imperfect with vav conversive, 7.¢., VISTO. wat-thi 
ha-d-rets, which would be correctly translated “and the earth was,” 
etc. The fact, however, is that the narrative goes out of the usual 
order to say ODM PIST wehd-d-rets ha-ythdh, the vav being 
separated from its verb, the usual way in Hebrew of expressing the 
pluperfect. The earth was not created a waste and a void, it had 


152 Rf. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


become so. ‘Translate “now ’ (cf. Genesis iii, 1), “the earth had 
become,” etc. 

When we turn to the third chapter of Genesis, verse 1, we find 
the same peculiarity in the narrative. The “Serpent,” used as the 
embodiment of the power of evil, is spoken of thus: 1) iaPiahl 
Wehan-ni-hash ha-yah. ‘Now the Serpent had become,” etc., not 
was as in our translation. Hence the hypothesis (>), mentioned by 
Mr. Maunder on page 132, has a distinct basis in the Hebrew, and is 
consonant with the development of the teaching of both the Old 
Testament and the New concerning “ principalities and powers, the 
rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high 
places,” which wrought desolation in this created order of things, 
and tempted man to his destruction, but have now been conquered 
by the God-Man Who is to be manifested in all them that believe. 

Dr. Heywoop Smitu, M.A., M.D.: I accept all three of Mr. 
Maunder’s propositions wherewith he opens his paper. 

I believe there is nothing in the Bible contrary to Science when we 
read them both aright, for they both have the same Author. ‘Take, 
e.g., the circular theory of storms, a discovery of comparatively 
recent origin,—it is clearly set forth in Ecclesiastes 1, 6,—or Job xxvi, 
7, “He hangeth the earth upon nothing.” 

Starting on these premises, I hold that Genesis i, 1, stands unique, 
as a comprehensive statement of fact: that then millions of 
ages rolled by, giving time for the deposits of coal and other 
strata, the crystallization of gems, possibly by electricity, etc., and 
then (verse 2) for some cause (hidden from us) the earth became * any- 
how and nohow,” a water-covered dark sphere, and it needed the 
“brooding over” of the Holy Spirit to usher in what we may call 
the second stage of creation. Then God said “ Let light be, and 
light was.” Remark that hght was not created: light is the result 
of energy, possibly electrical (see Ezekiel i, describing the electrical 
(amber) manifestations round the throne)—or the sun, being its 
source, yet hidden by the dense mist rising from the hot water- 
covered earth, gave a sort of day and night to the already rotating 
earth. 

And here I may state that I see no reason, if we are to believe in 
an Omnipotent Creator, why this fitting of the earth for the pre- 
Adamic race should not have been accomplished in six days as we have 
them now. 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 153 


On the fourth day the power of the sun was allowed to pierce and 
dissipate the mists, and the sun and moon were established as a 
means whereby man should be able to mark time. 

Verse 27. When man was created God made them “male and 
female” and said “ replenish” the earth—as if it had been peopled 
before. 

Then after ii, 3, there was apparently another great cataclysm. 
Probably here Satan, who had been appointed ruler of the earth, lifted 
up because of all his splendour (Ezekiel xxviii, 11-19), rebelled against 
God Who had given dominion to a new order of beings. Satan was 
overthrown, the angels that had sided with him became his 
ministrant demons in his crusade against mankind until he is for ever 
put under the all-conquering feet of the Son of Man. 

This cataclysm might have been brought about by a slight 
“wobble” or tilting of the earth’s axis of rotation, whereby the 
glacial area was brought low enough to destroy most of the 
inhabitants except those on the equatorial belt. 

Then we have an account (ii, 4-25) of a forming, not creating, a 
“moulding” out of red earth by God of a man He called Adam, as 
if He would try again to establish a race that, with the gift of free 
will, would yet do His will. 

Note the order of the development of things in this chapter is the 
reverse of that in the “ Creation ” chapter—in a district, already 
called Eden, God planted a garden, and gave it to Adam as a 
restricted dwelling place : its rivers are spoken of as already named. 
Then after some appreciable time, after animals had been formed, a 
female was granted to manas a helpmeet. Satan then immediately 
set to work to try and mar this special work of God, man whom He 
had formed for His glory. 


“Lo these are but the outskirts of His ways 
And how little a portion is heard of Him.” 
Job xxvi, 14. 


Lieut.-Col. M. A. AtvEs, R.E: It was shown some years ago, 
by the late Mr. George Pember, that the interpretation of Genesis i 
had suffered much from Gnostic influence. In the face of verse 1, 
the eternity of matter in a state of chaos could not be maintained ; 
but verse 2 was interpreted as meaning that its original creation was 
chaotic. As Mr. Rouse has pointed out, Isaiah xlv, 18, refutes this 


154 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


view. In that case, verses 3 to end of chapter must refer in their 
leading interpretation to restoration and not to original creation. 

It may, however, be the case that the six days’ work contains also a 
revelation of the chief order of events in the original creation, before 
the catastrophe of verse 2 happened, and that only those events 
common to both—prior to the creation of man—are mentioned. 
There may also have been a pre-Adamic race of men, whose wicked- 
ness caused the catastrophe, and whose disembodied spirits are the 
demons, as distinguished from the devil’s angels. 

I incline to the view that the days of Genesis i are short days, 
unless—what is not mentioned in the chapter—the higher grade 
plants were brought into existence on the fifth day when there was 
insect life to fertilize them. | 

As to the mystic meaning attached to the Hebrew tenses, I have 
heard the same sort of thing with reference to other languages ; and 
I may say that I do not believe a word of it. The Bible was not a 
message confined to the learned few who alone could under- 
stand it. 

Regarding the fifth—sixth day creation, did I not know how 
‘the world is given to lying,” I should wonder why the nineteenth 
century revisers kept out of the text the “living souls” of the 
lower animals, in verses 20, 21, 24, and 30, and also in ii, 19, though 
they are in the text of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. 

Referring to the Dean of Canterbury’s remark on verse 28—“ Be 
fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it,” I 
would observe that those alone have a right to the privilege of the 
former part, who observe the duties of the second. ‘ What there- 
fore God ‘hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 
x1x, 6). The God of nature does not encourage the survival of the 
unfittest. 

- The Rev. A. Irnvina, D.Sc., B.A.: So far as I have been able to 
study this paper, Ido not see that the author has done much for 
the further elucidation of such a difficult subject, even if he does 
not “set back the hands of the clock.” He seems to me to be 
not entirely emancipated from that “slavish literalism” which 
Sir Gabriel Stokes used to deprecate strongly at the Victoria 
Institute. This comes out, I think, in his excessive reliance upon 
the Authorised Version. I would specially notice the fallacy of 
reasoning from the statement “God rested” on the seventh day. 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 155 


It is surely inconceivable that “Creative and Directive Power” 
(Kelvin) should cease acting, or should “faint and be weary.” 
It smacks too much of the “carpenter” notion of creation; and 
the late Professor Driver long ago assured us that the sense of the 
Hebrew is not “rested” but desisted, as I have pointed out else- 
where. ‘God said,” “God saw,” cannot be taken literally as 
implying use of lingual or optical organs, in a Being without body, 
parts, or passions ; and I feel much more confidence in the phrase 
{ have used for some years past in my papers in the 7vans. Victoria 
Institute, in my correspondence in the Guardian, in my British 
Association Sermons, and elsewhere. The tense of the verb in the 
original is the imperfect, and denotes fact or action in progress 
(‘was saying,” “was seeing”). In all and through all it was 
surely nought else than “Creative Will and Thought realising 
Itself in matter and life and form,” to make up the totality of the 
Cosmos. Hebraists of the first rank tell us that “God was 
saying” implies no actual use of speech, but is a facon de parler 
to denote the absence of effort on the part of the Creator. 

The author seems to me to narrow the idea of inspiration too 
much. The quest we should be pursuing is, as to how the inspiration 
(which we all recognise in the chapter) wrought itself into the 
human mind. He inelines to the view of “visions of the night ” 
(favoured by ‘‘an evening and a morning”); but let us not forget 
that He Who, presumably, gave the visions is also the Author of 
the human mind—the instrument of transmission of the thoughts— 
under the special illumination of the Spirit, which seems so strangely 
to be lost sight of. The author looks apparently with scant favour 
on “Evolution” (even after the able papers of Professor Sims- 
Woodhead and Professor Henslow) ; but he cannot get away from 
it, for the idea of evolution, coupled with directivity—in other 
words, “Creative Evolution ” (Bergson)—bristles out in the essay 
from beginning to end. 

The author looks at the question, on the scientific side, from the 
point of view chiefly of the astronomer, who perforce thinks 
mainly in quantitative terms of thought. I have approached it 
along lines of study and research, mainly on geological and bio- 
logical lines, with the theological idea always present in the mental 
background. Our two perspectives, therefore, cannot be quite the 
same, though they must overlap; but I am glad to find that he, as 


156 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


astronomer, has so little to offer by way of hostile criticism. I am 
afraid I cannot accept his ruling-out of the nebule from considera- 
tion; I had rather hoped that he would have had something to 
say upon my query as to whether they are luminous or illu- 
minated. 

There is so much in the paper with which I thoroughly agree 
and, indeed, have to a large extent anticipated, that I can, as a 
student of theology, thank the author for it as a most valuable 
contribution to an important chapter of Natural Theology, in 
which I still stand for the ‘dual revelation” through the Spirit of 
God working (a) directly upon the human spirit; (0) in the minds 
of capable men, as interpreters of His works. (“ There is a book 
who runs may read.”) Rightly looked at, the whole of phenomenal 
Nature may be regarded as a continuous “ parable in action,” 
teaching the contemplative mind something of “the everlasting 
power and divinity” of the Godhead, as Saul of Tarsus has taught 
us, and psalmist and prophet before him. 

Sir R. ANDERSON, K.C.B.: If my having written upon the first 
chapter of Genesis entitles me to a hearing, I should like to express 
my keen and cordial appreciation of Mr. Maunder’s Paper, and my 
earnest hope that it will obtain a far wider circulation than our 
annual volume can give it. My purpose is not to criticise it, but 
merely to offer a few words that may possibly increase interest in 
its subject. 

The order of Creation, as recorded in Genesis, has been “so 
affirmed in our time by natural science that it may be taken as a 
demonstrated conclusion and established fact.” This was Mr. Glad- 
stone’s thesis in his Dawn of Creation and Worship. This was 
challenged by Professor Huxley on the ground that the testimony 
of the rocks was conclusive that reptiles existed before birds, 
whereas, according to Genesis (he argued), birds were created on the 
fifth day and “creeping things” on the sixth day—‘“ creeping 
things” being defined by Scripture, itself to include lizards 
(Leviticus xi). “The merest Sunday-school exegesis,” therefore, 
he contemptuously remarked, refuted Mr. Gladstone’s contention. 
I had the privilege and honour of calling Mr. Gladstone’s attention 
to the fact that the Hebrew word rendered “creeping things” in 
Leviticus xi, 29, 31, was wholly different from that so translated in 
Genesis i, 24, 26, and that the Leviticus word, sheretz, is the word 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 157 


translated “moving creature” in Genesis i, 20, which records the 
first appearance of animal life on our planet. Huxley was thus 
“hoist with his own petard”! Instead of trampling on his 
challenger, Mr. Gladstone’s “old world courtesy” led him to 
suggest a reference to some authority that both could recognise. 
Mr. Huxley expressed his readiness to appeal to ‘this eminent 
friend, Professor Dana”; and Professor Dana’s decision was: ‘I 
agree in all essential points with Mr. Gladstone, and believe that 
the first chapter of Genesis and science are in accord.” 

But the matter did not rest there. This was in 1886, and in 
December, 1891, I brought up the question again in a letter to 7'he 
Times, and put Mr. Huxley on his defence. He tried to shirk the 
question, but the late Duke of Argyll intervened to hold him to it ; 
and after a correspondence, to which each of us contributed several 
letters, Huxley retired discomfited and left the field to his 
opponents. 

I need not emphasise the bearing of all this on Mr. Mannder’s 
paper. The tournament between Gladstone and Huxley in the 
Nineteenth Century appealed to the scientists of the world ; and 
as the result, Gladstone’s thesis stands: It is ‘‘ a demonstrated con- 
clusion and established fact” that Genesis and science are in accord. 
And the fact is wholly unaffected by the refusal of the so-called 
‘“‘ Higher Criticism” to accept it. For with the dull tenacity of 
unreasoning unbelief, the “ critics” ignore everything that conflicts 
with their ‘‘assured results.” 

The following sentence from one of Mr. Gladstone’s letters to me 
in the first of Genesis controversy is worth reproducing here: “As 
to the chapter itself, | do not regard it merely as a defensible point 
in a circle of fortifications, but as a great foundation of the entire 
fabric of the Holy Scriptures.” 

The Rev. JoHN TuCKWELL, M.R.A.S.: I much regret my 
inability to be present at the reading of this excellent paper. I 
should like to have expressed more adequately my high appreciation 
of it than I can do in writing. Thé facts so frankly recognised are 
of great importance and as the facts of revelation rightly understood 
can never be contrary to the facts of nature rightly understood, 
there can be no contradiction of the one by the other. In the 
following Table I have expressed very briefly the results of many 
years’ study of this wonderful chapter :— 


158 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ”—an 
assertion of the universal Creatorship of the Almighty Elohim. The 
verse is disconnected from the next by the fact that the two Hebrew 
verbs in the two verses are in the same tense. 

I. (a) “ And the earth was without form and void.” The word 
“was” is'the Hebrew substantive verb and is so treated in the 
LXX, where it is translated by the verb eu, “to be,” and not by 
y(vouat, “to become.” 

The Hebrew word for “ without form” is tohu, translated by the 
LXX dopazos, “invisible.” It is here an adjective qualifying “ earth.” 
In Isaiah xlv, 18 and 19, it is an adverb and is therefore translated 
‘in vain ”’—The phrase fittingly describes the Gaseous or Nebulous 
Period. | 

(6) “And darkness was upon the face of the deep.” The Hebrew 
word for “deep” is tehom. Lord Kelvin, in Vol. xxxi of the 
Transactions, tells us “that the material of our present solid earth 
all round its surface was at one time a white hot liquid.” Above 
such a mass of molten minerals there would be many other minerals 
still in a vaporous condition. This was the Igneous Period of our 
world’s history. 

(c) ‘And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” 
The Hebrew word for “waters” is mayim, indicating a different 
condition from that described by tehém. This would describe the 
Aqueous Period. 

(d) “And God said, Let there be light.” A different form of the 
Hebrew word from that used in verse 14 for “lights.” 

II. “And God said, Let there be a firmament” (or expanse). A 
condensation of aqueous vapours creating a separation between 
clouds and seas. This would be a continuation of the Aqueous 
Period. 

III. (2) “And God said, Let the dry land appear.” The first 
formation of continental lands—the Huronian and Laurentian 
Continents. 

(b) “And God said . . . Let the earth bring forth grass.” In the 
Hebrew a general term for sprouting things. Two kinds are then 
named herbs and trees. 

The Paleozoic Period, the age of gigantic plants: i. Cryptogams | 
and ii. Phanerogams. The period during which most of our coal 
was formed. | 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 159 


IV. “Let there be lights” (not “light” as in verse 3). 
Astronomical changes producing no observable geological effects but 
overlapping III and V. 

V. “And God created the great [sea] monsters. . . . and every 
winged fowl ” (or creature). Hebrew tanninim, meaning long creatures 
—Mesozoic Period. Huge aquatic and terrestrial saurians and great 
flying reptiles. Also first appearance of true birds. 

VI. (a) “And God made the beast of the earth ”—Kainozoic 
Period. Period of mastodon, mammoth, and other gigantic 
mammals and man. 

(b) “ And God said, Let us make man ’—Kainozoic Period also. 
God’s last creative act. 

VII. “ And God . . . . rested on the seventh day.” In what is 
known as “Recent ” Geological Deposits, no evidence of any new 
creation is found. : 

Thus it seems to me that the chapter contains a true history of 
the creation of our world from its primeval condition to that which 
fitted it for the abode of man. 

Of course it does not tell us everything, but selects some great 
creative act or acts distinctive of each Period, and then after the 
creation of man no new creature appears. 

Rev. Chancellor L1as: As a very old member of the Institute I 
cannot withhold a word of very high commendation from this 
excellent paper. The truth is, as the writer contends, there can be 
no collision whatever between the first chapter of Genesis and 
scientific research. The former deals simply with the original 
cause ; the latter deals simply with effects and their secondary 
causes. Even a tyro in Hebrew knows that the “days” in 
Genesis i are not necessarily in chronological order, and people 
altogether unacquainted with Hebrew can infer from Genesis ii, 4, 
that the word “day,” with the Hebrew historian, may mean a 
period of time of indefinite duration. Observe, I do not deny that 
the account of creation is in chronological order, and I only say that 
the word “day” may be an indefinite period of time. We have 
had, I think, too much dogmatism on points such as these. 
Mr. Maunder, in his enunciation of the “seven great truths” con- 
tained in Genesis 1, takes care to avoid it (page 127). All I desire 
to contend for is that we have no right to read into the narrative of 
the creation anything that is not plainly and distinctly stated there. 


160 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


The inferences we may choose to draw from the language are not 
in the same plane with the language itself. 

I am much struck by the writer’s caution displayed in page 123. 
Most of us are inclined to say that space is infinite because we are 
unable to conceive of it otherwise. ‘True scientific principles forbid 
us to dogmatise on points into which we are unable to investigate. 
We ought to be thankful to him for reminding us that “science has 
no finality.” It would be well if this principle were borne in mind 
in all branches of scientific investigation. We should be saved a 
good deal of pretentious nonsense about the ‘final and irrevocable 
results of modern scientific investigation.” 

I am inclined to agree with the writer that a// true science must 
rest on observation (page 125). With regard to the seventh day rest, 
I may venture to contend that it implies the continuance of the earth 
in the condition in which it was when man was placed upon it. 
There have been since that time none of the organic changes which 
the history of the earth’s crust displays before man’s appearance 
on it. 

I should be inclined to put another interpretation on the 
“evening and the morning” (page 133). But as the writer simply 
states his own impressions, controversy would be out of place. 

I may conclude with the remark that I read Mr. F. H. Capron’s 
Conflict of Truth some years ago with great satisfaction. It is an 
attempt to show that Genesis i does not conflict, on any point, with 
Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Synthetic Philosophy. I am glad to find that 
the work has gone through several editions. It would be quite 
as easy to show that Genesis i was reconcilable with any other 
genuinely scientific treatise which may in the future supersede 
Mr. Spencer’s. And for this reason: that Genesis i cannot conflict 
with any scientific conclusions, since it deals with matters anterior 

to, and beyond, all scientific conclusions whatsoever. I may add 
that Mr. Capron has recently published a new work called the 
Anatomy of Science. Tf it is as good as his former work it will be 
well worth reading. 

Mr. JosepH GRAHAM: If we agree to the statement that “the 
creation of light, that is of matter and energy, involves the creation 
of Time; for Time enters in as an essential element of light,” it 
seems to me the hint of verse 2, alluded to on the same page, 
becomes of more importance than the lecturer implies. “In the 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 161 


beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” If this is an 
inclusive statement, then the initial act of creation was light—the 
first manifestation of the Creator’s power was light. If there were 
no matter upon which light could act, then the creative word should 
have been, “Let there be light and substance.” It seems to me, 
therefore, that what is hinted at in verse 2 is clearly the existence 
of what light was created to act upon: “ The earth was without 
form and void.” This idea is in no way opposed to Mr. Maunder’s 
exposition of the six acts of creative power, by which the order and 
development of the universe were, so to speak, regulated ; in his own 
words, ‘the bringing into operation of the essential powers and 
principles which should lead to [their final] manifestations in the 
fulness of time.” But the point I want to emphasise is this, that 
God is eternal, and though, as we have been shown, creation (in one 
phase) and time exist together, because God is eternal there must 
be an eternal aspect of His Almighty power. This, I think, we find 
in the first verse, “In the beginning God created.” It does not 
contradict the idea hinted at by the lecturer of six further creative 
acts, by which the Creator predetermined to reveal Himself to His 
creature man. Given the relationship between matter and energy, 
it seems to me that the act done on the first day implies that matter 
was created in the mass, so to speak, and that energy and the other 
developments are the revelation of the Divine plan to make of the 
earth, until then without form and void, a habitation for that 
creature whom God made that he might be the recipient of the 
manifestation of Divine love. Take an example that perhaps comes 
nearest to the grasp of the untutored human mind, the mist that 
God caused so that the plants and herbs of the field should grow 
while as yet there was no man to till the ground. The key to the 
whole matter, it seems to me, lies in the purpose for which man was 
created. Not only this earth, on which man dwells, but the firma- 
ment and the other worlds, insomuch as they contribute influences 
to man’s welfare, were created by God, that He might be revealed. 
As the lecturer suggests, each stage of the creation brings its effect 
to bear upon this ultimate result. With regard to man, we might 
apply the quotation from the cxxxix Psalm here also. For the only 
begotten Son of God, Who by His Incarnation came for ever into the 
limitations of creaturehood, is Head of creation—Head, if you like, 
of a continuous process by which the human race is brought the 
M 


162 FE, ‘WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


perfection seen in Jesus Christ, the Man, perfect in His being 
through His resurrection from the dead. | 

Mr. T. B. Bishop: Mr. Maunder’s paper appears to me to be 
one of the most valuable that has ever been laid before the Institute. 
Certainly as many as fifty modern writers, many of them eminent 
men, and writing from an Evangelical standpoint, have included in 
their books some opinions on the Creation Story in the first chapter 
of Genesis, but Mr. Maunder strikes out an entirely new line of 

thought, and, what is more, raises the discussion of the question 
altogether to a higher level. He shows us that the Creation 
- narrative cannot be criticised by Science because it relates to things 
before Science could possibly begin its work. In view of modern 
speculations, his testimony to the fact that the Creation narrative is 
utterly valueless unless it comes direct from God is of the highest im- 
portance. I trust that this paper will be published in a permanentform. 

One or two remarks I should like to be allowed to make. 

On page 131 Mr. Maunder speaks of six creative acts on the six 
days. Were there not eight creative acts, two on the third day, 

-and two on the sixth day ? Each is introduced by the words ‘“ God 
said.” If it is held that in the third day’s work the plant life could 
be considered as the result of the appearance of the “ dry land,” yet 
we can hardly look on the sixth day’s work in the same way. The 
solemn manner in which the creation of man is introduced separates 
it entirely from the creation of cattle and other living creatures on 
the same day. 

In speaking of the second day’s work on page 138, Mr. Maunder 
draws attention to the omission of the verdict “It was good.” I 
may mention that the Septuagint version supplies the words 
omitted, and the verse there reads “‘God called the firmament 
Heaven, and God saw that it was good.” 

According to Mr. Maunder’s interpretation of the work of the 
second day, all the verses before verse 6 refer to the Cosmos and 
not to our own globe. ‘This was the view of Professor Guyot and 
Professor Dana, but the late Canon Driver in his Genesis says that 
this view gives an altogether impossible meaning to the words 
“earth” and “waters” in verse 2, which speaks of the earth as 
being ‘“ without form and void.” [I am anxious for information as to 
whether it is not possible to read the second verse as applying to 
our own earth alone. 


TILE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 163 


On page 134 Mr. Maunder speaks of the chapter as the record of | 
some seer to whom the whole was revealed. But in whatever way 
the revelation was given, must it not have been given to Adam ? 
The institution of marriage was necessary to man from the beginning ; 
so also was the institution of the Sabbath; and the allusions to 
reckoning by sevens, as in the cases of Lamech and Noah, and the 
mention of the Sabbath in the Babylonian inscriptions, are surely 
proofs of its antiquity. 

The paper does not mention what is known as the second 
narrative of Creation. I believe that if we look upon that as having 
been written by Adam himself from his own point of view— 
of course, under Divine guidance—it will clear up many difficulties. 

I am not sure that I understand the reference on page 135 to the 
address of Wisdom in the eighth chapter of Proverbs, but by the 
use of capital letters the Messianic character of the passage is 
apparently recognised. 

Let me say that if we could clear up all the problems connected 
with the Creation narrative we should be creating a Scripture 
difficulty instead of solving one. For it is by faith that we are to 
understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. 

It is very remarkable that this verse comes in the portrait gallery 
of the Heroes of Faith—the saints of old who endured every kind 
of trial and suffering as a test of their faith. We are in no danger 
in these days of being stoned, or sawn asunder, or even of suffering 
bonds and imprisonment. And yet there is a trial of faith for every 
young Christian who stands up for the truth of God to-day. And 
is there any part of Scripture that has been so much attacked as the 
Creation Story ? 


AUTHOR’S REPLY. 


I fear that Mr. Schwartz has not quite grasped the point that I 
wished to make in the first section of my paper. I had no intention 
of asserting that those who thought that the source of the chapter 
was in “man who did not know, but imagined it,” were thereby 
disqualified from discussing it; but simply that, to be consistent, 
they must regard all such discussion as meaningless. ‘“ This first 
chapter of Genesis is only valuable if it comes to us from 
knowledge.” 

M 2 


164 E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., ON 


Dr. Irving infers that I have not made up my mind about 
Evolution. I had quite made up my mind that it would be foreign 
to my purpose to discuss it here. The chapter before us deals with 
Creation, and Creation is not a phase of Evolution. I should like 
to distinguish between two things which seem to me very different, 
namely, the past physical history of the world, and the account of 
its being brought into existence. For Scripture distinguishes 
clearly between two different modes of the Divine action, and 
we ought to do the same. There is that action which Scripture 
speaks of as “upholding all things by the word of His power”; or 
which we express by the “continuity of nature,” or “ the operation 
of the law of causality.” It is within this field, and this field only, 
that Science can work, for ‘‘if the law of causality is acknowledged 
to be an assumption which always holds good, then every observa- 
tion gives us a revelation, which, when correctly appraised and 
compared with others, teaches us the laws by which God rules the 
world.”* But there is also that other Divine action: “by Him 
were all things created” ; that is, He called them into being. 

There should be no difficulty in distinguishing between the two 
thoughts. For example, let us assume that man has come, by 
descent, that is to say by successive generation, from a lower animal ; 
say a lemur of Madagascar ; his modifications having been brought 
about by natural and sexual selection, by the struggle for existence, 
and the force of environment. If this be so, it affords us an example 


of Evolution, but no instance of Creation ; and we must search into _ 


the ancestry of the iemur before we reach the Creation of Man. 
However far we can trace back man’s unbroken descent-—provided 
always that there has been no special Divine interposition, no new 
material, conditions or powers introduced—we are dealing simply 
with Evolution, and not at all with Creation. 

If I read this chapter rightly, we are herein told expressly that 
the past history of the world has not been a single evolution ; but 
that eight times—as Mr. Bishop well points out—the Creator has 
introduced new powers or new conditions, which did not arise 
necessarily and continuously out of those previously existing. In 
other words, it gives us no statement for, or against, the descent of 
man from a lower form, but it tells us expressly that he was not 


* Theory of Observations, Thiele, page 1. 


_ 


ee 


=e el Cle ee 


THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 165 


evolved from a lower form. The distinction is important. The 
question of man’s actual descent is one of scientific evidence ; but, 
if he be so descended, then we know by the revelation of this 
chapter that that living form which stood to him in the relation of 
ancestor, had in itself no power or potentiality of ever producing a 
man, no matter what the influence upon it of selection or environ- 
ment. That which rendered the evolution of man possible was the 
creative word of God, “Let us make man.” Whether man was, or 
was not, formed of new material, unrelated by descent to any other 
form of life, is unessential ; that which is essential is, that all that 
makes him man, and not brute, was by the new creation of God. 

But if it be the case that man is descended from the brute, and 
has become man by creation, what evidence can Science offer us as 
to the Creation? It can only testify as to the descent. 

I do not wish to call in question the parallelism which r -»v (page 
132, section @) have traced between the succession of events reorded 
in this chapter, and the history of the earth as Science presents it. 
But it seems to me, that, if used as an argument for the inspiration of 
Holy Scripture, it is not free from the charge of circularity. From 
the scientific point of view there is the further objection that it 
would appear to stereotype scientific conclusions : in other words, to 
put an end to scientific development. But there is one thing upon 
which the man of science will always insist :—that is, his perfect 
freedom to change any scientific conclusion, however firmly held to- 
day, if fresh evidence should be forthcoming to-morrow. 

There is also a serious religious objection, as Mr. Bishop has very 
wisely reminded us. A complete scientific demonstration of this 
chapter would remove it from the sphere of faith, and it is “ through 
faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of 
God.” Ihave heard faith defined as “the assent of the intellect to 
a demonstrated proposition.” This is exactly what faith is not, 
and if we could make this chapter a demonstrated proposition, 
Hebrews xi, 3, would be made of no effect. If we have faith in our 
fellow-man it is not because our intellect assents to some proposi- 
tion that has been demonstrated concerning him, but because we know, 
or think we know, his character. So faith in God means that we 
know Him: that is, we in some measure apprehend His character ; 
not that we agree to some logical proposition respecting Him. I 
think we are sometimes tempted to forget this. 


166 &E. WALTER MAUNDER, ON THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 


The interpretation of this chapter, which I have lettered 6, on 
page 132, turns on some minute and questionable refinements of 
Hebrew grammar. But I do not wish to argue that, as a partial 
interpretation, it may not have some validity. 

May I turn back to the seven truths which I believe the chapter 
was intended to teach us? I am no Hebrew scholar, but before 
writing my paper, I read carefully and in detail the translations 
and comments of many of the best Hebrew scholars, and I came to 
the conclusion that no one of these truths was in the least affected 
by any permissible variation in the rendering. Hence I followed 
generally the Authorized Version. I feel assured that these seven 
truths must appear on the surface of every translation of this chapter 
that has ever been issued from the Bible House ; no matter what 
the tongue into which they were rendered, or how unskilful the 
translator. They are truths which are perfectly consistent with 
Science, but they are not deductions from it, nor do they enter 
within the range of its possible challenge. And they are funda- 
mental for men: for all men; for us to-day, as in the dawn of the 
world’s history. As the Rev. T. H. Darlow told us in the paper to 
which I have already referred, “The Word of God in the Bible is 
not of a nature to be affected by verbal changes such as can be 
made by time or accident.” ‘In every version the Book retains 
its power to pierce the thoughts of the heart; it still remains 
sharper than a two-edged sword; it still divides joint and 
marrow.” 


Norre.—The Rev. J. Iverach Munro points out that the part of the 
word ‘7e-plenish” in Genesis i, 28, which Dr. Heywood 
Smith emphasises (page 153, line 5), is not represented in the 
Hebrew. It is the simple verb male, “to fill.” It may be 
added that replere in Latin, and replenish in English, both often 
carry the meaning of “ to fill thoroughly,” and not necessarily 
that of “to fill again.” 


555TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING, 


HELD (BY KIND PERMISSION) IN THE ROOMS OF THE 
ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS, ON MONDAY, APRIL 20rn, 1914, 
AT 4.30 P.M. 


Mr. A. W. OKE TOOK THE CHAIR. 


The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed. 


_The SecreTaRY announced that Mr. Alfred Haigh had been elected 
an Associate of the Institute. 


The SrcreTary also announced that the Very Rev. the Dean of 
Canterbury had been elected a Vice-President, and Mr. Joseph Graham 
a Member of Council. 


The CHarrMAN then called upon Dr. T. G. Pinches to read his paper, 
which was illustrated by numerous lantern shdes. 


THE LATEST DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA.. By 
THEOPHILUS G. PincHEes, LL.D., M.R.AS. 


I.—CREATION-STORIES. 


S in the past, since its foundation in the first half of the 

last century, the science of Assyriology continues its 
forward march; and as it progresses, it heaps up a fund of 
knowledge—small in this country, but greater in volume 
abroad ; for it is the one domain of Oriental research in which 
discoveries of importance and real interest, in its various 
branches, can be made. Every day brings Assyriology’s votaries 
nearer to more precise interpretation of the inscriptions, and 
every year many new texts, some of them of considerable 
importance, are brought from the ruin-mounds of Babylonia and 
Assyria. Now and again finds take place in the museums 
where documents harvested in former years lie, awaiting the 
time when they can be studied at ease and their contents made 
known. . 

Earliest in the order of time—if their contents were really 
historical—are the legends, headed by those dealing with the 
Creation. Of these, three versions are known—that detailing 
the fight hetween Bel and the Dragon, which was _ first 
translated by George Smith; the creation-legend of Cuthah ; 
and the bilingual version, which is simply an introduction to an 


168 T. G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON 


incantation, or a series of incantations—though it is none the 
less important on that account. In addition to this, a fragment, 
apparently of a fourth version, was discovered by George Smith 
when excavating for the proprietors of the Daddy Telegraph. 
The Babylonians were therefore rich in accounts of the first 
beginnings of things, and the religious man had a choice of 
beliefs without much danger of being regarded as heterodox. 

Further information concerning these legends, as also of those 
dealing with the Flood, have reached us from Philadelphia, in 
America. In that city, at the University Museum, the opening 
of the cases containing the inscriptions discovered at Niffer 
(the Calneh of Genesis x) has been resumed, with exceedingly 
gratifying results. One of these documents, inscribed in three 
columns on each side, has, in the first (to use the words of the 
translator, Dr. Poebel), “ instructions concerning the building of 
cities, which, it seems, were given by the gods to the first men, 
whose creation must have been related in the now missing 
preceding lines.” The end of the first column, however, 
supphes something of the missing portion, where, referring to 
the acts of the gods, we read, according to Poebel: “ After 
Enhl, Enki, and Nin-hursagega had created the black-headed 
ones (the Baby lonian designation of mankind), they called into 
being in a fine fashion ue animals, the four-legged (beasts) of 
the field.*” 

_. Now.in the legends hitherto known, or at least the two 
principal ones, it is Merodach who is credited with the creation 
of livine things. ‘To all appearance, then, this new version was 
composed before the worship of Merodach assumed the 
importance which it ultimately had, for his name seems not’ to 
be mentioned, the. creators being Enlil, the older Bel; Enki, 
generally - called Ea; and Nin- hurs sagea, “the Lady of the 
mountain,” one of the names of the “ Lady of the gods,” who, in 
the bilingual story of the Creation, was associated with 
Merodach in the creation of mankind. This fact, with the 
identification of all the deities with Merodaech, shows that, in 
the changes to which Babylonian belief was, in the course of 
centuries, subjected, every effort was made to disturb the 
eurrent beliefs of the people as little as possible. 

There is no doubt that this was one of the older forms of the 
Babylonian Creation-story—at least with regard to the 
formation of mankind and the beasts of the field, in which, 
unlike the Bible-account, the more perfect, mankind, seems to 


* A common Babylonian way of referring to animal life. 


THE LATEST DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA. 169 


have preceded the less perfect—the birds and creeping things. 
This is a point in which the Biblical account is the more consis- 
tent, though we cannot speak with absolute certainty, as the 
Babylonian records (except the bilingual version) are not 
complete at this point. The Daily Telegraph fragment, more- 
over, reads, as far as it is preserved, as follows : 
“When the gods, in their assembly, created [living things] 
They formed the azure(?) firmament(? ), they compacted(?) 
GG eas 
They sent forth the living [creat ]ures 
The beasts of the field, [the animals of] the fic id, and the 
denizens of 
to the living creatures 
[The beasts of] the field and the denizens of the city they 
brought [into being(?) ].*” 


This inscription, which is very mutilated, seems to have 
formed part of a relation in the first person, as it has, in line 8, 
the words sa ina puri kimti-ia, “ which in the assembly of my 
family.” The next line contains the name of the god Nin-igi- 
azaga, “the Lord of the bright eye,’ one of the names of the 
ood fla as god sa némeqi, «of deep wisdom” (among other 
things) as a creator. 


A Comparison with the Creation-narrative in Genesis 1.7 


Damascius, in his “Doubts and Solutions of the First 
Principles,’ makes a special reference to the Babylonians 


* The following is a transcription of this fragment, as far as it is 
preserved :— 

E-nu-ma flani ina pu[h]ri-Su-nu ibnt 
ubasSimu . . lt bujrumi oe u 
uSapa [Sikn Jat napiSti 
bal séri u[mam] séri u nammasse 

: ana Siknat napisti- 

bul seri u nammassé ali uza’i- 
Beate . gimri mammasti gimir nabniti- 
age BA puri kimti-ia ‘ 
-ma “-Nin-igi-azaga mina su- ha-. 

p]abri nammasti ustarri[h 

we set on | ella, hamani ir-. 
iS qa pi si 
iS qa pi si u Sa 


fe ASI A oly Oe 
+ Suggested by : a consideration of Mr. Maunder’s paper thereon at 
the last Meeting ‘of the Victoria Institute. 


170 T. G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.8., ON 


rejecting the “ one-principle” of the universe, and constituting 
two, namely, Tauthé and Apason (Tiawath and Apsu). These 
two forms of the waste of creative waters; which the early 
Babylonians conceived as existing, and as being the origin of all 
things,can hardly beregarded otherwise than as spirits of evil,and 
therefore, everything which they produced was, like themselves, 
full of bad principles, confused in shape and conception, and 
malevolent of disposition. The question with the Babylonians 
was not, therefore, how evil came to be, but in what way did 
good arise from this crude, unformed, evil, and violent progeny 
of those two principles ? 

And here we have an exceedingly interesting outcome of 
Babylonian cosmogony, and a very natural way out of the 
difficulty, namely, the doctrine of evolution. Not all the 
offspring of these two “first principles” were evil—some of 
them were good, and these good ones gave birth to others as 
good as, or better than, themselves. These were the gods of the 
heavens and all their host, whose perfection in goodness and 
righteousness, however, aroused hostility in the minds of 
Tiawath and Apst, who, aided by their son Mummu, tried to 
destroy them. The dragons of Chaos, however, inspired such 
fear in the breasts of the good gods who had descended from 
them, that none of them succeeded in destroying Tiawath, Apsu, 
and their brood, until Merodach, the “Steer of Day ”—the sun 
in his youthful strength—took from Apsi the tablets of Fate, 
which enabled him to rule the earth, and entrapped Tiawath in 
his great net, afterwards dividing her body, and placing one 
half as a covering for the heavens (the waters above the 
firmament), while the other part of her remained below, as the 
waters below the firmament. The ultimate result of Babylonian 
conceptions concerning the origin of the universe and the life 
therein would therefore seem to have been three—the two 
principles of evil with whom Creation originated on the one 
side, and Merodach and the good and the just gods of heaven, 
who created mankind “to redeem” (seemingly) Tiawath, Apsu, 
and their evil offspring and followers (when the fulness of time_ 
should come), on the other. 

How early the date of the first conception of this philosophy 
goes back we do not know, but the perfection of the theory of 
evolution and redemption (?) may be set down at about 
2000 3.c. Now my contention would be that the Hebrew 
strictly Monotheistic revelation of this same event was not only 
not derived from it, but was issued in opposition to it—to show 
the beginning of all things, to emphasize the fact, that that 


THE LATEST DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA. ial 


beginning was good, and the creation of a good God, and that 
evil, when it came into the world, was an intruder, and had no 
part in the original scheme. 


Il.—Tae FLoop. 


Dr. Poebel tells us that the second column of the new 
inscription mentions some of the antediluvian cities of Baby- 
lonia, which Enlil bestows upon certain gods. In this portion 
there is a reference to the city Larak, identified long ago with 
the Larancha of Berosus, according to whom it was the seat of 
many of the prediluvian kings of the land—Amempsinus, who 
reigned 36,000 years, and Opartes (miswritten Otiartes), the 
Babylonian U(m)bara-Tutu,* the father of Xisuthrus of 
Surippak, whose reign lasted 28,800 years. It is needless to 
say, that additional information concerning these primitive 
Babylonian rulers will possess a value which everyone can 
appreciate—indeed, the story of the father of Xisuthrus, the 
Babylonian Atra-hasis (the Chaldean Noah), the “exceedingly 
wise,” the favourite of the gods, who saved mankind from 
destruction, and attained to immortality without death, would 
be especially welcome. 

And the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th columns, Poebel tells us, refer 
to the flood of which Atra-hasis was the central figure. At that 
time, we are informed, Ziugiddu, “the long lived,” was king. 
He was a pasisu, or anointing priest of Enki (the god Ka)—all 
these ancient. Babylonian patriarch-kings were priests of some 
kind or other—daily and constantly serving his god. “ In order 
to requite him for his piety, Enki, in column 4 (the first of the 
reverse), informs him that it had been resolved, at the request 
of Enlil, ‘in the council of the gods, to destroy the seed of 
mankind, whereupon Ziugiddu—this part of the story, how- 
ever, is broken away—builds a big boat and loads it with all 
kinds of animals. For seven days and seven nights a rain- 
storm, as we are informed in column 5, rages through the land, 
and the flood of water carries the boat away; but the sun then 
appears again, and when its light shines into the boat, Ziugiddu 
sacrifices an ox and a sheep. Lastly, in column 6, we find 
Aiugiddu worshipping before Enlil, whose anger against man 
had now abated, for he says: ‘Life like that of a god I give to 
him,’ and ‘an eternal soul like that of a god I create for him,’ 


* The Greek form Opartes shows that, at the time Berosus made his 
translation (about 250 B.c.), U(in)bara-Tutu was pronounced Opartu, or 
similarly (for Obartu, Obartutu, Ombartutu, Ombaratutu). 


172 T. G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON 


which means that Ziugiddu, the hero of the Deluge story, is to 
become a god.” 

As you all know, Babylonian stories of the Flood had already 
come to light, the first being that translated many years ago by 
George Smith, and forming the main portion of the contents of 
the 11th tablet of the Gilgames-legend. Besides this, a fragment 
was found by Smith and now forms part of the Daily Telegraph 
collection ; another, discovered by Father V. Scheil, has been 
acquired for the Pierpont Morgan collection; and a small 
fragment of a fourth version was discovered and translated by 
Prot. Hilprecht in 1910—a version bearing, perhaps, a greater 
resemblance to the Biblical account of the Flood than the others 
in the portion which has been preserved.* 

The new text at Philadelphia, however, is, according to 
Poebel, an entirely different account, “ as will be seen from the 
fact that the hero bears a name different from that 
found in the other Deluge stories..— This new version, 
moreover (unlike those translated by Smith), is not written in 
Semitic Babylonian, but in Sumerian. Like many other 
legendary compositions of the Sumerians and Semitic Baby- 
lonians, it is couched in poetical form, and as such, Poebel 
suggests, served some practical purpose, ritualistic or otherwise. 
For various reasons he thinks that the tablet was written about 
the time of Hammurabi, and is therefore older than the versions 
already known (though that discovered by Scheil runs it very 
close). It is probable, however, that all the versions of the 
Flood and the legends in general are much older than the time 
when they were written—in other words, they antedate the 
tablets upon which uhey have been preserved to us. 

For further details of the new version of the Flood-story, we 
must of course wait until the text itself is published, but 
just two notes may be made upon Poebel’s abstract. ‘The name 
of the patriarch, Ziugiddu, is new and unexpected, and ” 
terminal « seems to suggest Semitic influence; though, a 
Poebel makes no comment upon this. no argument can Be 
based thereon. The giving to Ziugiddu of an eternal soul raises 
the question, whether the B jabylonians believed men to have 
Bren immortal souls before the time of “Ziugiddu, or only 
afterwards. 


* For a description of this, see th e Journal of the Victoria Institute for 
1911, pp. 135 ff. 

+ His other names are Ut-napisti™ (or Uta-narsti”) and dtra-hasis 
(“the exceedingly wise”), reproduced in Greek as Xisuthrus (= Hasis- 
atra). 


THE LATEST DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA. Wiss 


El BaAriLy KINGS. 


_ From the colour of the clay, the shape, and the script, 
Dr. Poebel thinks that another tablet from the same place,, 
Niffer, belongs to the series. This portion, however, is inscribed: 
with a list of kings—in fact,there seem to have been three tablets,. 
each measuring about 54 by 7 inches, upon which some primitive 
Babylonian historian had written an outline of the world’s. 
history, as he understood it. The first tablet probably contained 
an account of the Babylonian theogony, including the conflict. 
between the gods—the younger and more advanced generation 
—and “the deity of Primeval Chaos,” typified by Tiawath, the 
sea, and “ultimately resulted in the creation of heaven and 
earth out of the two parts of Chaos.” If this be correct, the 
story agrees with the account in the fight between Bel and the 
Dragon.* It would be at this point that the tablet just 
described comes in, with the history of the world down to the 
time of the Flood. 

For those who prefer something of a less speculative character 
than the Creation and Flood-legends, however, the third 
tablet is of greater importance. This portion, when complete, 
gave a history of the world from the time of the Flood to the 
reign of the king under whom the tablet was written. The 
reverse—about an eighth of the whole text—was published in 
1906 by Prof. Hilprecht, and gives two of the last dynasties on 
the list. Dr. Poebel, however, has succeeded in copying the 
much-effaced obverse, which contains the names of the kings 
immediately after the Flood, and he states that he has also 
found “larger and smaller fragments of three other and older 
hsts of kings.” All Assyriologists and specialists in Semitic 
history will await this additional material with eagerness. Not 
only are the names of the kings given, with the lengths of their 
reigns, but also in some few cases there are historical details. 
As might be expected, the lst takes us back into the true 
legendary period, for we find there Gilgame$, the traveller-king 
of Erech; Dumu-zi(da) or Tammuz, the luckless spouse of the 
goddess Istar ; Etanna, who, clinging to the body of an eagle, 
made a daring ascent to heaven, etc. Etanna is said to have 
reigned 625 years—short when compared with the thousands of 
years that his predecessors ruled, but a wonderfully long period 


* Otherwise Merodach and Tiawath, the Dragon of the Sea or waste 
of waters, to whom the Babylonians attributed the creation of the 
earliest living things. 


174 T. G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.8., ON 


nevertheless. Another king, called “the Scorpion,” reigned 840 
years ; whilst Lugal-banda,a deified king of Erech, ruled for 
1,200 years. Soon, however, the list becomes entirely historical, 
and the reigns are of the ordinary length—*“ 36, 7, or 20 years, 

A very long period must, in view of these long reigns, be 
assigned to the epochs dealt with, and this would appear to be 
confirmed by certain summations. Thus one of the tablets, 
written under the 134th king, the 11th of the dynasty of Isin, 
reckons 32,175 years, and another from the Flood to the 139th 
king, the last of the dynasty of [sin, 32,254 years. 

And this brings us to the exceedingly important chronological 
list published by Prof. Scheil in October, 1911, which seems to 
be upon a precisely similar plan. This inscription gives the 
dynasties of Opis, Kis, Erech, Agadé, and Erech again, and 
among the historical references we find one stating that Azag- 
Bau, queen of Kis, who ruled for 100 yes ws—she was the 
founder of her dynasty—was the wile of a wine- 
merchant; whilst another informs us that Sarru-(u)kin 
of Agadé was apprenticed to a gardener, and was cup-bearer 
in the temple of Zagava. It is the final phrase of this 
important chronological document which attracts attention, 
however, for it tells us that “ the rule of Erech was changed, and 
the army of Gutiu" acquired the dominion.” This isa reference 
to the celebrated Median invasion, and from the time of the 
Flood until this date, according to the Greek writers, was a 
period of 33,091 years, during which time, however, only 86 
‘alls far short of the reality. 

It seems not unlikely that this great Babylonian chronological 
document will prove to be a completion of that recognized by 
G. Smith among the treasures of the British Museum in 1873. 
It is needless to say that that scholar fully realized the value of 
his find, notwithstanding that its completeness fell far short, to 
all appearance, of the new records just announced. 


LV.—ABRAHAMS PLOUGH. 


Coming to the period of the “ Dynasty of Babylon “—the 
dynasty to which Hammurabi belonged, the new inscriptions 
which have been published do not add very much to our 
knowledge, either of the lite of the period or the history of the 
time. We are still in doubt as to how this dynasty—which 
was of foreign origin, and seemingly kept the remembrance of 
that origin clearly in mind—came to the throne. Probably 
the most important work upon the period is Ungnad’s corpus of 
translations—1,417 in number—in his book, Mammurabv's 


THE LATEST DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA. 175 


Gesetz, which gives us numerous illustrations of the enactments 
contained in his Code of Laws. This, naturally, has considerable 
bearing on the manners and customs of the people, but I do 
not propose to go into that subject now, as it would lead 
me too far, and take up too much time in a general lecture 
like this. 

An interesting detail, however, is that published by Professor 
Clay's Dov uments in the Temple Archives of Nippur dated in the 
reigns of Cassite rulers. This is contained in an archaic picture, 
copied from impressions of a cylinder-seal, representing 
ploughing. It was a seal made for a personage named Warad- 
Nin-Sar, who was probably a farmer. The plough is drawn by 
two humped oxen, such as the Babylonians often used, and a 
man with a short beard, raising his arms, seems to be directing 
the operations. The handles of the plough are held by a longer- 
bearded agriculturalist, draped to the feet, and his long skirts 
must have hampered his movements to a certain extent. The 
most interesting figure, however, is one walking beside the 
plough, who, with his skirts bunched up to hold the grain, is 
engaged in peuring the seed down a vertical tube with which 
the implement is fitted. Two emblems occupy the field above, 
the larger being in the form of a Greek cross surrounded by an 
outline—as commonly found during the Kassite period, and 
possibly an emblem of divinity in general. 

Similar ploughs to this are shown on other monuments— 
notably Esarhaddon’s black stone in Babylonian script, now in 
the British Museum—and it is clear that such “improved” 
agricultural implements were common in the East—the Semitic 
Fast—of ancient times. But the notewor thy thine about it is 
that the seeding device was regarded by the Jews as being an 
invention of Abraham. This interesting fact has been pointed 
out by the American Professor James A. Montgomery, who 
quotes the very interesting statement concerning it made in the 
Book of Jubilees—a kind of Midrash on Genesis composed 
about the second century B.c. According to this work, the 
people made idols, and indulged in all kinds of abominable 
practices, instigated thereto by Satan, who tried in every way 
to corrupt and destroy the people of the land. Among other 
things, Prince Mastema “ sent ravens and other birds to destroy 
the land, and rob the children of men of their labours. Before 
they could plough in the seed, the ravens snatched it from the 
surface of the ground. And it was for this reason that he 

called his (Abraham’s father’ s) name Terah, because the ravens 
aud (other) birds reduced them to destitution and devoured 


176 T. G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON 


their seed.” (This etymology for Terah is probably due to the 
Arabic _.3, tarch, “to be sad, afflicted.”) 


When, een Abraham was born, he became known on 
account of his youthful piety—so much so that his mere word 
sufficed to disperse the flocks of ravens which came to devour 
the scattered seed. That year the people were enabled to sow 
and reap, but we are told that Abraham taught those who made 
implements for oxen, the artificers in wood, and they made a 
vessel above the ground, facing the frame of the plough, to put 
the seed therein, and the seed fell down therefrom upon the 
ploughshare, and was hidden in the earth, so that they no 
longer feared the ravens. And after this manner they made 
vessels above the ground on all the plough framework, and they 
sowed and tilled all the land, according as Abraham commanded 
them, and no longer feared the birds. 

The author of the book, Professor Montgomery suggests, may 
have been a Babylonian Jew, who thus made Abraham the 
inventor of this combination of plough and seeding machine. 
In the opinion of the Jews, Abraham was the discoverer of 
letters, astronomy, and the arts, and it is therefore quite 
consistent that he should have invented this device. Perhaps 
we shall sooner or later find the name of the seeding tube 
in Assyro-Babylonian, but we can hardly hope for a confirmation 
of the statement that the Hebrew Abraham was its inventor. 

Though this cylinder-seal belongs to the time of the Kassite 
kines (Nazi-muruttas, fourth year—fourteenth century B.C.), 
the “plough depicted must have been invented at a much earlier 
date—possibly, indeed, in the time of Abraham. Unfortunately, 
the early Babylonian tablet dealing with agriculture does not 
refer to the plough, either because it belongs to a too early date, 
or (as is more probable) because it is imperfect. 

Seemingly, after taking possession of his field, the farmer 
surrounded it with a protection of reeds, and proceeded to 
capture any stray gazelle that he might find, and get rid of the 
birds (sabita ukassad, ériba idikki). In another paragraph 
the digging of the field, the protection of the seed, the capturing 
of birds, and the removal of weeds or undesirable growths— 
SAM-IN with KUR before it is more likely to mean “herb” 
which is “ hostile” than “ snail” as the thing which is “ hostile to. 
the herb.” In the next paragraph there is a reference to the 
watering of the field and the increase of its grain. Then, 
“in the. day of harvest,” he divided and parted the field, and 
measured to the proprietor the portion due to him according to 
the contract. 


THE LATEST DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA. Wile 


Notwithstanding the usefulness of the implement, the plough 
seems to be but rarely mentioned in the inscriptions. A word 
found in the laws,of Hammurabi, and written with the 
Sumerian group GIS-GAN-UR, which is translated by the 
Semitic makaddu, is translated, doubtfully, as “plough,” but 
this, as a star or constellation, is explained as kakku sa Aé Sa 
ina libbi-su apsé tammaru, “the implement of Ae (Aos), in the 
midst of which thou (mayest) see the deep,” and this, taken in 
connection with the fact that in those laws it is coupled with 
the watering-machine (possibly the shadou/), makes it probable 
that it indicates the wooden conduit which carried the water to 
the fields. This group, GIS-GAN-UR, however, has another 
rendering, namely, maskiktu, seen in the phrase wa maskikat 
musare usakkak, “he shall seed the furrows with the wooden 
conduit,’ in Sumerian: gis-gan-ur musarene gis-aburra, v.e., With 
the tube of the plough. 


V.— THE NEWLY-DISCOVERED TABLETS FROM ERECH. 


Tablets are always coming from the nearer East—either 
from Babylonia, or from Assyria, or from one of the countries 
of old under their influence (the Hittite States, or Syria, or 
Palestine)—so that we are always getting additions to our 
material. A hundred thousand documents (mostly of little 
import) are known, and it is probable that a hundred thousand 
more at least await discovery in those lands. 

Among the most recent discoveries are the sites of Drehem 
and Jokha—sites which, however, are to all appearance unmen- 
tioned in the Old Testament, or, indeed, in any ancient record. 
Their historical value, nevertheless, is considerable, as they give 
us the names of many new kings, not only of the dynasty which 
ruled in these districts, but also of the states in the neighbourhood. 

Of greater importance, however, because of Biblical reference, 
is the site of Erech, now known as Warka, which is the old 
Arabic form of the same name. As we learn in the tenth 
chapter of Genesis, verse 10, Erech was founded by Nimrod 
(Merodach), the order being “ Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh,” 
all in “the land of Shinar,” as Babylonia was then called. One 
of the best indications that Nimrod is Merodach is furnished 
by the bilingual Babylonian story of the Creation, which attri- 
butes the foundation of Babylon, with its temple E-sagila ; 
Erech, with its temple f-anna; and Niffer (stated by the Rabbins 
to be Calneh), with its temple E-kura, to the deity in question. 
We have in this a distinct confirmation of the Biblical record, 

N 


178 T. G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.8., ON 


notwithstanding that the inscription which furnishes it is a 
heathen religious text—an incantation for purification. 

As far as I have been able to examine them, the new inscrip- 
tions from Erech are of the later period of Babylonian history, 
and are mostly trade-documents, generally or often mentioning 
transactions connected with the religious life of the place—the 
great temple where the god of the heavens, Anu, with the 
goddesses IStar (Venus) and Nana were worshipped. The 
small collection I have seen embraces the period from Nabopo- 
lassar to the period of the Seleucidee—that is to say, from 626 
to the end of the second century before Christ. 

Probably the most interesting inscription of the collection is 
one referring to a necklace or collarette, dated in the 19th year 
of Nabopolassar. This tablet has, on the reverse, a rough 
sketch of the object, and if the reading of the inscription were 
certain, it would have some philological value. The necklace 
contained 41 white nwrmar and 4 other nurmar, possibly 
“pearls,” and was priced at 3 mana 57 shekels of silver. 

Another tablet—a contract for barley—-dated in the 1st year 
of Nebuchadrezzar, has the name of the governor and the satam 
(“ treasurer ”?) of 15 anna, the great and renowned temple of 
Anu at Erecli. 

In the matter of officials—their names are not only important 
historically, but are likely to be so likewise chronologically— 
an inscription dated in the 19th year of Nebuchadrezzar is of 
greater value. This refers to a loan of 1 mana 223 shekels 
of gold, granted by “the Lady of Erech and Nana” (the god- 
desses of the city) to Nabt-étir-napSati, Governor of the 
Land of the Sea; Nabi-Stizizanni, deputy-governor of the 
same, and Zilla the scribe. It is at once an historical document 
and a picture of Babylonian life. This loan was consummated 
at Babylon—not at Erech—in Nisan, the first month of the 
Babylonian year, in the presence of Maruduk-iriba, the 
mayor (?) of Erech ; the satam (? treasurer) of the temple of the 
Syrian Hadad, here called Amurra (“the Amorite god”); a 
priest of Ur (of the Chaldees); and Nabti-nadin-sum the scribe, 
and was to be repaid in the month Tammuz. 

Now this and other tablets show that the temples of 
Babylonia were exceedingly rich, and we see from this inscrip- 
tion that they could make their riches useful to the State, for 
the money was granted without imterest (provided that it was 
repaid at the date mentioned), and in view of the importance 
of the persons to whom it was lent, there is every probability 
that it was for some public purpose—what that may have been 
is not here stated. 


THE LATEST DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA. 179 


From a tablet preserved in the British Museum we see that 
the three Pate personages—the governor, deputy-governor, 
the mayor(?) of Erech, the priest of Ur, and Bél- ubalhit, 
“Governor of the other side,” had all been at Babylon two 
years previously, probably in connection with some other public 
business, or, perhaps, as attendants on the king. Travelling 
backwards and forwards in ancient Babylonia was therefore 
common, especially on the part of officials. Evidently Nebu- 
chadrezzar’s reign was one tull of life and activity, but already 
many then alive were to see its downfall and the beginning 
of its decay. 

But, it may be asked, whence did the temples of Babylonia 
obtain their great riches ? To all appearance—indeed, there is no 
other explanation—they came from the offerings of the faithful, 
either of produce of the earth, from tithes and dues, or from 
lands donated to the shrines and temples. The date plantations 
of “the Lady of Erech and Nana” were therefore very exten- 
sive, and were in all probability let out to farmers and orchard- 
men, whilst the produce of those cultivated under the priests’ 
directions was loaned at interest, or for work to be performed, 
or else was sold. It was in this way that the temples obtained 
their enormous wealth—wealth which had practically been 
accumulating for thousands of years, unless unfavourable con- 
ditions at any time interrupted this accumulation, and caused, 
as 1s possible, a lessening of the temple’s funds. The histories 
of the Babylonian temples have yet to be written, but if the 
material accumulates as it is now doing, this will be possible 
pefore long, and many will be the revelations as to their 
resources. Not only had they lands and plantations, but also 
they possessed a considerable number of cattle, both small 
and large, as more than one of the inscriptions which | have 
seen indicate; and these animals were marked with the special 
mark (sindutu, adj., masc. plu.) of the temple. 

Like the rest of the Babylonians, the Erechites worshipped 

“gods many and lords many ’"—Addu or Hadad, Amar, Amurrt 
(Awurrt), “ the Amorite god,” Ea, the god of the sea, Babu or 
Bau, the “glorious” goddess of healing ; Bel ( Merodach) ; Gula, 
a name of Bau ; Dannu, “the strong one”; Nebo, whose oreat 
popularity was increased by his name being compounded with 
that of numerous Babylonian kings, including Nabopolassar and 
Nebuchadrezzar ; Nergal, the god of war, disease, and death ; 


Ninip (AnuéSat, Georania to Beanie Samas the sun- god ; Sin 

the moon-god ; Zagaga, god. of battle: and others, besides the 

patron-deities of the city, Anu, Antu™, [Star, and Nana. All 
N 2 


180 T. G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON 


these were popular deities during the period of native rule, but 
with Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar, native dominion came 
to an end, and foreigners ruled the land—first the Medo-Per- 
sians, then the Seleucidae, and finally the Arsacidae. At what 
date the Babylonians forsook the worship of the “merciful 
Merodach?’ is unknown, but the later inscriptions, which are 
large and fine tablets, show personal names compounded almost 
exclusively with those of Anu (the great deity of the place),. 
Istar, and Nana (the goddesses worshipped with him). With 
the fall of Babylon, its patron-deity, Merodach, together with 
his consort, ceased to exist for Erech—they had failed 
to defend the independence of the land, and though their shrines 
were retained in the temple, with the people Merodach and his 
companions—his manifestations—lost their influence. “ Baby- 
lon the Great ”—the old and renowned capital of Shinar, the 
beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom—had indeed fallen—she had 
lost her position not only among the nations, but also in the 
land to which she belonged. But the famed Tower of 
Babylon, the rallying point of the nation after “they left off to 
build the city,” still retained its place in their minds, if not in 
their estimation, as we shall presently see. Perhaps they hoped 
that 1t would again become a rallying point, and Alexander, had 
he lived, would undoubtedly have tried to realize this, but it 
was not to be. With his passing, the influence and the 
importance of Babylon passed away, never to return. 


VI—Tower OF BABEL AT BABYLON. 


The history of the rediscovery of the description of the Tower 
of Babylon has an interest which is not without its 
sadness. 

Before his last journey to the Semitic East, where, in former 
years, he had seen some success, George Smith, the Assyriologist, 
had in his hands, for a time, an inscription which, with his usual 
sharpsightedness, he recognized as a detailed account of the great 
Temple of Belus at Babylon, and the Zikkurat or Temple-tower 
connected therewith. Knowing its importance, he published a 
short but exceedingly valuable abstract of the tablet’s contents 
(Atheneum, Feb. 12th, 1876), doubtless with the hope of being 
able to turn his attention to the document again on the comple- 
tion of his work in Babylonia. This hope, however, was never 
fulfilled, for he died in the East, and is buried in the Christian 
churchyard at Aleppo. 

Scholars naturally recognized the importance of his description 


THE LATEST DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA. 181 


of this tablet, and it has often been quoted—Professor Sayce 
even reproduced G. Smith’s rendering in full in his Hibbert 
Lectures of 1887,—but no one knew the whereabouts of the 
original document. I myself have often spoken of the disappear- 
ance of the record—once before this Institute—in the hope that 
the newspapers would carry the news farther—perhaps to the 
notice of the owner—but without success, or at least without 
effect. Probably no seeker for the document lost hope, however, 
for clay, when in a good condition, is practically indestructible 
—wilful damage alone can utterly ruin a clay record. 

This being the case, none were surprised, and most scholars 
were gratified to learn, last year, that the missing inscription 
had come to light again at last, and was in the hands of the 
Rev. V. Scheil. The document, however, did not belong to him, 
but to Mme. Femerly, who had possessed it for a long time, and 
its whereabouts had been indicated to Father Scheil by M. 
Schlumberger in 1912. Under the title of “ Esagil, ou le Temple 
de Bel-Marduk,” Father Scheil, aided by the well-known 
architect and archeologist, M. Marcel Dieulafoy, has published 
a most valuable monograph upon the record. Both these 
scholars are Members of the Institute of France. 

The tablet first described by Smith is a beautifully-written 
document, 7$ inches high by 4 inches wide. It is inscribed 
with 39 lines of writing in seven sections on the obverse, and 11 
lines in three sections on the reverse. In the large blank space 
which follows are three lines wide apart—the colophon—which 
state that the copy in question was made in the 85rd _ year of 
the Seleucid Era (229 B.c.). 

The first section contains the dimensions ofthe du-mah or “ sub- 
lime sanctuary,” wherein were to be found the sanctuaries (dw) 
of Istar and Zagaga, and the azamu of the Ubsukina, or “ place 
of Assembly,’ where the New-Year ceremonies took place in the 
first fortnight of Nisan, the first month of the year. The “sublime 
sanctuary ” and the shrines connected therewith did not form 
part of the Tower, but of E-sagila, the great Temple of Belus 
(Bel-Merodach). The du-mah, which was a kind of terrace, and 
which contained the shrines of Istar and Zagaga, measured, 
according to Dieulafoy, 6333 Babylonian feet from north to south 
and 270 feet from east to west. To the east of this again was the 
great terrace, 540 feet wide (from north to south) and 720 feet 
long (from east to west). These two structures were centred on 
a lower platform measuring in total depth (east to west) 990 
Babylonian feet. The total depth of the lower terrace (whereon 
the higher central portion stood) was 200 feet. 


182 T. G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON 


The great Temple-tower, called K-temen-an-ki, “the House 
of the foundation of heaven and earth,’ lay farther to the 
W.S.W. It lay in the great courtyard —the terrace of 


E-temen-an- ki—imeasuring fi 200 Babylonian feet each way, 
and entered, according to the plan of the German explorers, by 
nine gates. Of these “the names of six only are given, the others 
having been blocked, seemingly by rows of cells placed against 
its eastern wall. Section 3 of the inscription gives us the 
names of these gates: the Sublime Gate; the Gate of the 
Rising Sun; the Great Gate; the Gate of the Lamassu (pro- 
tecting genius) ; the Gate of Abundance ; and the Gate of the 
Glorious Wonder (ka-u-di-barra). These gates and the court- 
yard or platform itself, were used for the ceremonies of the — 


L-kur (Temple of the Land)—so called, perhaps, to distinguish 
this sacred portion from the inner sanctuaries, both of the 
Tower and of the Temple of Belus. 

Within the enclosure of the platform or terrace, near the 
western wall, lay the kigallu™ or platform of the Tower itself, 
measuring 600 Babylonian feet each way. This was the base of 
the first stage, and the substructure (kigallu, § 4) of this world- 
renowned building. Centred to the extreme south-western 
edge of this, again, lay the true substructure (kigallu, § 5)—in 
reality the Tower’s lowest stage—measuring 300 “enlarged a 
feet each way. This rose to a newul of 120 feet above the 
platform oe which it stood. 

Here the tablet mentions (§ 6) he chapels or sanctuaries of 
the Tower, six in number, which surrounded it on this level. 
Two of these were situated on the east, and dedicated, one to 
Merodach, and the other to Nebo and his spouse TaSmétu”. 
The latter was seemingly 45 cubits square and 40 high. 

On the north, in couples (§ 7), were the temples “ot fa and 
Nusku (the cods of the waters and of light respectively); on 
the south was the Temple of Anu and “Sin (the god of the 
heavens and the moon); on the west were the 7w’wm and “ the 
temple of the net”; and behind these, facing “the Gate of the 
Implements,” was “the house” or “ temple of the couch.” 

The association of the “net” (nam’istw”) with the tw’um is 
interesting, suggesting, as it does, that the latter may be the 
Babylonian form of the Hebrew Zehom or “deep,” and the 
concrete idea of the deified Tiawath (Tiamtu) of the Babylonian 
Creation-story. | Dieulafoy has followed George Smith in 
rendering ¢wum, by “double” or “twin,” and this is a possible 
rendering. The twin-sanctuaries would in that case be the 
temples of the net and of the couch and throne respectively. 


THE LATEST DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA. 183 


That the vocalization of the word for “twin” may be either 
twamu or tv’ umu probably presents no difficulty to this inter- 
pretation. Nevertheless, I think well to place the other 
possibility on record, as well as a third alternative, namely, that 
the final wm may be the case-ending of the nominative with the 
mimmation. In this case we should obtain the form fw’, 
the first element of tohw we bohu, “formless and void” in 
Genesis i, 2. 

It is to be noted, also, that tw’wm occurs without any prefix 
whatever, either of god, or of temple, increasing the probability 
that it was a “laver or sea ” preferably, perhaps, the latter, 
and symbolical of the brood of Tiawath whom, with her, 
Merodach caught with his net and his snare. 

No image ‘of the primeval Dragon symbolizing Chaos is 
mentioned ‘here, otherwise the Dragon whose image Daniel so 
mysteriously destroyed (see the apocryphal book of Bel and the 
Dragon) might be compared. Perhaps her image was in the 
Temple of the Net which entrapped her, for it ‘is not by any 
means unlikely that “ Bel and the Dragon” may be founded on 
fact, and that the priests of Bel practised the deceit attributed 
to them. There is no evidence, on the other hand, that the 
Babylonians worshipped the Dragon of Chaos, though the 
ancestors of the Yezidis or “ Devil worshippers” may have done 
so. It is, moreover, exceedingly unlikely that King Cyrus 
believed either in the Babylonian Bel, or in the mythological 
monster whom the god slew. That the scene of Daniel’s trap 
to catch the three score and ten priests of Bel, and to 
destroy the Dragon with seethed balls of pitch, fat, and hair, 
causing the Dragon to “burst in sunder,’ may have been 
laid here, is exceedingly probable. 

In front of the Temple of the Couch was the Temple of the 
utensils of the shrines, corresponding with it in length and 
breadth. Here, also, was a covered court shut in. The couch 
is described as being 9 cubits long and + cubits wide. There 
was a throne set by it, which, however, was separate from 1t— 
or, as the tablet says, the couch and the throne were two. 

At this point the writer turns to the Tower itself— 

The court containing the Gate of the Sun-rising (the eastern 
gate), the Gate of the South, the Gate of the Sun-setting (the 
western gate), and the Gate of the North, is a third—length, 
width, and height—of the base (?) of the Tower of Babylon. 
This is its (the Tower's) description :— 

150 feet square, 55 feet high, of worked brick, was the 
lowest stage. 


184 | T. G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON 


130 feet square, 30 feet high, enamelled, the second. 

100 feet square, 10 feet high, recessed, the third. 

85 feet square, 10 feet high, recessed, the fourth. 

70 feet square, 10 feet high, recessed, the fifth. 

40 feet long, a fraction under 35 feet wide, 25 feet high, 
variegated to the top, the seventh—the house sahuru. 


And here we have it in all its details, as nearly as we 
understand them—the great Tower of Babel, the remains of 
which utilitarian Turkish contractors have removed from the 
face of the earth—that is, all but the core of unbaked brick. 
The tenth section of the tablet, which immediately follows, 
states, apparently, that this is a description of the extent and 
the area of the building, not examined, but written, verified, 
and made clear according to the copy preserved at the 
neighbouring town of Borsippa. It is sincerely to be hoped 
that the original of this present document will be found. 

The tenth section gives the dimensions of 68 plantations and 
20 meadows belonging to the Tower, and after this comes the 
colophon, in three lines of writing wide apart. It is as 
follows :— 


“Tablet of Anu-bél-Sunu, son of Anu-balat-su-iqbi, descendant 
of Abwutu, the Tir-annaite (= Erechite). 

“(Written out) by the hand of Anu-bél-Sunu, son of Nidintu™- 
Anu, descendant of Sin-lki-unnini. Erech, month Chisleu, 
day 26th, 

“year 83rd, Siluku (Seleucus), king.” 


The owner of the tablet had therefore gotten a namesake of his 
to write it out for him—a member, seemingly, of a very ancient 
family, that of Sin-hki-unnini, the traditional writer of the 
tablets of the GilgameS-legend, the eleventh of which contains 
the story of the Flood. 

In his elevation of the Tower of Babylon, attached to the 
Temple of Belus, cailed E-sagila, M. Dieulafoy adheres rigorously 
to the data of the tablet, and does not insert the possible 
dimensions of the missing sixth stage—in which, in fact, he 
does not believe. George Smith, however, thought that it 
ought to be restored, and in this he was probably night. It 
seems possible that, at the time the inscription was drawn up, 
the sixth stage, being in ruin, had been cleared away, and the 
sanctuary at the top erected on the fifth stage. Or is this due 
to the fact that, when “they left off to build the city,” as 
stated in Genesis xi, 8, they left off building the Tower as well, 


—- 


THE LATEST DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA. 185 


and the seventh stage, which they intended to add, was never 
erected? There is much that we have to learn about this 
wonderful construction, which, rising in its majesty 200 *Baby- 
lonian feet or more, must have been a conspicuous and brilliant 
landmark—like many another in that land—upon the Baby- 
lonian plain. 

With regard to the discoveries made by the German explorers 
at Babylon, I was hoping to be able to say a few words, but the 
time needed to get a recently-published book from Germany 
was too great. I need only say, at present, that an outline of 
these will be found in my paper “ Discoveries in Babylonia and 
the Neighbouring Lands,” which was read before the Institute 
on Febru uary L5th, 1909. For the sake of completeness, 
however, I recapitulate here with further details something of 
what I then said, and show some new slides, the best of which 
a friend, with very great kindness, has been so good as to give me. 

From the extant remains Babylon is estimated by Delitzsch 
to have been about as extensive as Munich or Dresden, but there 
must have been a great extension of the city outside the inner 
walls. Any outer defences which the Babylonian capital may 
have had would seem long since to have disappeared. Whether 
it will be worth while excavating the land around the inner 
city is doubtful, but the German explorers have probably 
formed an opinion upon this point. 

North of the Temple of Belus and the Tower lay the palace 
built by Nabopolassar (probably on the site of some smaller and 
more ancient erection), and enlarged by his son Nebuchadrezzar. 
The throne-room was a noteworthy chamber, tastefully decorated 
in enamelled brick. On the eastern side of the palace ran 
the sacred procession-street, on the right of which le the ruins 
of the temple of the goddess Nin-mah, “the sublime Lady,” 
spouse of Merodach, who, with him, created mankind. Pro- 
ceeding northwards, one comes to the IStar-gate, with its 
decorations in enamelled brick showing the dragon, the lion, 
and the bull of Babylon. The ruins of the Nin-mab temple 
have an altar before the entrance. Dr. Koldewey, the architect 
of the exploration party, has made a very attractive restoration 
of this building, with its lofty entrances facing the street and in 
the courtyard. One would like to know how these buildings 
were lighted. A number of inscriptions were found in E- mah 
(the temple of Nin-mah), some of them referring to the 
buildings of Babylon in general. They were of the Assyrian 


* See, however, the note upon the above, p. 192. 


186 T. G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A:S., ON 


king As&Sur-bani-aph, Nebuchadrezzar, Evil-Merodach, and 
probably other rulers. Koldewey suggests that a statue of 
Nin-mah occupied a central position on the platform of her 
temple ; and that it was here that Alexander made his daily 
offerings, according to custom, when he was ill (Arrian, A7z., 
Vill, 20): 

In the southern portion of the city lay the temple of Ninip 
(in Semitic Anusat, according to Pognon). Unlike H-mah, this 
temple (which was called K-pa-tu-tila) had a courtyard east 
of the centre of the building, and three entrances, The 
chambers have recesses and platforms before which the 
ceremonies were performed, and which are closely centred to 
their respective entrances, implying a wish that worshippers in 
the courtyard should have a chance of seeing what was going on 
within. Numerous inscriptions were found hkewise here— 
cylinders of Nabopolassar and his son Nebuchadrezzar (the last 
brought, in ancient times, from the Tower of Babylon), and 
150 contract-tablets of the period Esarhaddon to Artaxerxes. 
These give nothing of importance for the history of the 
temple. 

A very noteworthy thing is the evidence of other erections 
in this part of the city. The upper layers of the ground are 
thickly covered with Parthian graves, and Parthian and Greco- 
Parthian buildings are visible. Beneath these are house-ruins of 
the Babylonian period, the later houses being built over the 
earlier ones. This, says Koldewey, goes down to the level of 
the foundation water, and does not end even there, either 
beneath ruin-mounds, or where we find level ground. It is of 
interest to note also that the ancient city was not merely 
co-extensive with the existing mounds, but reached far beyond 
on every side. 


APPENDIX. 
THE CAPTURE OF -BABYLON BY CYRUS, 539 B.C. 


In accordance with my intention at the time, I add here a 
new rendering of the account of the capture of Babylon by 
Ugbaru or Gubaru, Cyrus’s representative, as an addition to the 
remarks which I made on the occasion of the reading of the 
Rev. Craig Robinson’s paper “The Fall of Babylon and 
Daniel v, 30,” on December 9th last. 

This tablet forms one of a collection acquired by the Trustees 
of the British Museum in 1879, and the text was published by 


THE LATEST DISCOVERLES IN BABYLONIA. 187 


me, in the Zvansactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 
vol. vii, part 1 (1880). It is not my intention to give here the 
whole inscription, but simply the events of Nabonidus’s 17th 
year—that referring to the tragic event in the history of 
Babylonia and the native kings whom culture would seem in a 
measure to have «anfitted for resisting the apparently ruder 
political powers around them. 

“{17th year. They requested ?] Nebo to go forth from 
Borsippa [to Babylon, and he went and dwelt in E-sagila}. 
The king entered into E-tur-kalama*; [and made sacrifice 
The people of the oe sea ?] and the lower sea revolted. A 
journey of . . . Bel went forth: the New-Year 
festival with success (2) they held. In the month , 
[Nergal and the god]s of Amarda, Zagaga and the gods of Kis, 
Nin-lil and [the gods] of Hursag-kalama entered Babylon. At 
the end of the month Elul the gods of Akkad . . . who 
are over the atmosphere and under the atmosphere, entered 
Babylon—the gods of Borsippa, Cuthah, and Sippar did not 
enter. In the month Tammuz Cyrus made battle in Opis on 
the river Tigris among the people of Akkad. He proclaimed (7) 
the people of Akkad rebellious (?)—he slew the people. On the 
14th day Sippar was taken without battle—Nabonidus fled. 
On the 16th day Ugbaru, governor of Gutiu™, and the soldiers 
of Cyrus entered Baby lon without battle. Afterwards Naboni- 
dus was made prisoner (?)—he was taken in Babylon. At the 
end of the. month the guards of the land of Gutiu™ closed the 
gates of K- sagila—no “loss of anything in H-sagila and the 
temples took place, and the least thing (7) passed not out. In 
Marcheswan, the 3rd day, Cyrus entered Babylon. The 
deputations (2) before him were numerous, asking safety for the 
city—“ Cyrus, the safety of Babylon, all of ‘it, command.” 
Gubaru, his governor, appointed governors in Babylon, and 
from the month Chisleu to the month Adar, the gods of Akkad 
which Nabonidus had brought down to Babylon, returned to 
their sanctuaries (7). In the month Marcheswan, the night of 
the 11th day, Ugbaru [went] against [the citadel 7], and the son 
of the king died. From the 27th of the month Adar to the 
3rd day of the month Nisan there was weeping in Akkad—all 
the people bowed their heads. On the 4th day Cambyses, son 


of Cy[rus], extended(?) the grant to the temple F-nie-had- 
kalama.” 


- * The temple of Ninip (AnuSat, according to Pognon). 


188 T. G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.BR.A.S., ON 


(The remainder of the inscription is too mutilated for 
satisfactory translation. ) 

Whether I have succeeded in giving better renderings of 
certain difficult passages time alone will show, but two or three 
points come out with prominence. At the beginning of this 
long paragraph, in which I have inserted some words to make 
up the sense, it seems clear that the reproach levelled against 
Nabonidus, accusing him of removing the gods from their 
shrines, was correct. This, however, would seem to have been 
a common practice in days of national danger, such as he felt 
the country to be in, and it is perfectly certain that he would 
have been blamed if he had not done it. The god Bél, referred 
to in connection with the New-Year festival, 1s Bel-Merodach, 
and on this occasion it was the custom for the other great gods 
of Babylonia to visit the head of the pantheon in the capital 
wherem his chief shrine lay. This was situated in the temple 


E-sagila (see p.181). The meeting place of the deities was called 
Ubsukina—a counterpart and namesake of the heavenly 
meeting-place wherein their divine feasts took place. The 
following is a description of the ceremonies which were 
performed at the shrine of Merodach at Babylon: 

“The gods, all of them—the gods of Borsippa, Cuthah, Kis, 
and the gods of the cities, all, to take the hands of Kayanu, the 
ereat lord Merodach, will go to Babylon, and with him, at the 
New-Year festival, in the holy place of the King (e., Merodach 
himself), will offer a gift before him. As for that day, on its 
appearance, Anu and Ellila will go from Erech and Nippur to 
Babylon to take the hands of Kayanu-Bél, and will march in 
procession with him. To the temple of offerings all the great 
gods will go together to Babylon.” 

The tablet which gives these instructions also seems to detail 
the reason why the ceremony was performed—it was apparently 
to be present when Merodach was represented as going down to 
the prison where the captive gods, who, at the Creation, had 
resisted the gods of heaven, were confined. There Merodach 
was regarded as going, opening the gates of the prison, and 
comforting them. The expression here used is a very interesting 
one, for it reads inas réssunu, “he raiseth their head,” and it is 
apparently owing ,to this ceremony that the Temple of 
Belus was called E-sagila, “the house of head-raising,” for 1t 
was there that “the merciful Merodach” became reconciled to 
the gods who had been his enemies. An unsuspected beauty in 
the Legend of Merodach here meets us. 

From this inscription it would seem that the gods of Sippar, 


=e 


THE LATEST DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA. ° 189 


Cuthah, and Kis ought to have taken part in this ceremony, 
whereas the “ Annalistic Tablet” mentions the gods of Amarda 
or Marad, those of Hursag-kalama, and the gods of Akkad 
(northern Babylonia) who were “under the wind and over the 
wind” as having entered the city, but not the gods of Borsippa, 
Cuthah, and Sippar. It was probably in this that Nabonidus 
went astray—it was not that he took the deities to Babylon, 
but that he took the wrong ones—gods whom he ought not to 
have taken, including many whom the scribe does not name. 
It was on account of this that evil overtook the city and the 
land, in the opinion of the Babylonians. 

The name of Cyrus’s general. is given in the Annalistic 
inscription as Gubaru or Ugbaru—variants which suggest that 
the Babylonians really pronounced the name as Gbaru. It will 
be noticed that he is called “Governor of Gutiu™,” a portion 
of Media, and it is therefore safe to say that he was a Mede. 
The Darius who took Babylon in the account in the Book of 
Daniel was also a Mede—the two men, therefore, would seem to 
have been one and the same. Both took Babylon, and both 
appointed governors in Babylonia (though in this text the number 
given in Daniel—120—is not stated) afterwards. They may both 
be identified with other people, but that Gubaru or Ugbaru is 
the “ Darius the Mede” of Daniel, is a conclusion from which 
there is no escape. 

One of the most important statements in this noteworthy 


inscription is that referring to the Temple of Belus, E-sagila, in 
lines 16-18. There we find a mention of certain tukkume of 
Gutiu™ or Media (with the character for leather before the 


word) having shut the gates of K-sagila—Babani sa B-sagy gil 
upaklis —and apparently in consequence of that batla sa mimina 


ina B-say ggul u ékurati tl wsakin, “loss of anything in K- sagila 
and the temples was not made.” As we know, there was a 
considerable amount of valuable property in the temple, and 
measures for its due protection had apparently been taken—a 
stroke of policy which evidently impressed the Babylonians, 
and did not a little to reconcile them to Persian rule. The 
conqueror had preserved the treasures of their great sanctuary 
intact—a thing which no conqueror had probably ever done 
before—and they found him worthy of their confidence, Though 
only a governor and commander-in-chief of the Persian forces, 
he had the power and authority of a king, and this is the title 
which Daniel gives Darius the Mede. 

It was not until four months later—the 3rd of Marcheswan, 


190 T. G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON 


that Cyrus entered Babylon, and was met by the Aariné, which 
I have doubtfully rendered as deputations—the rendering 
demanded, apparently, by the context. It is noteworthy that 
Belshazzar was killed a week after the arrival of Cyrus at 
Babylon, but the honour of the capture of the imner city or 
citadel belongs to Gobryas. Though Cyrus had no hand in the 
operations, it is probable that the attack was-only decided on 
after consultation with him—as for the deputations, they 
evidently knew that it was Cyrus who was king, and that every- 
thing depended upon him. 

As Nabonidus had been captured, Belshazzar, his son, became 
king in the eyes of the Babylonians, and is rightly so regarded 
in Daniel—indeed, it is not improbable that he had been 
associated with his father on the throne for many years; hence, 
as has been often pointed out, the appointment of Daniel, by 
Belshazzar, as “the third ruler in the kingdom.” Note, also, 
that this appointinent on the part of Belshazzar implies that he 
regarded his father as being still alive, and still virtual head of 
the state. Daniel, however, was fully aware of the precarious 
position of his royal master, shut up there in the inner city, or 
in the citadel, with the Medo-Persian army at his gates, and 
the answer which he is stated to have given is not one which we 
should regard as altogether respectful. “Let thy gifts be to 
thyself, and give thy rewards to another,’ was the preface to his 
interpretation of the handwriting. Though we have much to 
learn about this historical event, so far all the records fit well 
in together. Babylon was taken, as the Babylonian record says, 
without fighting, but “the city of the kine’s house” still held 
out. It was to gain this that the army of Cyrus entered by the 
drained river-bed, and it was there that the last stand of the 
Babylonians took place. 


NOTES. 


P. 167. For a translation of the Semitic Creation-Story, see the 
Journal of the Victoria Institute, 1903, pp. 17-56. 

P. 168. Dr. Poebel’s description appeared in the Philadelphia 
Musewm Journal for June, 1913. 

P. 169. The concluding lines of the Daily Telegraph fragment 
quoted are, as far as they are preserved, as follows :— 


7... all the denizens, all of the creation 
8. . . . . Which in the assembly of my family 
9 . . . . and Nin-igi-azaga 


10. 4 0 a") OnE assenily-or the denizens was glorious 


THE LATEST DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA. 191 
|) Peery Os Fats Eo bik a is) 


The « glory” of the “denizens” would correspond with the 
expression “very good” in Genesis i. Note, however, that this is 
a version of the gods’ Creation, not Tiawath’s. 

P. 171. Ziugiddu. Vi I have read the characters shown by the 
half-tone blocks published by Dr. Arno Poebel (Philadelphia 
Museum Journal for June, 1913) aright, this name of the Babylonian 


Noah is written with the characters 4 4 << =), Z-i-giddu, 
‘ Being + day + long.” 

Concerning him, Dr. Poebel says that he was a pasisu-priest of 
Enki (the god Ka), daily and constantly in the service of his god. 
To requite him for his piety, Enki tells him that, at the request of 
Enlil (the older Bel), the gods had resolved “ to destroy the seed of 
mankind.”  Zi-fi-giddu thereupon—this part, however, is broken 
away—builds a great boat and places thereon all kinds of animals. 
The storm rages for seven days and seven nights, after which the sun 
appears again, and when its ight shines into the vessel the patriarch 
sacrifices an ox and a sheep. In the end, Zi-f-giddu worships 
before Enlil, whose anger against men had now abated, for Enlil 
says: “ Life like a god I give to him (¢ tz dingira-qime munnasummu), 
an eternal soul like a god (22 dair dingira-qime) I create for him.” 

Immortality was therefore regarded as having been conferred 
upon the Babylonian Noah—possibly, also, upon his descendants. 
Zi-d-giddu thus became “the being of everlasting day”—the gods’ 
eternity. 

P. 171. In the version which the Babylonian Noah (Ut-napisti~) 
related to Gilgames, his sacrifice was of the produce of the earth. 

P. 173. It must have been from this record that Berosus obtained 
the material for the history of the world, now lost. 

Professor Hilprecht’s notes upon the list of kings will be found in 
The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A : 
Cuneiform Texts, vol. xx, part 1, p. 46, and plates 30 and XV. 

P. 174. Professor Scheil’s description of the Chronological tablet 
was published in the Comptes hendus de ? Académie des Inscriptions et 
Belles Lettres for the year named. Mr. George Smith’s paper 
appeared in the 7ransactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 
vol. iii, p. 361 ff (1874). 

P. 175. The dynasty of the Kassites (Cossaeans) ruled from 
about 1780 to 1210 B.c. 

P. 175. ‘“ Prince Mastema” is one of the names of Satan in 
Rabbinical writings. 

P. 177. If the rendering at the end of the first paragraph here 
be correct, the seeding-plough was in use before 2000 B.c. 

P. 177. Among the new royal and other names revealed by the 
tablets from Jokha may be mentioned Libanuk-Sabas, viceroy of 
Marhasu ; Habalul, viceroy of Adab or Udab; Nisili”, viceroy of 


192 T. G. PINCHES; LL.D), M.8,A.8:, OM 


Tutula ; Jbdat, viceroy of Kubla; and Hulibar, viceroy of 
Tahtahuni, Among Dungi’s sons were Sur-Enzw and Istar -Ul-Su ; 


and Sw- Sin, grandson of Dungi, had a son named Brite Mannan 
All these were of the time of the dynasty of Ur, about 2300 B.c. 

P. 178. The tablets here referred to form part of the collection of 
Mr. Harding Smith. 

P. 185. “The lowest stage or plinth of E-temen-anki (the Tower of 
Babylon) measures, according to the scale, about 95 metres (about 
312 feet). This amounts to 300 “ enlarged feet” (Babylonian) in 
Dieulafoy’s scheme. George Smith calculated that the height 
equalled the width of the base, in which case it measured the same, 
312 feet. M. Dieulafoy, however, makes it to have measured about 
250 feet in all, above the level of the plain. But itis admitted that 
the height of the Tower is very uncertain, and modifications of 
the estimates thereof may be expected. 

P. 185. The friend to whom I owe the slides referred to is 
Mr. W. L. Nash, L.R.C.P., Secretary of the Society of Biblical 
Archaeology. 

P. 186. Various readings of the Aramaic form of the name 
transcribed as Anusat by Pognon have been suggested, among them 


being my own and Professor Prince’s (independently argued) Hnu- 
résti, ‘ primeeval Lord,” or the like. Hugo Radau reads Hn-usati, 
“lord of healing,” whilst others favour Ln-arist, En-mastu, etc. 
The deity in question was one of the gods of war, and is generally 
called Mnip, though Nirig is also a possible reading. For details 


concerning his character, see the Proceedings of the Society of 


Biblical Archaeology, December, LQ0G% pp 40 ei. Interesting 
additions might now be made to the legends about him translated in 
that paper. 


DISCUSSION. 
The CHAIRMAN, in thanking the Lecturer, referred to the great 


difficulty in interpreting the cuneiform inscriptions, and said how 
necessary it was that there should be a succession of great scholars, 


like the Lecturer, to study them. He welcomed the references to - 


the late George Smith, and to the Hibbert lectures which Professor 
Sayce delivered in 1887. For himself, he found the slides which 
had been exhibited of absorbing interest, especially those relating 
to the Tower of Babylon. 

A Lapby asked whether there was any special significance in the 
Tower of Babylon ; was it unique, or were there many such ? 

The Rev. J. J. B. Coues said that the shape of the altar shown 
on one of the slides had struck him as being exactly like the altars 


THE LATEST DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA. 193 


shown in the astronomical figures on boundary stones. He asked 
for information as to the substitution of the constellation Libra for 
that of the Altar in the Zodiac. He believed that the modern 
zodiacal Libra was spurious and was introduced by Egyptian 
influences. 

Mr. M. L. Rovusk said that at the great Palestine Exhibition in 
1907 a seed-plough of the same kind as that portrayed in these 
most ancient inscriptions was driven by a Bedouin upon a model 
field; in surprise he asked the driver whether wheat was not usually 
sown broadcast in the East, but received the answer that many 
other seeds were sown broadcast, but wheat was always sown through 
this leather hopper and tube set behind the ploughshare. 

Until that evening he had not known which of the two great 
towers lying respectively in the heart of the ruins of Babylon and 
at Birs Nimrud was the original Tower of Babel, the former 
corresponding to E-Sagila, or Temple of the Lofty Head, the latter 
to E-Zida, or Temple of Life; he now knew that it was the 
former. 

He noted that according to this latest found Deluge Story the 
God Ea was constantly served by Ziugiddu (or Noah) before the 
Deluge, and since, in the Gisdhubar story it was Ea who warned the 
good man to prepare the ship of deliverance, was not the name La 
really a variant of Jah, the shorter alternative Hebrew name for the 
true God % 

Colonel VAN SOMEREN urged that if the Tower of Babylon was 
only 200 feet high, it could not fulfil the Biblical description of 
“reaching up to heaven.” There was no verb in the Hebrew at all. 
He had read that the real meaning was that the Tower was an 
observatory ; perhaps with a planisphere or map of the heavens laid 
out at the top ? Could the Lecturer enlighten them on this point ? 

The Rev. F. A. JONES observed that the period chiefly dealt 
with by Dr. Pinches was an intensely interesting one, it being so 
close to that represented in Scripture as immediately following the 
Flood. It was remarkable how entirely the account of Berosus was 
confirmed, even in its chronology, by the contemporary inscriptions 
already deciphered, and we were probably on the eve of discoveries 
which would elucidate the strange period he gave as 33,091 years, 
which read as days was 91 years, and so read made his chronology 
practically the same as that of Genesis. 

O 


194 T. G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON 


The ruins at Nippur were reported by Haines as going down to 
virgin soil 33 feet below the present level of the plain, and Mr. 
Jones said he could only understand that on the assumption that 
the level of the plain was raised by a flood; if so the lowest 
Aiggurat was antediluvian : a conclusion to which several other 
facts in that connection pointed. 

The Rev. A. IRvinG, B.A., D.Sc., would only detain the meeting 
at that late hour with one or two brief remarks (suggested by his 
own recent work*) on the most valuable paper that they had just 
listened to. One point that especially struck him was the bold 
perspective, in which it tended to place Abraham as an historical 
personage, in the tace of much speculation of late years as to the 
mythical character of the Patriarchs. He enquired if the term 
“cattle” (p. 179) included the horse, that animal being never men- 
tioned in the Genesis enumerations of the possessions of the 
Patriarch, used mostly for war purposes (chiefly by the Egyptians) 
in those Pentateuchal times [and ignored in the Tenth Command- 
ment|.+ Might it be possible that the Babylonian term “ black- 
headed ” (p. 168) had some reference to traditions or survivals of the 
negroid (?) Neolithic people of the Grimaldi Race ?{ And was it 
possible to fill in hypothetically the gap (p. 169) so as to read 
‘denizens of [the caves]”? He desired to associate himself with 
Dr. Pinches’ “contention” in the paragraph: ‘ How early the 
date . . . original scheme” (pp. 170, 171). It seems to suggest 
an Abrahamic inspiration for the Creation Story of Genesis! 

On the motion of the CHAIRMAN, the Meeting returned a hearty 
vote of thanks to the Lecturer, and to the Secretary of the Society 
of Biblical Archaeology, who had furnished some of the slides by 
which the Lecture had been illustrated. 

The LecTURER thanked the Meeting for the appreciative atten- 
tion which had been given him, and for the cordial vote of thanks. 
In reply to the first question, he would say that towers like that 


* See Reports of the British Association for the years 1910, 1911, 1913. 

+ Cf. Job xxxix, 19 ff. The wild horse was known long before, and 
had probably been domesticated by the Neolithic men. Its immediate 
ancestry dates back to the Pliocene Period, in which remains of several 
species of Hquus are well known. 

t As described by Professor Marcellin Boule from the Grimaldi grottoes 
near’ Mentone. Any clue, which seems to bring us on Biblical lines into 
touch with pre-Adamic races, is of interest. 


THE LATEST DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA. 195 


of Babylon were not rare in Babylonia and Assyria, and they 
probably varied in size with the importance of the place and the 
consequent opulence or poverty of the religious foundation therein. 
Answering Dr. Coles, he stated that it seemed to him hardly likely 
that Libra was originally the picture of an altar, though altars 
were found on the boundary-stones. In the only place where the 
name was spelled out it appeared as Zilanit, which was regarded 
as the word for “scales.” (As this is of late date, it may have 
been introduced, as -suggested, by the Egyptians.) In reply to 
Mr. Rouse, he was glad of the testimony that the seeding-device, 
of which he had shown a picture, was still used in the country. 
The lecturer regretted not having made himself clear as to E-sagila 
and E-zida. E-sagila was not the tower, but the great temple of 
Merodach connected with the Tower in Babylon, which seems to 
have been called “The House of the Foundation of Heaven and 
Earth.” E-zida was the “Everlasting House” at Borsippa, and the 
tower in connection with it was called E-urwe-imina-an-ki, “the 
House of the 7 regions of Heaven and Earth,” symbolizing the seven 
planets (including the sun and moon). The meaning of E-sagila 
was “head-raising,” not, apparently, in the sense of a tall structure, 
but as the place where the people, or the hostile gods of old (see 
p. 188), were comforted—“ lifted up” from their downcast state. 
Both E-sagila and E-zida had been restored by Nebuchadrezzar. 
Mr. Rouse had suggested that Ea (the name of the god of the 
waters and of deep wisdom) was a variant of Jah (or its original 
form); but this the lecturer hesitated to confirm, notwithstanding 
that his friend, Professor Fritz Hommel (Journal of the Victoria 
Institute, 1895, p. 36) had already pointed out the likeness. 
(Naturally there is also the question of an ancient identification of 
two names originally distinct to be considered.) Colonel Van 
Someren was right as to the Tower of Babylon not being very high 
(see p. 192, note top. 184). A tower, whose top “was in the 
heavens,” simply meant, as has already been recognized, a very 
high tower. Whether there was a planisphere at the top or not 
the lecturer could not say, but he thought it unlikely, though 
small planispheres of baked clay existed. The house at the top 
was the abode of the god Merodach. Replying to the Rev. F. A. 
Jones, the antiquity of the ruins at Niffer had been estimated by 
an examination of the accumulations as dating from about 10,000 
0 2 


196 THE LATEST DISCOVERIES IN BABYLONIA. 


years ago, but this was naturally open to correction, and the 
high date of Nabonidus for Naram-Sin (3,200 years before his time) 
is regarded by Assyriologists as being about 1,000 years too early. 
Referrmg to Dr. Irving’s suggestion that the ‘ black-headed 
people ” had their origin in traditions of negroid (?) neolithic cave- 
dwellers, the lecturer said that was a matter of opinion. ‘“‘ Men of 
the black head” was a description of the Babylonians themselves— 
in contradistinction thereto certain Gutian (Median) slaves were 
described as being “fair.” The word translated ‘ denizens” (nam- 
massé)—see p. 169—occurs in the fifth line of the bilingual story 
of the Creation, apparently as indicating dwellers in cities; and it 
is noteworthy that the Sumerian equivalent is written adam—see 
the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1891, pp. 402 and 403. 
In early lists of domestic animals asses were often referred to, but 
never horses, which seem to have become fairly well known to the 
Babylonians 2,000 years B.c. (The tablets referred to on p. 179 are 
much later than this, but there is no mention of horses.) 


The Meeting adjourned at 6.30 p.m. 


LATER NOTE BY THE LECTURER. 


Since the writing of the note on Ziugiddu (p. 191), Dr. S. Langdon 
has published his reading of the name,* which he gives as Zid-ud- 
giddu, for Ud-zid-qiddu, and translates ‘long is the breath of life.” 
This is a fuller transcription of the name as I have read it (following 
Poebel). The rendering “being of everlasting day,” however 
(p. 191), seems to me to be worthy of consideration. 


* Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, June, 1914, p. 190. 


996TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING, 


HELD IN THE ROOMS OF THE INSTITUTE ON MONDAY, 
MAY 47ru, 1914, AT 4.30 P.M. 


THE Rev. H. J. R. Marston, M.A., Took THE CHAIR. 


The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed. 


The SrecrRETARY announced the election of the two following Asso- 
ciates:—Mr. John Wood and Mr. Francis Chatillon Danson. 


The CHAairMAN then introduced Prof. F. F. Roget, Lecturer on English 
Language and Literature in the University of Geneva, and called upon 
him to deliver his Address on “ Frederic Godet, the greatest of Swiss 
theologians after Calvin.” 


Pay OERIC SGODET SWISS: DIVINE, AND TUTOR 
LOSER OERAG ELE TNOBLE, BY Prot FE: F: 
ROGET. 


| Eran asaey GODET was born in 1812, and died in 1900, 
when eighty-eight years old. 

The length of his life, and the period of the nineteenth 
century over which it extended, made him throughout the span 
of those years a contemporary of Ernest Naville, the “ spiritual- 
istic” philosopher and divine of Geneva, whose portrait, course 
of life, and doctrine, we brought before the Victoria Institute, 
two years ago in the same month of May. 

A complete picture of the philosophic thought, emanating, 
in conjunction with theology, from the French-speaking parts 
of Switzerland in the nineteenth century, would demand that 
we should add to Naville and Godet their compeers Alex. Vinet, 
Charles Secretan, Francois Roget and Frederic Amiel. This we 
hope to do with the help of time. We believe that there is in 
London an editor who understands the importance of the 
contribution to philosophy and theology of the Protestant 
Churches in Romance Switzerland, and is prepared to publish, 
for the benefit of the English-reading public, such accounts as 
those which are now being placed before you. 

I wish particularly to thank the Victoria Institute for the 
facility thus given me, which I am confident they will have 
no occasion to regret. 

The Protestants of Romance Switzerland are in every way 
akin to the English and Scotch Protestants. The national 


198 PROF. F. F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE, 


characteristics of Protestantism in Geneva, Lausanne and 
Neuchatel are those which have developed in the United 
‘Kingdom. I may even say that some of the best expressions of 
Presbyterian, and even Church of England, doctrine have been 
formed in Swiss minds. 

The remarkable popularity of Naville, Godet, Vinet, Secretan 
and Amiel among the English- reading public has been made 
obvious by the demand for translations of their works, transla- 
tions which have gone through many editions and are less in 
request now only in proportion as the newer literature presses 
them back, and as a younger generation loses sight of them. 
As for Francois Roget’s book (De Constantin a Grégoire le 
Grand) ou the Establishment of the Christian (Roman) Church 
from Constantine to Gregory the Great, 1t remains the standard 

work on the secularisation of Christianity. 

Frederic Godet was born in Neuchatel. This should be 
noted, as his whole life and work bears the imprint of his 
“nativity.” The Godets were an ancient, though by no means 
socially eminent stock. 

Neuchatel was still a Principality in the dependency of the 
Kings of Prussia at the moment of Frederic Godet’s birth, 
though the Principality owed temporary allegiance to Berthier, 
one of Napoleon Bonaparte’s generals: a mere mushroom 
prince. So the child was born a Prussian Royalist, baptized a 
Protestant—in the Calvinistic Faith—and educated as a Swiss in 
a Church which was not quite a State Church, and bore 
the stamp of fidelity to the Monarchy of Prussia rather than to 
the Republicanism of Switzerland. 

This atmosphere was full of contradictions. Yet the 
community of 100,000 Neuchatelois who had breathed it since 
1707 had grown into a most harmonious, enlightened and 
prosperous commonwealth of simple-minded men, distinguished 
by public merits and private virtues. 

Yet the ambiguousness of this strange social unit “told” 
upon Godet and is reflected in every step of his career. But 
his powerful personality subdued those manifold elements. A 
minister, he remained faithful to his flock through constitutional 
changes in the Church; a professor of divinity, he remained 
faithful to his students, keeping them anchored to the 
evangelical conception of the Old and New Testaments, through 
every change in exegesis; a tutor to a most eminent scion of 
the Prussian House, he retained the absolute confidence of 
his pupil from early years to the hour of death. Entrusted 
with his tutorial office as a Royalist, he none the less accepted 


AND TUTOR TO FREDERICK THE NOBLE. 199 


as from God the Republican Government which at last severed 
every tie of Neuchatel with the House of Prussia. 

The secret of this unity must be looked for in Godet’s 
humility, though his was a firm and proud nature, we might 
even say exacting and imperious. 

He was endowed with a lofty and piercing intelligence. 
Impatience at the dullness or weakness of others should have 
been one of its exterior manifestations. Those of my hearers 
who remember Gladstone will best see my meaning. The 
resemblance between Gladstone and Godet was not limited to 
the physical lkeness in features, bearing and _ oratorical 
expression, which struck repeatedly those who knew both. 
They were alike in character, in self-confidence. They were 
tractable—and intractable—to the same degree, I may also say 
on the same points. 

From the time he started upon his career, the young Church- 
man—I inean Godet—fixed his eye upon the enemy which in 
him most required curbing: pride. For pride he strenuously 
fought to substitute righteousness—not the saintliness of the 
priest or monk or ascetic, but the righteousness of a plain, 
straight man, who was destined to go through life as a teacher, 
husband, father, citizen, with the additional responsibility of 
being a clergyman. He “took himself down” daily, from the 
moment he had outgrown the crude ambitions and rude self- 
assertions of boyhood. For those motive powers of untaught 
youth the young minister substituted sincerity in self-examina- 
tion and humility, but without any degradation of self before 
the tribunal of God, since men are made after His image and 
should swell with helpful exaltation in the fight waged against 
blind pride. 

From the age of eighteen, he was intended for the Ministry. 
His mind, then already, showed the degree of maturity expected 
only from men ten years older—a not unusual occurrence among 
such strongly intellectualised circles as those which the 
persistent emigration of gifted Protestants from France had 
established, by a kind of selection, in the French-speaking 
Cantons of Geneva, Vaud and Neuchitel. Early he took up an 
important share in tuitional work at the school for girls which 
his widowed mother kept to support her family and to repay 
her late husband’s debts, debts, by the way, that were quite 
honourably contracted. 

Called to Paris in 1830 by his brother for a short holiday 
after the Jowrnées de Juillet, which violently closed the reign of 
Charles X., he saw Paris in a still rather disturbed condition. 


200 PROF. F. F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE, 


The gay capital made upon him the impression which is usual 
with Swiss Protestants: admiration, but an instinctive distrust 
of French brilliancy, of the Parisian rashness of thought and 
indifference to the true conditions of Christian manliness. He 
returned from Paris enlightened and strengthened. 

At that,time there was no regular School of Divinity at 
Neuchatel. Candidates for the Ministry were principally self- 
taught and depended upon their own initiative for the organiza- 
tion of their studies. They got their lessonsin Hebrew from an 
expert who was none the less proficient Lou not bemg a 
“ Professor.” He received them informally at 5 o'clock betore 
breakfast for, said he, “at a less early hour those young people 
would break up my morning.” Those apparently ill-organized 
studies bore excellent fruit. There were in Neuchatel as many 
men learned in the ancient languages and in the branches of 
philosophy and divinity as would have sufficed to man two 
complete Colleges or Faculties. 

The lodestar of Godet’s mind and soul began to shine down 
upon him amidst those influences. His opinions were then 
most uncertain, but his faith in the diwinity of the Bible was 
entire. He owed his life-long security of religious tenure 
neither to Apologetics, nor to Dogmatics, but to Experience. 

Philosophy, he found, runs into theology, for who can relate 
reason to the one necessary thing, unless it be by pondering 
over the fruits of Christian experience? It is a matter of 
reaching Knowledge through Life. And he prayed that, while 
judging himself in that light, he might abstain from judging 
others. There is no instance on record of Godet’s having judged 
others, though instances abound of his having told his mind, 
but never with any reflection upon character or motives. 
Having to steer his way and that of the Church through con- 
siderable political and ecclesiastical disturbances, his fairness 
and gentleness preserved for him the love and admiration of all. 

In 1831, Godet tasted of military life. We have seen the 
same feature in Naville. There are indeed few divines in 
Switzerland who have not, in their youth, served in the ranks. 
The case of Godet was that of a Loyalist called to arms to quell 
a Nationalist rebellion. 

In spite of the example set by Paris, so-called Liberal and 
Republican opinion, resting upon Swiss support, had not yet 
grown strong enough in Neuchatel to defeat the Royalistic 
tradition. Godet found himself called out in support of the 
existing Government, which was not Swiss, but locally autono- 
mous in the Republican form under Prussian suzerainty. 


AND TUTOR TO FREDERICK THE NOBLE. 201 


Yet neither was Godet actually a Prussian subject. 
Indeed Neuchatel had been joined to the Swiss Confederation 
in 1815 by an international compact to which Prussia was a 
party, to secure the Principality against the renewal of any 
French attempt at annexation, and now the attachment to 
Switzerland was gradually encroaching upon the more ancient 
and distant connection with Potsdam and Berlin. 

But, as long as the Government should remain in the hands 
of magistrates loyal to Prussia, Godet would follow them, since 
Prussia, when contributing to the inclusion of Neuchatel in the 
Swiss Confederation, had not abandoned any of its rights upon 
the internal regime of the new Canton. 

The hour for the superseding of the Prussian Loyalists at the 
head of the State was not to strike for some years yet. 

For Godet, when it should come, the passage from Prussian 
suzerainty to Swiss citizeuship would not wear an aspect of 
public law only or of foreign policy alone. It would involve 
his personal conscience in consequence of his oath of 
allegiance. 

The sacredness of the oath has always played a very great 
part in Swiss political and military fidelity. The burgesses of 
Neuchatel were in the pecuhar situation of having contracted a 
double oath: one of fidelity to the Kings of Prussia and another 
of fidelity to the Swiss Confederation. As a writer on this 
public topic, the young soldier Godet declared roundly that both 
pledges must be kept. There are not oaths and oaths, he said: 
an honourable man has one word only. The conscience of 
Godet as a Christian and a gentleman was here severely and 
repeatedly tested. Need we add that when this vexed question 
of the double oath came finally to be settled to the detriment of 
Prussia, Godet, who viewed it as falling within the purview of 
individual and personal discretion—because it was for him a 
moral and religious issue—found in the House of Prussia gentle- 
men ready to meet him half-way because they were Christian 
aud conscientious like himself. 

Why did Godet, in 1852, choose Berlin when he made up his 
mind to prosecute philosophical and theological studies at a 
University 7? It was quite natural that young men from 
Neuchatel, belonging to what we now like to call Jes classes 
dirigeantes (and “which were then more strictly called the 
political classes, because they were the recruiting ground for 
Governors, Magistrates, Officers and Officials, Law yers and 
Divines), should seek their learning at the seat of “Royalty. 
But it was also pretty plain that, unless he went to Scotland (as 


202 PROF. F.. F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE, 


many young Swiss used to do, and are stillin the habit of doing, 
principally in order to complete their theological studies in a 
congenial atmosphere), Lutheran Germany must exercise a 
ereater attraction upon a Protestant than France, which could 
not but appear, from Godet’s point of view, as being too hbertine, 
too Roman, too revolutionary or too profane: too libertine in 
morals, too Roman in religion, too revolutionary in politics, too 
profane in philosophy. 

I am prepared to say that, had there been, at Oxford or 
Cambridge, a University, College or Faculty of Theology, set 
out on German lines, but in the hands of the Church of 
England, whose recognised repository of doctrine it might 
have been, such men as Godet, Naville, Vinet, and Roget would 
have repaired to this place willingly to complete their studies. 

In the political and ecclesiastic relations belonging to each 
of these in Church or State, their conception of Christianity, 
their public doctrine and conduct showed a striking agreement 
with the doctrine and conduct of English Churchmen in lke 
circumstances in their own Church. 

The Swiss divines mentioned above, though complete 
strangers to the “internals” of the Church of England, such 
as the form of worship and the episcopacy, were led to the 
same conception as most of the Anglican clergy on the relations 
of the Church to the Gospels and Old Testament on one hand, 
and to the State on the other hand. 

Godet hardly visited England at all and knew but little 
English. He was a little more at home in Scotland. Yet 
English divines sought him out in his home quite as much as 
Scotch ministers. They read his translated works. His con- 
tributions to the religious Press of Britain were quite English 
in spirit and in tone. It is not open to doubt that the Swiss 
mind, however Calvinistic or Zwinglian it may have been 
before it grew up to its true identity, has shown itself through- 
out the nineteenth century to be nearer to the Anglican than 
to the Lutheran mind. This, I hope, will appear as I proceed, 
with the help here and there of a suitable illustration. 

At Berlin, young Godet’s first call was paid at the State 
Office for Neuchatel affairs, just as a young Australian might 
pay his first London visit upon the agents for his colony in 
Victoria Street, Westminster. 

The Neuchatelois were among the most trusted servants of 
his Prussian Majesty. This traditional confidence is still 
reposed in some families by the Hohenzollern Emperors of 
Germany. The German Ambassador to St. Petersburg, for 


AND TUTOR TO FREDERICK THE NOBLE. 203 


instance, is a member of the de Pourtalés family. England 
can produce an example on all fours with this in the person of 
Sir Louis Mallet, whose Genevese ancestors show an unbroken 
line in the service of the English State through three 
generations. 

It has been, throughout the nineteenth century, a habit with 
the Hohenzollerns—as with the Romanoffs—to look to the 
Protestant French-speaking Republics of Switzerland for 
tutors and governesses. The Hohenzollerns would naturally 
look to their faithful subjects in Neuchatel, while the Romanoffs 
—be it said by the way—have, through five consecutive genera- 
tions, been partly educated by gentlemen from Geneva or 
Lausanne, whom they cause to feel quite at home in orthodox 
and autocratic Russia. 

To return to the Hohenzollerns, their leanings to Calvinism 
have been constant with the single exception of Frederick 
the Great. The present Emperor of Germany will tell you 
quite frankly that the form of worship in his household is 
Protestant. He misses no opportunity that offers in which to 
recall his Calvinistic collateral ancestry, in the persons of 
William the Silent and of Admiral Coligny. The Huguenot 
Church of Frankfort remains the most fashionable in the realm, 
and the names of its incumbents, now Correvon, and—when 
Godet passed there on his way to Berlin—Bonnet, Pilet, and 
Appia, have the true Protestant ring about them. 

At Frankfort, Godet called upon a young governess from 
Neuchatel, Caroline Vautravers, who, twelve years later, became 
his wife. Let us say at once that he married twice, his second 
wife being the governess of the orphan children. The mother 
of Mademoiselle Vautravers was herself governess to the 
Princesses Luise and Anna, daughters of Prince Charles— 
another of those trivial instances which show how willingly 
the Hohenzollerns applied to Neuchatel for the kind of brain- 
stuff they wanted, whether in the schoolroom, the camp, or round 
the tapis vert of diplomacy. 

A mind as firm as that of Godet would use his course of 
studies and his sojourn in a foreign capital to find out and 
determine his own bearings, rather than yield himself to the 
dominating influences to which he was now subjected. 

We have said how he had seen, in Paris, much that he had 
noted down as evil. He foresaw, with some trembling, that 
his proposed three years in Berlin, too, must bring along for 
him intellectual and religious strife. So he had made up his 
mind that no external. influence should shake, no personal 


204 PROF. F. F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE, 


experience should weaken, no theory should undermine in him 
the sense he had formed of the gravity of sin. Such a pledge 
showed that with him the crisis in faith usual. with young men 
reading for the Church would not turn upon the ordinary 
theme: scepticism. He thought that the sense of sin, which 
lays bare the core of one’s Christianity, is the moral essence of 
all Christianity. It is an issue neither entirely emotional nor 
wholly intellectual. The conscience of Godet was extra- 
ordinarily exacting on this point and acutely alive to its 
ideal of righteousness : Jesus Christ. 

For Godet, the touchstone of Christ’s Divinity 1s to be looked 
for in His conduct. How to reduce to practice the divine 
sainthness of Christ’s human life became the centre of Godet’s 
religion, the test of his own moral life. 

His reasoning was very simple. As related to His day, 
Christ must have been absolutely righteous. The Gospel 
Scriptures are authentic : consequently they are the repository 
of absolute righteousness. By the labour of our conscience we 
have to lay bare that righteousness, to transpose and apply it 
to our own lives. To fail in this is to fall into sin. Intellect, 
sentiment, and will, are all wanted for this effect : the recogni- 
tion of the morality divine. All three are wanted to translate 
it into terms of life. 

The religion of Godet is thus seen to be an intellectual, 
emotional, and volitional communion with the holiness of God ; 
the test of faith to be conduct—a conduct practical, to which 
intellectual power, emotional power, and volitional power are 
contributory in the Christian individuals, as they were in the 
living Christ. 

We need not hesitate a moment in describing this religion as 
aristocratic: the keener the intellect, the purer the emotions, 
the stronger the will, then the more perfect is the religion of 
the servant of Christ. It rests with the developing, the 
refining, and the sanctifying of the three spiritual parts of man 
on to complete conversion. 

Conversion is a progressive religion, a moralising of life. It 
civilises as it Christianises. 

But no pride, no self-love; only charity, humility, and 
self-surrender. The Christian who through superstition, 
fanaticism, intolerant zeal, bears witness to his convictions, 
then does so in a manner unfamiliar to Christ. With such 
Christians, authority usurps in the heart the place of conscience. 
In the efforts of conscience it is the moral guidance of reason 
that should shine foremost. 


AND TUTOR TO FREDERICK THE NOBLE. 205 


To continue in his own words: “ May I proffer no affirmation 
as long as I fail to be aware within myself of sufficient grounds 
for my contentions. May I rather dwell in doubt till God 
enlighten me. I shall thus best enlighten myself and be the 
means of bearing no false light for others. Conscience is 
nothing till it be tolerant, impersonal through love, as was 
Christ, who suffered rather than raise a material hand to prove 
His right. From the intellect theological knowledge should 
pass into life and into the heart. Thus a slave, ceasing to 
stoop before authority, may become an upright child confiding 
in the fatherhood. Conscience, drawing us on to the good, purifies 
by love; and dragging us away from evil, purifies by stern 
rebuke.” 

His mother, when he went to Berlin, had laid upon herself 
the burden of meeting his expenses; but his prayer that he 
might be enabled to meet those himself was granted. He was 
offered some tuitional work in French. Dining on fivepence 
and being his own shoe-black he made both ends meet as long 
as his student days lasted. 

Madame Godet was, however, soon drawn herself to the 
field of labour whither had gone her son. She was summoned, 
in 1834, to take care of the little Prince of Prussia, Frederick 
William, aged 3 years, who was to come to the throne for a few 
weeks, in 1888, as Frederick the Third, Second Emperor of 
Germany. 

At that time (1834) Frederick William was not yet actually 
heir presumptive to the throne of Prussia. He became so in 
1861 when his father was promoted to the throne by the death 
of Frederick William the Fourth, whose brother he was. The 
new King of Prussia was crowned first Emperor of Germany in 
elae 

Frederic Godet naturally became a visitor at his mother’s 
rooms in the Potsdam and Berlin. residences of the Royal 
Family. The mother of the baby prince had occasion to see 
him. She formed views upon him for the time when her young 
son should have outgrown petticoat government. Meanwhile, 
and suspecting nothing, Frederic Godet left Berlin in 1835 and 
attended lectures at Bonn. 

From that moment, his life became more and more closely 
woven into that of the Royal Family of Prussia, but at first 
only through his mother, who sent him amusing “ tit-bits ” 
about the baby boy in her charge. He remained quite 
unconscious of his own future connection with that family till 
the middle of 1838, when we find hin, after undergoing his 


206 PROF. F. F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE, 


first examinations at Neuchatel, engaging in subordinate parish 
work as an ordained minister. 

Trueness to conscience, even in its temporary and provisional 
phases of imperfect enlightenment in youth, he proposed then 
as a safeguard to those who were about to enter upon the 
studies he had painfully gone through, at such length, and 
with so much thoroughness. “Be ready,’ he admonishes the 
student of divinity, “to allow the truth of what strikes you as 
true, whatever it may be that strikes you as such, even should 
the sacrifice of half the Bible be the result. Sincerity, nothing 
but sineerity, let that be with you the whole measure of truth, 
advienne que pourra.” 

“Tt is only since I made up my mind to this that I have 
studied with freedom and impartiality. The foundations of the 
Book remain firm, its kernel remains sound, however much may 
have to come off at the circumference. So let no human hand 
set a limit to your latitude. As for the reflex action of the 
Bible upon life, there is but one rule. Distinguish vo purports 
in your reading. Either you read the Bible for edification or 
you read the Bible for scientific purposes. Keep each of those 
intents well apart from the other. When you read for 
edification do not allow your devoutness to pass into curiosity, 
scientific or critical. It is a most common occurrence that a 
poem—even the most spurious—may be morally elevating. 
I speak from experience. Fear not that your scientific 
examination of the Book will suffer from this apartness. To 
sever externally is often the way to join internally.” 

None clung more tenaciously than Godet to the authenticity 
of the Scriptures. Yet he would see the whole rejected on 
intellectual evidence—which is an eminently variable quantity 
even in one and the same mind—vrather than fall into the moral 
error of believing prematurely. We shall see later how 
insistently he feared lest we should choose hastily our own 
way, instead of waiting for God’s later and more patient way. 

“The completion of faith should go hand in hand with the 
enlightenment of conscience, should even follow upon it, rather 
than precede it; lest we bring into the employment of faith 
unenlightened, powers with the exercise of which the most 
discreet conscience alone can be properly trusted.” 

To put it like Godet: in no man is the grace of God inactive. 
By an excess of words, and by too urgent entreaty, we may 
intercept its action. An atmosphere of confidence, of trust, a 
servant of God may create between Him and the object of his 
care, or may find it to exist. But he may also destroy it, or prevent 


AND TUTOR TO FREDERICK THE NOBLE. 207 


its appearance, and then what he may do or say is useless or 
worse than useless: nay positively injurious to the working of 
the Spirit of God. Godet would not have our initiative precede 
the time appointed by God. He would have us wait for Him 
and follow behind Him. Enoch, it is said, walked with God. 
To have walked ahead would have done no good. David, who 
wanted, was not allowed to build the temple, though God too 
wanted it, but Solomon was to build. So ask yourself, when 
about to build, whether you are David or Solomon. You may 
pride yourself on venturing, to the confusion of all human 
wisdom. But beware lest you run counter to divine wisdom 
too. 

In June, 1838, came a letter from Prince William of Prussia, 
who purposed engaging Frederic Godet as a tutor to his son, 
then seven years ‘old, and passing out of the care of Madame 
Godet into that of a military governor, assisted by a civil 
governor who was to be Frederic Godet. The appointment 
was for ten years, but, actually, did not extend beyond six, from 
the autumn of 1838 to the autumn of 1844. 

The relations of Godet to his pupil, and later to his Royal, 
and, for a few weeks, Imperial, friend Frederick, would all by 
themselves fill a whole book. We do not think that the 
inwardness of these relations has yet been appreciated to any 
degree. For one thing, the life of Frederic Godet by his son 
Philippe was not published till last year (1913), and in that 
book alone could it be expected that the relations in question 
would be comprehensively surveyed, as from Godet’s side. 

On the other hand, that is from the Prussian point of view, 
the public part played by the Crown Prince Frederick was so 
ereat as to cast into the shade his personal and intimate 
association of heart and soul with his tutor. This association 
was unbroken from the childhood of Frederick to the hour of 
death, and was kept up by the members of the Imperial family 
to the last hours of Godet himself; so from 1838 to 1888 in the 
case of the pupil, and, in the case of the tutor on to 1900, 
Augusta, the Emperor’s mother, and the present Emperor 
William, her grandson, showed to the end their interest in 
Godet. ‘ 

There are three points in this life-long association which 
clothe it with the most exceptional interest. The first is the 
personality of Godet, which gave it its true value. The second 
is the temperament of his pupil and the disposition of the 
Hohenzollern family, whose homely, gentle manliness gave the 
opportunity wanted for such a friendship. The third is the 


208 PROF. F. F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE, 


magnificent public part which fell to the Hohenzollerns to play 
in the history of Europe, and which gave its characteristic to 
the nineteenth century—a part in which their earnestness and 
quietness fitted in so efficiently and one of the secret main- 
springs of which appears so plainly in the correspondence of 
the Crown Prince with his former tutor. 

Should we seek an illustration from a parallel class of 
grandeur, by comparing the Bonapartes with the Hohenzollerns, 
would it for a single instant be tenable that Napoleon the 
First might have had Frederic Godet for a friend? No. 

We venture to say that this impossibility throws a great 
deal of light upon the opposite fortunes of those families which 
were pitted against each other in a way which seemed to 
confer all the chances upon the Bonapartes, first after Jena, and 
then from 1850 up to Sedan, in 1870. 

Godet could be a friend to rulers who had a conscience, both 
public and private. He could not have found in either 
Napoleon this fundamental requirement for the just and equal 
friendship of a Protestant clergyman with a ruler of men. 
There is no small lesson in this apparently insignificant lifelong 
friendship of a plain Protestant clergyman with the Prussian 
House. To my mind, therein is contained the explanation of 
the rise of Germany above France. The plain clergyman had 
a conscience, a commanding sense of the gravity of sin. He 
could associate with the Royal House in which a like conscience 
and sense were alive. 

While he trod busily along his own little path cf life, the 
Hohenzollerns kept clear of the dreadful sin of pride, which 
ruined Napoleon the First, and of conceit, which ended 
Napoleon the Third. The quietly bowrgeois—or rather humbly 
Christian—conscience of the Hohenzollerns proved in their 
hands an absolutely reliable Empire-building instrument. The 
downfall of the Bonapartes before the Hohenzollerns showed 
earthly power gathering round those to whom to acknowledge 
the law of conscience was a duty to God. 

3y none was the allegiance of conscience to Christianity more 
clearly expressed in State affairs than by the Prince whom the 
Germans styled Friedrich der Gtitige and the English Frederick 
the Noble. His tragic end, before he could actually reign, 
found him full of Christian resignation at a moment when he 
might have been most bitterly resentful. In the story of 
Godet’s life is reflected, as in a side-mirror, the history of that 
soul, making this plain that the nearest support it had in this 
world, it found in the firm, clear spirit of the Neuchatel 


AND TUTOR TO FREDERICK THE NOBLE. 209 


minister who had informed it in childhood. Were it consistent 
with the present monograph, we should hike to show in detail how 
the association of tutor and pupil took effect, developed into an 
enduring relationship, and passes out of our sight only when the 
curtain was drawn over their earthly lives. 

The connection with the young prince first appears on page 
107 of a book of some 550 pages—the book we have spoken 
of—and runs right through it to the end, when the widow and 
mother of the dead Emperor are seen making daily enquiries of 
the last moments of his tutor, then 88 years old. 

We have said that the prince was also placed under the 
authority of a military governor. This authority seems to have 
been quite shadowy and distant, as General Unruh—whose 
name has not a very propitious sound—was in weak health. 
So it came about, more unavoidably than purposely, that Godet 
dominated the situation for several years. When, however, 
the prince was older and General Unruh thought he would 
make his presence felt, he seems to have failed to win the heart 
of his pupil. 

Under such circumstances it cannot be said that either 
governor was at fault, but the military tutor none the less con- 
ceived some jealousy of the civilian. The latter, after an appeal 
or two to the parental and royal authority, though most heartily 
supported and furnished with a full endorsement of his conduct, 
realised that the age of the prince—he was then 13 years old 
—justified the granting of a more important function to the 
military element. This was done in 1844. Godet handed his 
office over to another civil tutor, the famous historian Georg 
Curtius. Then General Felgermann, who had_ succeeded 
General Unruh, had the opportunity in which to gain for 
himself a share in the attention and affection of the prince. 
But the heart of the prince somehow remained with the 
“ Neuchatelois” and his conscience, too, continued to seek 
nurture from the “ Man of God.” 

The prince did not work alone, but had an émule, a fellow 
pupil, in the person of young Rodolph von Zastrow, whose 
father had filled the office of governor in the principality of 
Neuchatel. 

The tutor’s bed was placed between those of his pupils, so 
near that the prince, an affectionate and clinging nature, would 
seek the hand of his teacher at night. The children rose at six. 
The prince’s mother came every morning at ten o’clock with 
her needlework to take her share of the instruction given. 


The whole savours of plain; well-ordered home life. 
E 


210 PROF. F, F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE, 


We shall not say that the young prince never kicked over 
the traces. He had his bad days, fits of temper and unruly 
outbursts. But by nature he was full of consideration for 
others, tender-hearted, reposing easily his confidence in those 
about him. He could be slow and dreamy over his work, even 
absent-minded, his well-developed gift of imagination enticing 
him away from his desk to the realms of fancy. The tutor 
would then say: “Where are you, prince?” and the prince 
would answer: “At Weimar,’ or wherever his memory, 
reminiscent of brilliant scenes of pleasure or of solemn 
functions of State, had dragged his mind away from his 
lesson. 

He had a natural leaning to piety, was of a practical dis- 
position, with no particular partiality to learning, his judgment 
was calm and sound, and he showed much self-possession. A 
lively imagination and a cool reasoning power, much gentleness 
overlaying, as it were, much latent energy, an unswerving sense 
of duty, would complete a description of his character as a boy. 

When he grew into a man he developed a character of great 
energy in the constant will to do right, which dominated his 
career from childhood to his last and supreme hour. 

“He served God,” says Godet, “under the form of the good 
which could be done on every occasion.” 

The religion of the Crown Prince, like that of Godet, was 
the religion of moral obligation in the sight of God. This 
affinity between their natures explains the friendship of forty- 
four years’ duration which followed upon the termination of 
Godet’s tutorship at the Court. 

Godet confesses that he twice felt called upon to apply the 
rod to his pupu, driven to that extremity by one of those 
instances of rebellion when a young tutor is at a loss to know 
the right thing to do. As the use of violence was expressly 
forbidden him by the father, Godet felt he must at once report 
himself, with all particulars. He was granted a bill of 
indemnity. Godet admits that he misread the cause of the 
child’s rebellion, which was not directed against him. The 
whipping brought on tears, and all was made right by this 
solvent. But, under the circumstances, the child’s passion 
might have been fired with a sense of injustice and then the 
rash tutor would have found that he had gambled away his 
pupil’s affection. 

And yet this is the man whose watchward was patience, who 
said that to know how to wait is, perhaps, more important than 
to know how to do. “A steady flame amid embers is worth 


AND TUTOR TO FREDERICK THE NOBLE. rd 8 


more than the quick fire of a revival. To reap a sudden 
reward is not good for the heart. Instead of quickening it and 
winning it slowly to God, it lulls it to sleep after a short 
excitement.” 

One of the most solemn moments in the childhood of Godet’s 
pupil was at the death, in June, 1840, of his grandfather, the 
King Frederick William the Third, so well served by Bliicher. 

It should be said in praise of the Prussian Court that 
nothing pompous came then to offend the eye of the child or 
disturb his naivete. 

He walked out of the palace of the dead ruler, holding his 
tutor by the hand, and so they strolled about in the Tiergarten. 
It was a fine evening. One may imagine with what golden 
opportunities so much simplicity furnished the child for the 
outpouring of his feelings into the sympathetic ear of the 
young minister. 

“What was faith?” the young. tutor asked himself, after 
such talks with a guileless little boy. The answer came that 
“faith, to have power to save, must be an exchange of life 
between us and Christ. We make Him a gift of our sins, He 
renounces the exercise of His justice. By the first act in this 
exchange we make over to him what is ours: sin. By the 
second act, we make ours that which belongs to Him: justice. 
This mysterious exchange, by which God foregoes His justice 
for the cleansing of a sinner, is the secret of the salvation 
that takes place in the depths of the soul working out its 
repentance. From this perpetually renewed and ever-recurrent 
exchange of grace and sin, issues, as from a bubbling spring, 
the stream of a Christian life.” 

We gain here our next profound insight into Godet’s con- 
ception of salvation. As a philosopher and divine he had to 
conceive salvation intellectually. His mind conceived it, we 
see, almost as a legal transaction. That Godet had the same 
sense of law as a true Calvinist—which sense should not be 
confused with the blind dictates so often mistaken for the law 
given from above—will appear from his whole life as we mark 
its onward steps, and when we look backward upon his career 
as it comes nearer to completion. That he was a “ moralist,’ 
who found the seal of divinity impressed in man upon the 
conscience striving to grasp the divine righteousness of the 
Man Jesus, has already been illustrated. 

Now we see all the common honesty of his soul, if I may use 
such a term. To be saved, man has to keep the bargain. He 
should strive to give to the justice of God no object. This is 

Pag 


212 PROF. F. F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE, 


not done by weak melting into tears and unfruitful supplica- 
tion. A blissful contemplation of the perfections of the 
Divinity does not do it either. There is no other way than 
working out one’s own redemption in a downright way, by the 
sweat of one’s brow, as Godet puts it somewhat tersely. Godet 
became more and more wedded to that conception. 

In the same year, 1840, A. L. Bonnet, the Huguenot Minister 
at Frankfort, wished for his help in preparing certain com- 
mentaries to be attached to an edition of the New Testament 
intended for use in France. Godet resisted. ‘Should we not,” 
he said, “ be then thrusting the smallness of us poor little men 
between the Word of God and the reader? Is it not as though 
we would say: ‘ Look here, reader, my friend, you are about 
to read Chapter No. so and so. Well, mind you find in it this 
or that, nothing else, nothing more. We are there to tell 
you what.’ ” 

Godet was a magnificent temporiser and it was a matter of 
self-respect with his soul not to usurp the prerogatives of its 
Master. He looked upon the Osterwald Catechism, in use at 
Neuchatel, as pernicious. He could not admit that authority 
should pose as being infallible. When, exasperated by the 
slowness of his sometimes dreamy pupil, his vivacity and keen 
sense of duty got the better of his patience, he knew how to 
apologise for his own errors in judgment. 

Upon the problem of the reciprocal positions of Church and 
State he began to form his views in 1842. Seldom was a man 
so well served in this respect by contemporary history in his 
native land. 

The Church in the Principality—later the Republic—of 
Neuchatel exemplified varied phases of association with the 
State, and also various degrees of dissociation. Godet would 
not hear of a separation of Church and State, because such a 
separation is inconceivable in the government of the world by 
God, which either is a Christian government or is no govern- 
ment at all. His doctrine was that the powers that be are 
from God and that the form of government is an immaterial 
aspect of principality, but principality there must be. The 
power exercising sovereignty has a right, a duty even, to exact 
obedience to principality. Principality being from God, no 
wrong that is done can be ascribed to principality, but the 
responsibility for the wrong must be looked for in man’s 
general imperfection. 

So our friend Godet, with his insight into the imperfection of 
governors, pleaded early the independence of the Church. In 


AND TUTOR TO FREDERICK THE NOBLE. _ LA 


his idea, the force of love, the inherent sense of union, that of 
the universality of Christian penetration, should, by indepen- 
dence, be served and set free to act without falling into 
political entanglements. But, with him, the independence of 
the Church did not mean its separation from the State. It 
meant the free diffusion of Christianity throughout the Body 
Politic without the interposition of the State. 

This conception gradually proved itself to be true to the 
temper of the Protestants of Neuchatel to a sufficient degree to 
bring about, as we shall see later, the constitution of a Free 
Church in the Scotch sense of the word. But we have plenty 
of evidence that, previous to this consummation, Godet did not 
go beyond the present expression, in the Church of England, of 
a like aspiration to spiritual independence without breaking 
with the establishment formula under the Royal prerogative. 
But we must not anticipate considerations which Godet 
did not really develop till after he had left the service of the 
Royal House of Prussia. 

Of an integral or literal inspiration of Scripture, within a 
reasonable and prudent acceptation of those words, he was 
quite prepared to allow the possibility or even the intention, 
provided sutficient reserve were shown in ascribing purposes to 
the Almighty, but his reverence and good sense could not admit 
that the state in which the Bible documents are laid before us 
shows this intention to have been carried out in its entirety. 

“The question of scriptural inspiration,” he said, “ why, this 
is theology, not religion. How many thousands of years have 
the flowers of God's making delighted man by their shapes, 
colours and scents, and borne good fruit unto their gardeners 
without taking any heed of botanists? So it is with Holy 
Writ. Theologians are the botanists of religion.” 

In a way they are such as those who would educate by means 
of a scientific education. “My present experiences,” he wrote 
in 1843, “ all go to impressing upon me the powerlessness of the 
Jormal rules of education. One does get educated and the 
external influence of educative agencies is certain. But tastes, 
tendencies, that which makes this or that individual out of the 
common clay, to that workshop, or sanctuary, we do not gain 
admittance.” 

That year was marked by the sharpening of the unpleasant- 
ness between him and General Unruh. We have seen how the 
parents of Godet’s pupil gave their decision in favour of the 
civil governor, a fine example of sweet reasonableness in a 
family so completely addicted to military life. As those 


214 PROF. F. F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE, 


difficulties coincided with Godet’s engagement to be married to 
Mademoiselle Caroline Vautravers, it was easy for him to 
suggest that he should give up his post on that account, and his 
employers might have followed him upon such an opportune 
bypath. But they would not part with him on any other issue 
than his actual marriage and this was postponed for a year so as 
to meet the Royal pleasure. 

Asked by a fellow-theologian, of the same Evangelical 
convictions as himself, to be unrelenting in declining joint action 
with Rationalistic clergymen, he wrote that, on the contrary, 
the more he should fight them to the quick on the point of 
dogma, the more also should he seize suitable opportunities in 
which to join with them in works of Christian charity. This 
would not be a surrender, but a confining of opposition to the 
useful point. : 

Godet was married on 16th October, 1844, on the estate of 
Madame von Scharnhorst, in whose house his bride had been a 
governess. He left the Royal Household with every evidence 
of his having been a trusted servant: a pension for life, and, for 
life also, the title of Royal Chaplain at Neuchatel, with a good 
salary, much more than the traditions of economy prevailing in 
the Hohenzollern ménage seemed to justify. Augusta, Princess 
of Prussia, mother of his pupil, later first Empress of Germany 
in the Hohenzollern line, never forgot the obligations of heart 
and soul she had contracted towards the educator of her son. 
Godet describes her as a woman endowed with a faith that 
shunned words, whose religion was visible in her life, whose 
eloquence lay in her actions, and, for the remainder, veiled in 
womanly reserve. 

“From the first to the last day of my sojourn with the 
Princes of Prussia,” wrote Godet emphatically, when he felt he 
must leave on this point a testimony for posterity, “I experi- 
enced from them every possible mark of affection and esteem, 
and received from all those personages, who have so often been 
represented as haughty and thankless, none but proofs of 
natural benevolence. 1 was till the end an object of their most 
delicate attentions.” 

This testimony may be the more readily believed as Godet 
was a strong man and incapable of any complaisance. 

During the period of his tutorship he naturally had but 
rarely occasion to write to the prince. But it was a different 
matter when he returned to Neuchatel, where his hfe work 
detained him practically without intermission for 56 years 
(1844-1900). Letters passed then regularly and frequently 


AND TUTOR TO FREDERICK THE NOBLE, D5 


between them, and this regularity means nota little as between 
men who are poor letter-writers. These were extremely busy 
men too. The letters that have been freely circulated are 
obviously restricted to two points: such occasions as_ births, 
marriages, deaths, in either circle. But the private friendship 
which united prince and parson, enabled them to exchange 
thoughts outside what we may call the professional occupations 
and tamily interests of each. 

Theirs is the correspondence of two gentlemen who, within 
the limits of what their friendship may take cognisance of, are 
on equal terms. Religion is not the topic of those letters, but 
neither is it ever absent from the minds of the writers, though 
in the case of Frederick, the letters came from a Royal personage 
actively engaged in generalship and state business, at a time 
when the making of history was proceeding apace. The light 
thrown upon the “mentalty” of Frederick 1s such that by the 
time one has finished reading these letters, the reader has con- 
ceived for him a genuine love. 

Since the post-Waterloo general resettling of affairs in 
Europe, the period from 1845 to 1857 is the only one that was 
attended by some serious upheavals in the internal history of 
Neuchatel and Switzerland. The internal affairs of Switzerland 
were then marked by a violent opposition between Protestants 
and Catholics, culminating in Civil Warin 1846, and ending in 
the strengthening of the Federal bond, a struggle which was 
closely watched by foreign powers, some ot which were 
interested in the triumph—which did not take pl 
Cathohe Party ; while others, with Britain at their head, were 
simply interested in the strengthening of the Confederation as 
a whole by means of the Protestant majority ame 
to be. 

But the crisis bore also another aspect that entered more 
deeply into the sphere of what are called foreign or interna- 
tional politics. The wish of a large section—soon to be the 
majority—of the Neuchatel people was to break off the tie with 
Prussia entirely, to proclaim a Republic, not after the French 
model of 1848, but on the Swiss pattern, and to be Swiss and 
only Swiss. 

This scheme went through phases, but ultimately succeeded 
in 1857, thanks mainly to the support of Britain. France and 
Prussia bargained in vain with each other, till the matter got 
beyond the haggling stage, thanks to the unanimity of the Swiss 
in accepting the arbitrament of war between them and Prussia— 
which, however, was in the end dispensed with, when the 


216 PROF. F. F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE, 


Hohenzollerns preferred a reasonable concession to the lust for 
domination in which a Bonaparte would have indulged. 

In March, 1848, the Swiss Republican Party proclaimed the 

republic at Neuchatel, the Royalists offering no resistance. At 
Berlin, as one knows, a revolution was attempted at the same 
time. This failed, within limits. The account which the 
Prince Royal gave of it to Godet is, unfortunately, too long to 
reproduce here. He was then 17 years old and his narrative is 
quite worth reading. There is not a word in it breathing 
defiance of, or want of confidence in, the people. The ruling 
king distinguished himself by his oratorical gifts in patriarchally 
addressing the crowd, but the prince’s father, as one knows, 
found it necessary to remove himself for a time, and went 
to London, whence he was soon recalled. 

From that time, there is a political barrier between the heir- 
apparent and his former tutor. The latter has de facto, though 
not yet de jure, ceased to be a Prussian subject, but, as we hinted 
before, there occurred no change in the personal relations of 
Godet with the rulers of Prussia. 

Should we say here how interested Godet was in the Confir- 
mation of the young man? The letters exchanged show that 
though Godet, externally, was not connected with this chapter 
in the religious life of his pupil, Frederick did inwardly, and as it 
were in the privacy of his closet, apply to Godet for the conse- 
cration of his soul to the service of God. 

The young prince clearly expected from the Almighty some 
perceptible reward, some spiritual acknowledgment of his 
dedication to the service of the Lord, but his Neuchatel friend 
reminds him that by impatiently forestalling the hour of God 
we spoil both present and future, so that the counsel, given to 
us by our Divine Teacher and Friend, that we should possess our 
souls in patience 1s advice as kind as it is wise. “ Do not filch 
anything away from your present and future happiness by taking 
it unto yourself before it is offered to you.. Endeavour rather 
to gain and keep possession of your soul, and do not share it 
with any but One.” 

Fifteen big pages of writing were not enough for the young 
prince’s revealing of himself that was elicited by the above 
monition, and to these he added his confession of faith. 

This eventful year, 1848, eventful in the spiritual life of the 
young prince, eventful in the history of the Prussian monarchy, 
eventful in the political history of Neuchatel, was eventful also 
in the annals of the Church of Neuchatel which the Republican 
revolution brought suddenly into a quandary not unlike that 


AND ITU!YOR TO FREDERICK THE NOBLE. ZY 


which profoundly affected in 1846 the Church in the Canton 
de Vaud. 

The Church of Neuchatel, such as it issued from the Reforma- 
tion, as has been pointed out above, was not an ordinary State 
Church. It was quite independent of the political power, and 
was ruled by the venerable Company, not of Apostles, but of its 
ministers. The Republe struck a deadly blow at that constitu- 
tion, but the Company, while sacrificing its authority, insisted on 
not transmitting it to the State, but on vesting it in the 
membership of the Church. 

One sees that the inner purport of this was to preserve the 
ancient autonomy though the Company abandoned the headship 
of the Church. Nobody resigned. The body of the Church was 
preserved whole. 

The new government demanded no more than they got by the 
voluntary abdication which the Company of Pastors made of its 
episcopal powers into the hands of the Synod elected by the 
members of each parish, with a large representation of the 
laity, the direct election of parish ministers by the people, 
and the passing of the School of Divinity into the hands of the 
Synod. 

Those principles were laid down by Godet aud led to the 
adoption of the ecclesiastical law under the working of which the 
Church at Neuchatel escaped disruption ti] 1873. All citizens 
accepting the forms of the Protestant Church were declared 
Church electors. 

Thus the government of the Church did not pass into the 
hands of the State as in the Canton de Vaud. The need fora 
secession was averted. The new Church bore the stamp of self- 
government. This excellent result was obtained principally 
through the insight Godet showed in separating the essentials 
of Christianity from temporary and political admixtures. 

It is a remarkable thing that at the moment when the House 
of Prussia might so easily have issued a pronouncement to its 
Neuchatel subjects in a sense hostile to the new order, it 
refrained from any step that would have embarrassed them. It 
even formally empowered them to follow any course that might 
seem to them favourable to the happiness of their country and 
in accordance with the new situation. 

In 1850, the Synod of the reconstituted Church appointed 
Godet teacher of Biblical exegesis. With this appointment 
began his long and arduous labours as a commentator upon Holy 
Writ. He became a prolific writer as well as an inspiring 
teacher in that domain of theology. 


218 PROF. F. F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE, 


In 1851, after having done pastoral work in the town for six 
years, he was formally appointed a minister of Neuchatel on his 
election by the citizens of the parish. On reporting to Berlin 
his acceptance of the post, not only did his devotion to his 
pastoral obligations meet with approval, but he was allowed to 
keep his title of Royal Chaplain. Godet then insisted on 
abandoning the remuneration attached by the Court to a title 
now without possible application. His request was granted, the 
money being transferred to a fellow-minister whom the 

Revolution had injured in his pecuniary interests. 

It would be difficult to imagine suzerains more careful not to 
involve their followers in political trouble than those Prussian 
princes of Neuchatel. They seemed to share Godet’s doctrine 
that, when once an authority is set over a community, individuals 
owe to it the obedience to superior powers demanded of them by 
St. Paul. “ Obey,” Godet said, “though the government to which 
you are subjected should be the outcome of violence and sedition. 
Refrain from trusting your own judgment as to the legitimacy 
of that power.” 

Chronological sequence demands that we should interpose here 
(1856) the “engagement of the Prince Royal of Prussia to the 
Princess Royal of England, Victoria, but only in so far as 16 1s a 
topic of correspondence with Godet. 

Frederick William had first met Princess Victoria in 1851 and 
a regular friendship had arisen between them. What a full- 
hearted and simple-minded love match that was, the letters make 
it clearer now than was ever suspected before. In fact the whole 
correspondence between Godet and the Prince, from 1844 to 
1883, ought to be translated and published in London, in a book 
that would describe the tie of religious friendship that, acting 
upon a pre-existent affinity, bound together these two men 
throughout their lives. 

This friendship was so close that the next and most severe 
commotion in Neuchatel left it unshaken. We have said it 
before: this time it was the Royalists who took up arms, in 
September, 1856, and endeavoured to upset the R epublican 
government which Godet and so many after him had come to 
serve on the principle recommended by Paul. 

The insurgents did capture the seat of government, but it was 
too late to hope to complete such a retrograde step. J ederal 
commissioners entered the Principality, with the Federal troops 
of Switzerland at their beck and call. MRoyalistic insurgents 
were captured to the number of 530. Many others fled from 
the country with their families; many of those remained who 


AND TUTOR TO FREDERICK THE NOBLE. 219 


might have been harassed, being known for the trueness of their 
attachment to the king. 

We need not dwell here upon the negotiations which ensued. 
Prussia very rightly intervened on behalf of those who had 
risked their lives on her behalf, though it was without her 
assent. The rebels were liberated. But Prussia’s formal and 
final renunciation of her rights to Neuchatel ensued as her con- 
tribution to peace. It is strange to have to note that the loss 
of Neuchatel to a neutral, but military power, 1s the only check 
which Prussia experienced in a century marked by her trium- 
phant career in every other field. 

In 1857 Godet wrote to the prince, attributing this solution 
to a higher Power than resided either at London, Paris or 
Berlin, and frankly professing his henceforth undivided 
allegiance to Switzerland, thanks to the magnanimous generosity 
of the Prussian House. 

Here again, Godet, though still the open and well-known 
friend of the House of Prussia, not only was not molested in 
any way by the victorious party, but was even asked to direct 
the solemn church service which inaugurated the new consti- 
tuent parliament of the small Republic in 1858. 

He preached on the spiritual sovereignty of God which 
subsists in the changes of temporal sovereignties, reproaching 
the Royalists with having wished to resume possession of the City 
without God, that is by returning to what had existed for no 
other reason than because it did exist. They made no earnest 
examination. They clung to tradition, habit, prejudice, pride, 
self-interest, for want of putting themselves in the place of 
those who urged a change. 

He then turned to the Republican part of the audience and 
warned them that impatience was just as un-Christian as 
obstinacy, that a change must be a change with God, if it was 
to be an improvement, that progress in hberty spelt anarchy 
unless a man’s conscience bound him the more closely as his 
exterior bonds were loosened. And he instanced Christ, the 
most radical of reformers, and the most scrupulous caretaker of 
the inheritance of Israel: the law and the prophets. 

This speech shows Godet in his usual character: a vigorous 
optimist. It suited the mood of the people, and was printed 
and circulated at public expense. 

We should not dwell at such length upon these local occur- 
rences but for the strange paradox: a Chaplain of the House of 
Prussia acting with perfect ease and much approval as Chaplain 
to the Republic. It shows how much goodwill was put forth 


22) PROF. F. F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE, 


to save the Church. The event proved that Godet was a man 
who could be trusted to dominate the contradictory aspects of 
such a situation, turiing them to good purpose for the political 
consolidation of the community. The Republican regime, from 
the point of view of the safe-guarding of the Kingdom of God, 
seemed to afford no worse opportunity than the good old regime 
it displaced. 

In 1860 Godet lost his wife, who had made him the father 
of seven children. The man who said of books: “ View them 
as dust and let them return to dust,’ was now for the first time 
put to a serious personal trial. He would have wished to dwell 
upon his Joss and cultivate the memory of the one who had 
gone. But the torrent of his occupations, lessons, letters, 
pastoral visits, did not allow him to linger beside that grave, 
where, when it closed over the body of his wife, his heart swelled 
with gratitude that he had been allowed to keep for fifteen years 
the treasure that God had given him. 

In 1862 he entered upon his second union by marrying 
Mademoiselle Caroline Ahoth, who for some time already had 
supervised the education of the two eldest of his daughters. 

At that time Godet was far forward with his Commentary on 
St. John, his principal work, in which his son George was the 
scribe. The manuscript of this work was almost lost in a fire. 
Its publication began in 1863, at Paris. It should be noticed 
that the author of that, and of so many other excellent contri- 
butions to biblical philology, lacked the academic title of Doctor 
of Divinity. 

In 1866, tiring of the double burden of his pastoral and pro- 
fessional duties, he laid down his pastoral charge. He was right 
in sacrificing his pulpit to his chair. 

His credit as a commentator of Scripture kept increasing, and 
though his life became more monotonous, immersed in books, 
lectures and letter-writing, so that we have henceforth httle to 
relate about his long career, his influence waxed in direct pro- 
portion to his concentration of effort upon an object suited to 
expand his notoriety. His authority lay in this, that he was a 
man of brain, flesh and temper, rather than a scholar ; a Chris- 
tian rather than a divine. 

The dogmatic formula of his faith sprang from the innermost 
sanctuary of his Christian soul; his theology was all employed 
in the service of righteous living. He would accept or reject a 
dogma according as it brought him nearer to, or seemed to part 
him from, Christ. He upheld the pre-existence of Christ 
for no other reason than that. But he asserted also the 


AND TUTOR TO FREDERICK THE NOBLE. | 


Saviour’s actual humanity to an extent that alarmed the 
Trinitarians. 

Meanwhile his credit, from France and Switzerland, extended 
to Germany and Holland. English and Swedish translations 
followed upon the German and Dutch. The University of Basle 
made him a D.D. honoris causa. 

What was there then in Godet that made his teaching of such 
worth in countries teeming with most varied and able exponents 
of Scripture ? That the Reformed churches of Romance Swit- 
zerland and France should gladly greet in him the originator of 
a kind of scriptural interpretation in which they were sadly 
deficient fifty years ago is not surprising. 

Must we assume then that the same lack existed in England 
and Germany ? That would be assuming too much. But close 
at hand was the fact that in Germany philological theology had 
undergone an enormous development, partly owing to the 
extreme activity engendered in every field of research by the 
Universities. There was therefore room for a man whose intel- 
lect would collect, and act as a strainer to, the accumulative 
mass of German thought and newly built-up knowledge, who 
would pass it, as it were, through his vigorous, independent, 
keen Latin mind. 

Of course, we no more have in view here Baur and Strauss 
in German Bible criticism, than we think of Renan in French 
criticism. The German “constructionists” who honestly 
prepared scientific material as servants of Christ, are alone those 
whom we have to consider here. 

Godet went to school with them, after having begun his 
studies of Scripture in an atmosphere full of the most reverent 
spirit. When he ceased from his German studies, it was to 
return within the Church, which, though Calvinistic and French, 
was closely allied to the centres of political and religious 
thought in Prussia. Godet thus became a link between the 
non-German and the German Protestant minds. 

But he was not a subordinate instrument or what might be 
called a passive link. However painstaking his scholarship, 
however close his preparatory labours, with a magnificent Greek 
scholar at his elbow in the person of Professor Prince, yet his 
primary gifts were fire, intuition and plastic power, a rapid 
judgment, originality of imagination, much vivacity in ex- 
pression, a perpetually strenuous and eager grasping forth for 
knowledge. 

He was a thinker, something of a seer, much of a poet and 
an accurate scholar. His poetic gift was characteristically 


222 PROF. F. F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE, 


indigenous ; it was that of a lover of nature, of an admirer of 
the Alps at whose feet he dwelt. He was one of those simple 
souls who cannot understand that, in the face of so much 
beauty, man should import evil and unhappiness into the world. 
This was to him an absurd infatuation. His grand brain failed 
to comprehend so much smallness of mind. He was blessed 
with that rare power over self, and that insight into causes and 
occasions of giving offence, which distinguishes the best men 
in every generation, whatever their creed, their country, or their 
calling. 

The young men who passed through his hands felt that 
he had won over them the rights of a spiritual parent; in the 
words of Calvin, that “he who administers the doctrine as the 
seed of eternal life, fills a father’s office and deserves the name 
of a father.” | 

It is impossible to drag into this definition of spiritual parent- 
age the cold objectivity of the indifferent psychologist. Thus, in 
Godet, does one meet the warm-hearted, kindly disposition of a 
Bible lover. 

He did not hold that science as an end terminated within 
itself. He conceived it in close association with all life, with 
his own life and the life of the Church. To his mind there 
was but one legitimate theology, that which, by producing an 
increment in Christian knowledge, brings about an increase in 
the Christian hfe of mankind. 

What lends charm to his commentaries and clothes them 
with persuasive fervour, is, not that they are a collection of 
scholarly papers, but that they record the testimony borne to 
the Gospel by a personality imbued with the Spirit of God. 

His personal teaching was so influential that when the so- 
called Broad Church ideas put in an appearance at Neuchatel, 
in 1869, not one member of the national clergy countenanced 
them. The learned lectures delivered then by the objector to 
the Broad Church contentions were published in a volume 
which was translated into several languages. 

However, one result of a statement made on one side and badly 
confuted on the other, was to show the right-minded folk in both 
camps that there was a flaw in the “miultitudinous ” conception 
of the National Church. 

This flaw was namely that, to be “multitudinous ” on terms 
of fairness, a National Church must cease accepting payment for 
its ministers out of the public rates. 

To be“ fair,’ a Church must assume a voluntary adherence, 
and this assumption is ill-founded when the expenses of the 


AND TUTOR TO FREDERICK THE NOBLE. 293 


Church are met out of the State funds, which are a compulsory 
levy upon the civil community. The formula therefore must 
be: the Church open to all, but defrayed out of the pockets of 
the willing. 

Godet was led to this conception from the time when Broad 
Churchmen began to complain that all the resources of the 
Establishment, to which they contributed as citizens, went to 
the maintenance of a clergy exclusively evangelical. This was 
clearly wrong in the sight of God, since a free assent could not 
be assumed when its “material” expression was legally 
enforced. 

When war broke out between France and Germany in 1870— 
a war during which Godet naturally pleaded discreetly, but 
perspicuously, with the Prince Royal and Imperial, for the 
neutralization of Alsace-Lorraine—publhe attention turned away 
for a time from Church topics. Godet completed, meanwhile, 
his Commentary on St. Luke, the first edition of which went out 
of print in a few weeks. He went to Berlin at the end of 1871 
on a visit to the Imperial Family; to Palestine and Jerusalem 
in 1872. 

In 1873 the Liberal Party in Neuchatel planned a modifica- 
tion in the ecclesiastic status of 1848, which, owing to the 
supremacy of an evangelical Synod over the whole Church, and 
over the Faculty of Divinity, stood in the way of the formation 
of any but evangelical ministers. Godet gave vent to his 
convictions as to the unfairness of the Establishment to the 
Church as a whole, since there were now two parties within 
the Church. He advocated a free secession of the evangelicals, 
should the political electorate ratify the proposed new ecclesi- 
astic status which would deprive the Synod of its autonomous 
powers of spiritual church government. The dreaded law was 
actually promulgated. Then Godet actually seceded, though 
no conscientious holder of the principle of separation of Church 
and State, but anxious to make it clear that he would not 
be responsible before God for a Church in which the pulpits 
would be accessible to others than evangelical clergymen. The 
whole staff of the Faculty of Theology, with all the students, 
declared for the Free Church, naturally, headed by Godet their 
principal professor. 

From that time Godet must be viewed as a leading member 
of a Free Church, though no Free Churehman, for he looked 
upon the relations of Church and State as purely historical 
or constitutional matters in which no principle was involved 
either way, so long as all consciences concurred in the mode 


224 PROF. F. F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE, 


in force. We need scarcely add that Godet’s objections to 
Broad Churchism in the government of the Church did not 
extend ‘to Broad Church ministers of religion. Ministers of 
both churches, when once the question of Church government 
was constitutionally settled, accepted his leadership in works 
of friendly co-operation, such as furthering the observation 
of the Lord’s Day. 

In 1875 appeared the third edition of his tudes Bibliques, 
which went through five French editions, with translations into 
German, English, Dutch, Spanish. This work of Godet’s is the 
one that was most widely read by the general public. It gained 
access to all Protestant countries. Its chapters “On Angels” 
in the first volume (Old Testament), and on “The work 
of Jesus Christ” in the second volume (New Testament), are 
masterpieces. 

Another work, La Bible annotée, caused him endless trouble. 
What he, with his fellow-workers, wanted to produce was 
a popular exegesis of Scripture for plain folk. It began to 
appear in 1879 in instalments and was completed in 1900, 
a few months before his death. 

In 1877 he attended the first general Presbyterian Council 
in Edinburgh and spoke on the second day. Of course he was 
quite at home both in Scotland and in London, experiencing 
in himself what Continental Protestants agree in feeling 
of Britain, namely, that the barrier between them and the 
3ritish is purely geographical, though they cannot feel in 
sympathy with the Romanising Englishman, who would seem, 
as a hybrid, to be somewhat out of place anywhere. 

Godet told the Congress that the divinity of Christ, in the 
days when the sixteenth century confessions of faith were 
worded, was so obvious to the whole Christian world that 
it needed no peculiar emphasis in the teaching of any Church. 
But now it was different. While the sixteenth century believers 
unanimously asked of Christ, “ What hast Thou done for us?” 
the Protestants in the nineteenth century said to Him, “ We 
want first to know Who and What Thou art.’ Godet expressed 
his regret that the Roman Cathole Church had been allowed 
by the Protestants to keep a more faithful watch than the 
Reformed Churches over the corner-stones of the Gospel of 
Salvation: Incarnation and Expiation. 

We have seen how Godet had a great respect for the 
“mystery ” element in religion. He would not allow intellects 
to press in too closely upon the mystery of the person of Christ. 
He expressed clearly this point of view in a little volume 


AND TUTOR TO FREDERICK THE NOBLE. 92.5 


published in 1880 at Basle in a German translation, under the 
title, Die gottliche Wiirde Christe. 

Through this translation and otherwise, he employed what- 
ever influence he might possess over the German clergy in 
impressing upon them that “ State money” was a poor corner- 
stone on which to build up a living Church, as religion could 
not very well thrive upon indifferent officialism. On the same 
subject he approached the Prince Imperial, who naturally 
agreed, reminding him, however, of his own doctrine: that it 1s 
useless to change institutions till the minds of men have 
undergone a change corresponding to the effort to be made. 

Godet’s admonitions to the Lutheran clergy were not quite 
in keeping with his usual patience. He was getting over- 
worked and had to refuse to prepare an Old Testament 
commentary demanded then for publication in Scotland. Yet 
his physical vigour was still such that he could ascend snowy 
summits in the Alps, walking sixteen hours at a stretch. 

In 1884 he was made Honorary D.D. by the University of 
Edinburgh. 

His trip to Copenhagen and Norway, in the same year, was a 
kind of triumphant progress. Not only was he to address the 
Evangelical Alliance, but Danes and Norwegians, whether 
clergymen or laymen, greeted in him their master and spiritual 
adviser wherever he travelled. His books had preceded him 
along those coasts as far as the North Cape. 

In 1885, lis Imperial friend still writes to him perfectly happy 
letters, speaking of his domestic hfe and affections, of the 
delight he has in his eldest son’s military propensities and in 
the naval abilities of his son Henry. But, in 1887, a shadow 
begins to fall upon the exemplary home life of this family. Its 
head, who was to the Princess Royal the very breath of life, 
was becoming afflicted with the first symptoms of the dreadful 
throat disease which so abruptly ended his days, almost as soon 
as from the steps of the throne he ascended the throne itself. 
The sufferer wrote to the upbringer of his childhood, committing 
himself into the hands of God, while he should go through the 
severe trial of his faith. 

The pastor, who had used his wife’s hand in replying to this 
letter, being himself now shaken in health, realised ‘he must 
withdraw from his responsibilities as a professor of divinity, 
having lost the power to discharge them satisfactorily. He 
thought he would henceforth devote himself to desk work alone. 
He did actually, six years later, publish the first volume of his 
Introduction to the New Testament. All he needed was rest. 


Q 


226 PROF. F. F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE, 


Practically he had never been ill, and now that his work was 
cut down to the measure of his strength, a vista of many years 
cf useful labour opened out again before him. 

Not so for his Imperial disciple. In October and November, 
1887, we find the prince at San Remo. Once he ends a long 
letter with these words: “Farewell, my dear friend, and let me 
assure you once more that my humility before the Lord and my 
submission to His will are still exactly the same as you knew 
them in me, when I was the child entrusted to you.” 

The prince, after undergoing the operation of tracheotomy, 
left for Berlin in March, 1888, on the death of Emperor 
William the First, then 91 years old. 

Here is a translation of Godet’s last letter to his disciple, at a 
time when the new Emperor had but a few weeks to live before 
parting with all his earthly hopes, and when he had just 
written to the Court Preacher: “Pray no longer for) my 
recovery, pray for my deliverance.” 


“ My dear Emperor—I ever have you before my eyes, and see 
you with all those hopes on one side with which you 
grew into an ever wider life, and, on another side, I 
behold all the sacrifices which are now so unexpectedly 
demanded of you: having to renounce this earthly life 
which we always hold so dear; having to part from all 
your beloved ones; having to yield that power the 
prospect of which you held dear for the sake of all the 
good you hoped to do; having to lose voice itself, the 
means of pouring one’s heart in the heart of those who 
understand you. 


“If only you knew how this accumulation of griefs, pouring 
down upon him whom I once saw in his childike mirth 
and trustfulness, weighs my heart down! If only you 
knew how much I feel I must probe with you all this 
bitterness to the depths, that I may the more ardently 
beseech Him Who inay sweeten it for you. 


“In your woeful progress, you know at least that you are 
accompanied by universal feelings of sympathy and 
respectful affection. Thus was not favoured He to Whose 
sufferings you are now associated. He had for His 
share on the way to the cross mockery and every 
outrage, on the cross itself He felt forsaken by the One 
on high, and from men He got naught but... 
vinegar. 


AND TUTOR TO FREDERICK THE NOBLE. Dat 


“T have lately re-read your account of your visit to the Mount 
of Olives. He ascended from that spot. Join Him to 
ascend with Him. 

Your 
Godet.” 


We would add nothing to this letter in the way of comment. 
A fortnight later, the Emperor sent a telegram of thanks to 
Godet, with the announcement of his second son’s impending 
marriage. On the 15th of June the news that all was over 
reached Neuchatel, and on the 16th came a heartbroken message 
from the bereaved Empress Victoria, shortly followed by a letter 
from the Emperor’s mother. 

The bereaved ladies clung reverently to Godet for affection 
and comfort. When his turn came to lay himself down on his 
death-bed, the Empress Victoria enquired almost daily. 

Nothing darkened so much the declining years of Godet as 
the loss of the prince whom he loved and cherished so well. He 
could not have loved better his own son. For our part, we 
know that we should in vain search the annals of history for a 
relation matching this for simplicity and truth between prince, 
set over men, and servant of God. 

In 1889 we find Godet in the Waldensian valleys, celebrating 
there, with divines and ministers from all parts, the 200th 
anniversary of the return of the Waidensians to their native 
valleys. His age, added to his immense hfe-work, made him 
patriarch and supreme authority at any such gatherings. 

The stream of so-called modern biblical criticism continued 
to flow past him, and he, from his solid evangelical rock, found 
in the new ideas brought into circulation opportunity for 
speaking another decisive word. 

To some he said: “ Why insist on separating theology from 
religion ? What religion is free from theology ? He who would 
repudiate the latter has in his heart given up the spirit of the 
former. Was there ever a faith without some kind of historic 
framework ?” | 

Or else: “ What hurts me is not exactly that such and such a 
correction should be the outcome of criticism ; it is rather that 
they should not see how the whole drilt of the Old Testament 
is towards holy living. There is not a man in the holy Book, 
be he king, prophet or priest ; there are no nations or peoples 
that do not emerge from it confounded and convicted of sin. 
God alone is gloritied in Seripture. That is why that Book is 
holy and true. No historical criticism can touch the sacred 

Q 2 


228 PROF. F. F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE, 


elements of that story which aim at establishing the glory of 
God. Our conscience suffices to recognise the sincerity of the 
Bible and to vindicate its moral truthfulness. As a dogmatic 
speculation the unity of God and Christ has no particular 
virtue. Apply it to conduct it becomes an incentive, a 
power, a decisive element in life. There is but one word: 
righteousness.” 

In 1891, Godet spent a part of the summer at Zermatt. 
Known as a contributor to the Hzpositor, he was easily 
recognised by English visitors to Zermatt who had seen his 
portrait in that periodical, and were acquainted with his 
resemblance to Gladstone. He had, in common with the great 
English commoner, beauty of countenance, penetrating blue 
eyes, an extreme mobility of voice modulation, rapidity of 
physiognomic by-play, and that abounding interest in the topic 
of the moment, and in the act which circumstances demanded. 

Godet was then more than ever bent upon producing his 
Introduction to the New Testament, in which so much would 
be finally collected that he had given before to the public in 
fragments, or to his students, mere connectedly. The first 
volume appeared in 1892. The second volume began to appear 
in 1897, in instalments, the last of which was issued by his 
eldest son, in 1904, after the death of the author. One of his 
most original productions belongs to the same period: “ The 
Tine in the Life of Jesus that preceded His public ministry.” 
And while we speak of originality, we should mention also: 
“Le Prométhée d’Eschyle,” contributed in 1885 to the periodical, 
Le Chrétien Evangélique, at Lausanne. 

After the model of what had taken place at Chicago, a 
universal Congress of Religions was to meet in 1900 at Paris, 
on the occasion of the International Exhibition. Such 
congresses Godet criticised owing to their inherent insincerity. 
He explained that, to his mind, religious unity should be sought 
in the missionary field, where it might be effected within the 
widest limits of Christianity, near the outer circumference, and 
might “regress ” towards the heart of each Church at home. 


Frederic Godet breathed his last peacefully in his own 
house in October, 1900. 


*,* It will be noted that the above address was delivered three 
months before the sudden outbreak of the great European War, and that 
both author and audience were ignorant of the aims toward which 
Hohenzollern policy was then being directed, 


bo 
no 
© 


AND TUTOR TO FREDERICK THE NOBLE. 


DISCUSSION. 


Professer Dy, MARGOLIOUTH, Mr.” M. L. Rousn, Lt.-Col. 
MACKINLAY, and the SECRETARY expressed their indebtedness to 
Professor Rocert for his interesting address, and the CHAIRMAN, in 
closing the proceedings, said— 

In this Institute we pronounce the name of F. Godet with 
emphatic and grateful reverence, first because of the Entente 
Cordiale that subsists between English and French Christians, but 
also because the Philosophical Society of Great Britain recognises 
the cecumenical bond of gratitude that binds it to a savant of 
European renown. 

Our aim, like his, is to present the faith of Christ in a manner that 
can recommend it to the sincere thought of our age. 

Among ourselves, scholars like Lyttelton and Westcott have 
recognised the merits of the great Swiss Expositor. Westcott 
expressed the high esteem in which he held Godet’s Commentary on 
St. John. E. G. Selwyn, a scholar of the younger generation, told 
me last week that he still regarded Godet’s book on the Resurrection 
Narratives as among the most useful and convincing on that 
subject. 

I myself would note by a pair of illustrations the remarkable 
gifts which Godet possessed: the gift of speculation and the gift of 
scientific sympathy. 

The Study on Angels in the volume of Old Testament Studies 
illustrates very clearly the fine quality of Godet’s speculative 
mind. The study in the same volume on the first chapters of 
Genesis illustrates his vivid interest in the questions which sometimes 
divide, but ought really to unite, the theologian and the physical 
philosopher. | 

In this Institute, it is not our function to directly propagate 
religion, but to make the belief in true religion more easy and more 
secure. We are in this sense acting in the spirit of the old and 
beautiful saying that theology is the queen of the sciences, meaning 
that theology holds a court in which all the sciences have their 
welcome and an honoured place. We are inspired by that dictum 
of Pico della Mirandola (1463-94) : “ Philosophia quaerit veritatem ; 
Tkeologia invenit ; Religio habet.” 


230. PROF. F. F. ROGET, ON FREDERIC GODET, SWISS DIVINE. 


In this task we recognise that the work of a great exegete, such as 
was Godet, plays no mean part. He has himself finally embodied 
the aim of his own labours in a memorable phrase with which I will 
conclude my observations : 

“Ce qui sauve cest la foi seule; ce qui satisfait c’est la foi arrivée 
4 la connaissance d’elle-méme.” 

A hearty vote of thanks was passed to Professor Roget, and the 
Meeting adjourned at 6 p.m. 


557TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 


HELD (BY KIND PERMISSION) IN THE ROOMS OF THE 
ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS, ON MONDAY, MAY 18ru, 1914, 
AT 4,30 P.M. 


Mr. E. J. SEWELL TOOK THE CHAIR. 


The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed. 


The SecrRETARY announced that Dr. J. J. Acworth had been elected 
a Member, and Mr. Archibald Greenlees an Associate of the Institute. 


The CHarrMAN then introduced the Rev. Chancellor McCormick to the 
Meeting, and asked him to deliver his address. 


THE COMPOSITE OF RACES AND RELIGIONS IN 
AMERICA. By the Rev. 8. B. McCormick, D.D., 
Chancellor of Pittsburg University, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 


N this paper the writer purposely omits any mention of the 
Indian, the Negro and the Oriental in the United States. 
They present difficulties which must be met; but intermarriage 
is not one of them. The Indian problem is in process of 
satisfactory solution. Whatever be the final issue in the case 
of the Negro, it will not be miscegenation. The Oriental 
immigration has not yet, in spite of the feeling aroused, assumed 
serious proportions; nor will it involve either now or later any 
considerable intermingling by marriage, even though it were 
possible that such relationship might ultimately be mutually 
beneficial. We therefore dismiss these, important as they are 
in their place, from all mention in this paper. 

Since the Jew prefers to keep his stock pure and marries 
almost always within his own people, no special consideration is 
given here to the large and important Hebrew immigration into 
America. It is true that the Jew touches hfe at many points 
and must inevitably influence racial development. He is 
crowding our city coileges and universities. He is taking his 
place in the learned professions. He is coming to dominate in 
many important financial movements. He enters whole- 
heartedly and with genuine enthusiam for humanity into many 
forms of social uplift. He is a force therefore to be reckoned 
with. But so far as the racial and religious composite is 
concerned, he affects it only from without, and therefore 
indirectly, and relatively ineffectively. 


232 REY. S. B. MCCORMICK, D.D., ON 


The process of racial and religious change now going on in 
America—by America in this paper we mean the United States 
of America—is the most remarkable known to civilization. 
Breeding and swarming are constantly recurring facts in higher 
as in lower animal life. Crowding, poverty, condition push; 
hope, desire, ambition draw—and again and again great hordes 
of people have gone out to find in other lands better 
opportunities and in them to establish happier and freer homes. 
No more cosmopolitan communities ever existed than ancient 
Athens, Alexandria, Rome. Each was a racial and religious 
composite. Even whole peoples have been so produced—the 
Hellenes in Greece, the Pelasgi in Asia, the Romans from 
Ramnes, Etruscani, Sabines. The Huns came down _ over- 
whelmingly upon Rome; later the Turks spread far out into 
alien territory. So into Great Britain came the Angles, Saxons, 
Normans. All this is history. 

But in modern times, in Australia and in the Americas, 
migrations are taking place far surpassing anything previously 
known in history. The thing is gigantic, colossal. It is like 
earlier movements in origin and motive. It differs only in 
extent and in far-reaching consequences. The issues now 
vitally affect the whole human family. There are no more 
undiscovered continents; no more unoccupied lands. In the 
United States the original contributory nations were Great 
Britain, Holland, Sweden, Germany and Protestant France, 
forming settlements in New England, Maryland, New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Carolinas. These people 
came to a land which on the one hand was practically devoid of 
population and on the other was practically unlinited in natural 
resources. For a hundred years and more the movement was 
continuous but relatively small. In 1790, the first year of the 
new nation’s life, with a population of 4,000,000, not many 
more than 100,000 had come over in ships in the nearly two 
hundred years from the first settlement in Jamestown. For a 
century after 1650, immigration into New England was 
discouraged and practically ceased. It ceased everywhere about 
1750, when hostilities were resumed between France and 
England. From 1776 until 1820—nearly one-half a century— 
not more than 250,000 persons were added to the population by 
immigration Not yet, therefore, had this process, which is so 
vital a fact to-day, become a problem in America. 

We speak of this in order to show that in selecting a date, 
even if it be done somewhat arbitrarily, when the population of 
the United States was a homogeneous one, we are fully justified 


THE COMPOSITE OF RACES AND RELIGIONS IN AMERICA. 233 


by the facts. Charles Benedict Davenport, in the interesting 
chapter of his most valuable work recently published, “ Here- 
dity in Relation to Eugenics,” in which he deals with migrations 
and their eugenic significance, selects the year 1820 for this 
purpose. At this time the population was about 9,000,000, 
of which not more than 850,000 in a period of over two 
centuries were foreign-born. It is obvious that no people in 
Christendom could be more completely homogeneous than were 
the people of the United States at that time. If any people 
anywhere could be charged with the responsibility of absorbing 
into itself and thoroughly assimilating large numbers of 
immigrants, it would be America at this period. 

I venture, however, for our purpose to move forward this date 
another sixty years to 1880, because until then immigration into 
America was never either largeenough oralien enough to cause any 
apprehension or raise any serious inquiry as to the final outcome. 
Except for some social, political, or religious disturbance or 
other untoward condition in Europe the flow was steady, the 
quality healthy, and the effect was most beneficial. Not until 
1842, did the number reach 100,000 persons in a twelve-month. 
Three of these savel/s of immigration deserve mention. 

In 1846 the famine in Treland sent to America over 1,000,000 
within a period of five years, with the result that from that 
time on such emigration as went from Ireland naturally came 
to America. : 

Again, a social revolt in Germany, about 1850, sent to 
America some 150,000 Germans each twelve months for a period 
of several years. 

Further, beginning in 1866, at the close of our Civil War, 
Scandinavian immigration began, reached its maximum in 1880 
with about 100,000 persons, and finally settled down to about 
50,000 annually, so continuing to this day. 

Thus, not only did all immigration practically cease for the 
seventy years preceding 1820, but in the years following up. to 
1880, the United Kingdom, Germany and Scandinavia—the 
United Kingdom providing the greater part—sent to America 
only some 6,000,000 persons. When we reflect upon the fact 
that during this period, owing to the continued net fecundity of 
the native population, the total population in 1880 reached 
50,000,600, it is obvious that the people at this time were 
scarcely less homogeneous than in 1820. We may, therefore, 
carry forward the date from 1820 to 1880 without seriously 
affecting the result. 

The next important fact is that by this time the country was 


234 REV. S. B. MCCORMICK, D.D., ON 


well settled from ocean to ocean, and by thoroughly American 
people. The Irish immigrant had located almost entirely in the 
city; the German partly in the city and partly on the farm; 
and the Scandinavian altogether on the farm, chiefly in the 
North Middle West. But in this period New England and the 
Middle States had poured out their surplus populations to 
establish new homes from Olio to California, forming, in nearly 
every case, the basic population in rural communities, towns, 
cities, and states. The exceptions to this were so few, such as 
the Swede and the Norwegian in Minnesota, as to be 
disregarded. 

We now come to the great outstanding law universally 
operative,—namely, the power resident in first settlers to 
determine for all time the character of new communities. 
Only in such a country as America is it possible to observe 
and carefully study this law. It is a fact of almost startling 
significance, the most interesting and enduring phenomenon 
in the history of a new community. Boston is Boston and 
New England is New England still, and they will remain 
fundamentally as they are though farms be abandoned and 
though they be invaded by myriad races of alien origin and 
religion. “The men who came to New England included 
scholars like Pastor Robinson; like Brewster who, while 
self-exiled at Leyden, instructed students in the University ; 
hke John Winthrop of gentle breeding and education; like 
John Davenport whom the Indians named ‘ So- Big-Study -Man.’ 
Little wonder that the germ plasm of these colonies of men of 
deep conviction and scholarship should show its traits in the 
ereat network of its descendants and establish New England’s 
reputation for conscientiousness and love of learning and 
culture. As it was almost the first business of the founders of 
the colonies of Massachusetts Bay and New Haven to found a 
college so their descendants—the famihes of Edwards, 
Whitney, Dwight, Eliot, Lowell, Woolsey, and the rest—have 
not only led in literature, philosophy, and science, but have 
carried the lamps of learning across the continent, lighting 
educational beacons from Boston to San Francisco.” (Davenport, 

p. 208.) 

Dead ae was settled by the followers of George Fox 
under the leadership of William Penn; by colonies of Germans 
from certain principalities whose religious life often expressed 
itself in certain forms of quietism as non-combative as that of 
Fox ; and later by the virile Ulstermen whose Presbyterianism 
was as rock-ribbed as were the everlasting hills of Scotland 


THE COMPOSITE OF RACES AND RELIGLONS IN AMERICA. 235 


where their faith was bred. All these were intense 
individualists, and Pennsylvania can continue indefinitely to 
receive other hundreds of thousands of immigrants from alien 
shores and remain as it is till the end of thechapter. My own 
Western Pennsylvania, with Pittsburg as its centre, with 
German, Italian, Austrian, Hungarian, Pole, Syrian, and what 
not, thrust by the hundred thousand into her industrial life— 
I recently attended a public school exercise in which children 
of thirty different nationalities participated— Western Pennsyl- 

vania is as Presbyterian as Ulster, is as homogeneous as France, 

and will so continue in all essential characteristics as long as 
time lasts. Mostcosmopolitan of all the communities in America, 
reckoned by the number, variety, dissimilarity of its elements, 
it is at the same time, basically and essentially, one in its ideals 
of education, religion, and life. 

The newer parts of the country present the same 
phenomenon. lowa, for instance, is altogetherrural. The farm 
determines all questions of education, religion, government, 
standards in Iowa. It is perhaps the most intelligent, moral, 
religious community in America. And Iowa is exactly what the 
first settlers made it. In the northern part is the New 
England, New York, Ohio stock which moved westward along a 
certain parallel; in the southern part is the Western Pennsy]- 
vania stock which moved westward through Ohio along another 
parallel—these two as easily distinguishable as two colours of 
the spectrum ; each impressing its characteristics of essential 
worth enduringly upon the commonwealth, giving it permanence 
and character. 

The State of Kansas had only a small populati out 
110,000—-in 1861 when the Civil War broke out,and to-day it has 
1,700,000 people. But the few who settled in Kansas in ante- 
bellum days were animated by high humanitarian ideals. They 
hated slavery intensely, and they went to Kansas, not so much 
to find a home as to preserve the great Kansas prairies from the 
degradation of human slavery. They did not know that they 
were fixing for ever the ideals of a great commonwealth, and 
that henceforth no theory affecting social wellbeing could tly 
over Kansas high enough to prevent the people from catching 
it, experimenting with it, and seeking to make it work for the 
moral, social and political uplift of the people. 

These illustrations sufficiently exhibit the law. It applies to 
townships, towns, cities, states, and whole sections, as New 
England. If any part of America could be unaffected by it it 
would be far away California and the Pacific Coast. Yet these 


236 REV. S. B. MCCORMICK, D.D., ON 


are the most interesting of all. The northern and southern 
parts of the magnificent empire of California differ most widely. 
The first settlers in the north were the adventurous seekers 
after gold, and their descendants are imbued with the same 
adventurous enterprise. They are cosmopolitan in taste, habit 
and religion. The southern part, whose first settlers were 
health-seekers and home-seekers, are conservative in their pro- 
gress; lovers of literature as in New England, establishing 
many schools; orthodox in religion as in Pennsylvania ; 
builders of cities as are the people of Chicago. Oregon and 
Washington further north, settled by college men, ambitious 
men, religious men, present the same type of enterprise and 
solid worth easily seen in every part of the West. ‘The law, 
therefore, is universally operative—a determining factor in 
forming the composite which will be the America of 
to-morrow. 

The second important fact regarding first settlers 1s their 
quality and their character. They are at once the most virile 
and the most conservative. Statistics confirm observation to 
the effect that it is the alert, alive, ambitious member of the 
family and of the community who has initiative and enterprise 
enough to leave one home and go into a new country to establish 
another. This fact applies both to the European who came to 
America and to the American who left the settled East and 
became a pioneer in the great West. It was not only true in 
the seventeenth and in the nineteenth century, but it 
is true inthe twentieth century also. In 1909-10, for example, 
with an immigration of 1,041,000—of whom 738,000 or 
71 per cent. were males—83 per cent. were between the ages of 
14 and 44. However, these may differ in stock, in tradition, in 
aspiration, and in religion from the earlier immigrants, they 
were a selected group of able-bodied men of higher average 
than any corresponding group of the general population. They 
were all mentally sound—the insane and feeble of intellect 
could not enter. They were men of good morals—the criminals 
could not enter. They were economically solvent and thrifty, 
bringing with them an average of $26 per person, or a total of 
of about $28,000,000—the pauper could not enter. They were 
ambitious, every man came expecting and purposing to better 
his condition. Such immigrants are a real and tremendous 
asset to any nation, not economically only, but in all the 
possibilities of a splendid citizenship. 

With this quality of mental alertness is the fine quality of 
constructive conservatism. With all their enterprise they wish 


THE COMPOSITE OF RACES AND RELIGIONS IN AMERICA. 237 


to maintain a real connection with the past. This explains the 
Ulsterman in Ireland whose forms of religion, for instance, as 
nearly as possible resemble those which prevailed in Scotland at 
the time he left it. It explains the Boer in South Africa who 
made a loyal effort to establish and maintain in that country 
the Holland of 1700. It explains the fact that all over the 
western part of the United States the settlers at once 
established the same institutions as prevailed at home, making 
them better if possible, but as nearly like as they could. Their 
forms of religious worship and their systems of theology to-day, 
in their conservatism, resemble the simplicity and or rthodoxy 
which prevailed in the East fifty years ago and have 
greatly changed in the old home region. The mere mention of 
this fact is enough. Its value and its significance in the 
situation in which America finds herself at this time will be 
altogether obvious. Fortunate, indeed, is America that her own 
population was fairly homogeneous ; that every part of the land 
was settled by practically native people; that American 
institutions were everywhere established by those who loved 
them ; and that the first settler has in him such marvellous 
power to lay hold upon and assimilate to himself all subsequent 
increments which may come to him. 

For in spite of all well-grounded optimism, the fact must be 
faced that present day immigration differs vastly in character 
from all that has preceded and has assumed proportions 
relatively vast. It is substantially one million each year, of 
whom perhaps 800,000 remain permanently. In 1820 the 
increment was less than 10,000 to a population of 9,000,000 ; 
to-day it is relatively ten times greater. Moreover, then it was 
Saxon and Celt To-day it is Slavonian, Croatian and Dalmatian, 
Bohemian, Magyar, Slovak, Ruthenian, Roumanian, Italian, for 
the most part from South Italy and Sicily, Polish, Portuguese. 
Germans of course continue to come, and the Scandinavians 
stand at about 50,000 annually. 

Will the nation which has heretofore promptly seized upon 
what has come, and has thrived and grown immensely richer and 
finer in the process of assimilating the new elements, be able to 
continue this process with the stranger and more difficult 
material which is now presenting itself? This is the question 
America must answer. The Irish who came in the middle of 
the last century chose politics as their vocation, and, especially 
in the cities, thrust themselves into the very heart of the nation’s 
life, and, in spite of some exceptions, became valuable and loyal 
citizens. Will Slavonians, Croatians and Bohemians make 


238 REV. S. B. MCCORMICK, D.D., ON 


similar history? The German immigrants of sixty years ago, 
intelligent, disciplined, courageous, “lovers of liberty, became 
able statesmen—witness Carl Schurz : distinguished officers in 
the Civil War—witness General Sigal ; famous editors of 
influential papers—witness several such; becaine servants 
of the people in bettering social conditions—witness Oscar 
Straus ; they became merchants and musicians and tillers of the 
sou. Will Magyars and Slovaks and Ruthenians emulate their 
example ? The Scandinavian immigrants, lovers, too, of personal 
freedom, self-controlled and self-dependent, anxious for acres 
upon which to build homes for themselves and their children, 
went into the west and north-west and became citizens, builders 
of a nation. Witness Governor Lind and Governor Johnson 
and Governor Eberhart and a countless multitude scarcely less 
distinguished. Will Italians and Poles and Roumanians’ make 
such contribution to American manhood and citizenship ? This 
question presents the problem, and upon the answer will depend 
the composite which is to be ultimate America. Professor 
Davenport says that “unless conditions chaneve themselves or 
are radically changed, the populations of the United States will, 
on account of the great influx of blood from Southern Europe, 
rapidly become darker in pigmentation, smaller in stature, more 
mercurial, more attached to music and art, more given to cer- 
tain kinds of crime and less to others than were the original 
English settlers.” This is doubtless true. But will they 
become American, and will the composite be better or worse 
than it is to-day ? Here is to be found the destiny of America. 
We do not feel constrained in this paper to discuss the future 
of this immigration nor the method by which it may be 
regulated. Experience will show the way here. The only 
really essential condition, perhaps, 1s sound physical health on 
the part of the immigrant. The econonic part of it is self- 
regulative, for when conditions in America are prosperous and 
wages high, the flow increases, and when the reverse prevails, it 
diminishes. Educational and property tests are relatively 
unimportant, for the children of the immigrant speedily become 
intelligent and economically wealth-producing. Every race 
brings elements of genuine worth and contributes to the country 
of its adoption as much asit receives fromit. America is “ God’s 
great stomach.” and is, we are confident, just as fully capable 
now of assimilating the elements entering into it as at any 
previous time in the nation’s history. Such methods as are 
needed will be adopted to keep out the unfit. Biologists lke 
Dr. Davenport will, from time to time, suggest precautions— 


THE COMPOSITE OF RACES AND RELIGIONS IN AMERICA. 239 


such for instance as the careful investigation into the immi- 
erant’s personal and family history, his adinission depending upon 
a favourable report. The whole problem will be solved 
satisfactorily, and without question the United States will con- 
tinue, not for charity’s sake, but for the sake of mutual advantage, 
to receive the incoming immigrant and to transform him by 
constantly increased efficiency into the true American 
citizen. 

What kind of composite will he be in race and religion ? 

The process of course is only in its beginning. The final 
product will not appear fora long time to come. Yet it has 
gone on long enough to permit of observation and rational 
prediction. The composite will be a genuine composite— 
remarkably varied in characteristics, remarkably rich and 
fruitful in its possibilities. This because almost every race on 
the globe will have contributed something in culture, disposition, 
interest, aptitude, blood and religion to the product. The 
composite will be richer and more complete than any one 
constituent element because the development will be under 
conditions most favourable for race building and perfecting. As 
the people of Great Britain, themselves a composite, are to-day 
perhaps the finest, fairest, most conscientious, altruistic, forceful 
and tremendously vital race in world affairs, so after a little the 
sceptre will pass over into America, because that people will 
not alone possess the idealistic, altruistic, dynamic qualities of 
the Anglo-Saxon, but in addition the very best of all the other 
peoples who are to-day contributing so vitally to the production 
of the new racial and religious composite in America. 


1. Lhe Biological Composite. 


This is perhaps the least important aspect of the problem. 
We shall be brief in its discussion. The quotation given touched 
upon certain physical changes which are probable. In this 
matter the biologist must largely indulge in prophecy. He has 
had little opportunity for genuinely scientific study of such 
fusion. Perhaps he would even say that, biologically, fusion 
seems contra naturam ; yet the process is assuredly going on 
under his eyes in America. 

Only in small communities has it proceeded far enough to 
permit of observation. In the State of lowa, for instance, in a 
Bohemian settlement another generation will witness almost 
complete fusion with the genuine American stock. A complete 
mixture, however, nowhere exists as yet. Perhaps the nearest 


240 REV. S. B. McCORMICK, D.D., ON 


approach to it is the Hollander in New York. The next is 
doubtless in Pennsylvania in the intermineling by marriage of 
the German and the Scotch-Irishman, so-called. Yet whole 
communities of peoples in that State talk nothing but a German 
patois known as Pennsylvania Dutch. Physique, pigmentation, 
hair, colour of eyes are less important than the vitality which 
makes possible mental vigor. In early biologic ages the 
smaller, nimbler animals with more active brain survived; the 
slow-witted giant perished. The German army is not less 
efficient because it may not have a regiment hke Frederick the 
Great’s, composed of men seven feet tall. The cast of the 
extinct diplodocus is in the British Museum. Perhaps we may 
be within the limits of ascertained fact if we say that the very 
first result of mixture of blood strains is variation—the 
production of new groups of characters, the unlinking of original 
groups. Biologically this should result in a certain psychology 
—for a time at least—men of letters, inventors, moralists, 
social and religious leaders. Indeed, this has been measurably 
true already. 

It must be remembered that no race in modern times is 
biologically homogeneous. So wide is the variation of com- 
ponents within each race that if we should plot graphically the 
variation of any trait in different nations, the curves would 
largely overlap. Eliminating the Oriental, the Negro, and the 
Indian—as we have agreed to do—and applying the fruit of 
recently ascertained biological study, we may look with entire 
complacency upon complete fusion of the several branches of the 
Aryan and Semitic stocks-with almost certain expectancy that 
the final result will be a superior blend. The modern eugenic 
movement must issue in practical methods of reducing the 
production of the unfit and increasing that of the superior 
blood. An improved race will depend far less upon an 
adventitious fusion than upon intelligent choice. The responsi- 
bility for a better physical man rests upon the will of men 
themselves. If they want it, it can be produced. Superior 
mating and families of adequate size will do it. So much is 
true of eugenics. Studies into inherited traits are becoming 
more intelligent and more scientific. The results will more 
and more find application to actual conditions. Meanwhile, 
the forces going on in America must result in a more complete 
union of the Saxon and the Latin, the Celt and the Slav. New 
knowledge will develop safeguards and relieve from all 
apprehension. We may safely assume the substantial correct- 
ness of Burbank’s prediction that the United States has “ the 


THE COMPOSITE OF RACES AND RELIGIONS IN AMERICA. 241 


greatest opportunity ever presented of developing the finest 
race the world has ever known out of the vast mingling of races 
brought here by immigration,’ just as we may accept the 
opposite, namely, “the biologic law that when a race lives an 
isolated life without an infusion of new blood it degenerates.” 


The Political Composite. 


In America this will be a somewhat complete democracy. 
This refers not to form of government, but to the conditions 
out of which government springs. It does not matter whether 
the government is a limited monarchy as in England, or 
representative as now in America, or a democracy as many in 
America wish it to be and are trying to make it, or something 
else as yet untried. The essential fact is that the people can make 
it what they please. They ordain constitutions, laws, courts, 
customs. They choose executives, judges, lawmakers. Historically 
the political development of the United States is most interesting. 
The future cannot differ greatly from the past except to evolve 
into completeness. The seventeen hundred men who formed the 
constitutions of the original thirteen states, the models of all 
later constitutions, were all native-born Americans except 
fifteen, and these fifteen were as essentially American as the 
others. Of the fifty-five men who formed the constitution of 
the Federal government in 1787, only four were foreign-born ; 
and who can say that these four—Robert Morris from England, 
Alexander Hamilton from the West Indies, John Rutledge and 
Pierce Butler from Ireland were less American than the other 
fifty-one. The proportion scarcely varied in the conventions 
which adopted later constitutions. The Maine constitutional 
convention of 1820 with 293 delegates contained only two 
foreign-born, one from Ireland and one from Wales. The 
125 delegates to the constitutional convention in New York 
in 1821 were all native-born; and in 1846 all but two. The 
seventeen states formed since 1850 adopted constitutions framed 
by conventions composed almost entirely of native-born 
citizens. Constitution-making in America has therefore been 
confined to the Teuton and the Celt. 

The significance of this tremendous fact in a nation whose 
diversity of race, interests, occupations, climate, ideals, concepts 
of life is so great lies in this——namely, that the America of 
to-day is the product of the Reformation in Europe in the 
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The moral, religious, 

Rh 


242 REV. S. B. MCCORMICK, D.D., ON 


educational, social and political ideals—the sovereignty of God 
and the freedom of man underlying them all—which brought 
about the Reformation and were for ever confirmed by it, have 
been wrought into the warp and woof of American fundamental 
law, and could not be removed except by sweeping the nation 
into the sea. The infusion of the Latin will not change its 
essential character. At most it can only modify and make 
better. The infusion of the Oriental would not change it. It 
is, humanly speaking, impossibly to go backward. The move- 
ment must be forward, and this means simply the triumph of 
democracy. The sixty or more races in America have entered 
into the common life of the nation because there has been room 
for all—only in certain large cities, forced by economic pressure, 
have large numbers of any one nationality congregated together 
so as to preserve native language, customs, religion, but they 
would have done so in more difficult conditions because of the 
completeness of democratic conditions about them. In the 
American Universities the keenest minds are often the sons and 
daughters of recent comers to America, and they are most 
enthusiastically American. When the time comes for them to 
share in the administration of affairs, they will administer and 
support the institutions enduringly founded by the Anglo- 
Saxon, but so as to meet the needs of a composite race. 
America is not static, but tremendously dynamic, because 
there is no fear of the outcome. It is ever changing, but 
always advancing toward a higher ideal. Whatever mistakes 
may be made in the retranslation of politics are soon corrected 
and progress is ever toward the goal of a people intelligent 
enough, patriotic enough, self-controlled enough, to bring into 
being a democracy from which all elements of peril are 
eliminated. That political problems of grave character are 
before the nation—the initiative, referendum and recall; direct 
nomination of the presidential candidate; the popular election 
of senators; and many others not less vital and fundamental 
—-is a fact whose only significance is that the people are 
asserting the right of a more direct and more positive political 
control. They may or they may not insist upon. these specific 
things, but they do insist upon the right to determine every 
political question for themselves, from the form of government 
to the erection of a public school building. The final outcome 
worked out by an intelligent, patriotic, and self-restrained 
people will be the triumph of popular rights, the vindication of 
the liberty of a great people, the demonstration of a victorious 
and enduring democracy. 


THE COMPOSITE OF RACES AND RELIGIONS IN AMERICA. 243 


The Social Composite. 


It was my thought, in forming the outline of this paper, to 
discuss the psychologic composite in America. But apart from 
the extremely difficult nature of this task and my own inability 
to accomplish it, is the fact that it is inextricably entangled in 
the social and religious composite which I desire to present as 
fully as possible. ” Psychology touches both of these at every 
turn, and can scarcely be considered apart from them. 

The American people in origin, in history, and by the very 
necessity of their living conditions, have been characteristically 
individualists. If there is in them one dominant and universal 
trait, this is it. The unlimited resources and wide-stretching 
free lands have spelled opportunity, have required industrial 
initiative, have demanded and developed hardihood and 
courage, and have produced a type of manhood which thinks, 
chooses, determines, acts for itself in every emergency and 
upon every question. Not only have conditions fostered 
individualism, but the immigrants brought it with them. It 
was another of the causes and the fruits of the Reformation. 
Pennsylvania with its Quaker, German, and Ulsterman, all 
intense individualists, has already been referred to. 

This quality will not disappear, but it will manifest itself in 
new ways. Already the change is rapidly coming about. At 
this time about one-half of America’s population is urban. In 
the industrial north-eastern part three-fourths of it is so. 
Here dwells 85 per cent. of the immigrant people. Social 
maladjustment has been inevitable. The congestion of foreign 
peoples in sections of large cities has accentuated the situation. 
Health and housing problems must be solved. Slavic people, 
for instance, living for centuries in the open country, do not 
know how to adapt themselves to the city environment. To 
create an agency wise enough, discreet and skilful enough, to 
direct the arriving immigrant to the section of country and 
form of employment best suited to his past tastes and training 
is most difficult. It is obvious that untoward social conditions 
have been unavoidable, and equally obvious that a remedy 
cannot at once be applied. Out of this situation, the social 
reformer, the wise one and the foolish one, has arisen. Peril is 
not absent. Multitudes feel that wrong and injustice lurk in 
conditions, but they do not know how to find or remove them. 
The good man and the bad man are equally at a loss. All 
unite in this, however, that organized society must somehow 
discover the evil and provide the remedy. 

R 2 


244 REV. S. B. MCCORMICK, D.D., ON 


This very situation is developing in America a new set of 
emotions, convictions, responsibilities, and obligations. Out of 
this, a new and better social order is in process. The frank, 
naked individualism of the past is feeling the impact of the 
social idea. The tremendous struggle in which the men of 
America were compelled to engage in order to overcome nature, 
to carve farm lands out of the limitless prairies, to open and 
operate mines, to build cities, to construct railways and tele- 
graph and telephone, to create wealth and surplus capital, to 
lay strong and deep the foundations of political, social, educa- 
tional and religious institutions, has been responsible for the 
fact that one overmastering idea is that of production. This 
problem had to be solved. Mills had to be built. Labour had 
to be secured. Capital had to be created. It is not strange, 
therefore, from the standpoint of psychology as from the stand- 
point of compulsion, that little attention relatively was given 
to the equally important matter of distribution. This situation 
is now undergoing rapid change. Men are coming to see that 
the mere production of wealth, vital as it is to public well- 
being, is not enough; that its just distribution among those 
who contributed to its creation 1s also a sacred obligation which 
must neither be evaded nor deferred. 

The development of the social consciousness of a great 
nation of individualists is a radical and marvellous process. 
But it is a process which is going on in America. The final 
result is not in doubt. Men of wealth all over our land are 
recognizing the obligation and responsibilities possessions lay 
upon them. They are giving thought to the best methods of 
placing accumulated wealth to the public service. Not 
Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Carnegie only, but most men are 
working eut the problem as conscientiously as they know how. 
A short while ago New York city gave four million dollars to 
the work of the Christian Associations. My own city of 
Pittsburg, in a public movement among the citizens, gave the 
University of Pittsburg two million dollars. In every way 
this new social idea is clothing itself in some concrete form of 
service. City planning; better housing; education more per- 
fectly adapted to the practical needs of the people ; legislation 
on behalf of children and wage-earning women; bureaux to 
aid the newly-arriving immigrant that he may go where he 
ought, engage in the work he can do best, be protected from 
those who would prey upon his ignorance of the customs of 
the strange land; the Christian Associations doing a work of 
marvellous importance in surrounding young men and women 


THE COMPOSITE OF RACES AND RELIGIONS IN AMERICA. 245 


with moral and religious safeguards and in providing educa- 
tional advantages for those who had no opportunities early in 
life, or who may be compelled to toil during the day; the use 
of public schools as social and neighbourhood centres out of 
hours; the establishment of playgrounds and other places of 
physical enjoyment and recreation; and a multitude of other 
agencies, all looking to the betterment of social conditions and 
the perfecting of the social order. 

I instance these efforts to lessen, and so far as possible 
eliminate, social inequalities, injustices, miseries and defects, | 
not for the purpose of calling attention to the efforts them- 
selves, but for the much more important purpose of illustrating 
the social evolution of a great people. My desire is not to call 
attention to what is being done to mitigate social inequalities 
and injustice, but what the doing of these things 1s accom- 
plishing for society itself. The very fact that millions of 
people have come to us who need what we can do for them 
creates an obligation, furnishes an inspiration, and points out 
the method whereby the people may add to their virtue of 
individualism the greater virtue of social responsibility, losing 
not one jot of personal initiative but gaining immensely in 
sympathy and the consciousness of universal brotherhood. 

Such a consummation in some land is the great desire of 
nations. For it the peoples of the earth are anxiously waiting. 
The social consciousness in its evolution extends out to include 
society in its broadest conception and becomes ultimately the 
fully developed international mind and the international heart. 
One man thinks in terms of self; another in terms of his own 
family; another in terms of his city or state or nation. No 
man has come into his own until he learns to think in terms 
of nations. Race antipathy is universal. The millennium 
cannot come till this utterly ceases to exist. The people of one 
nation belittle the people of another, simply because they are 
different, not because they are inferior. If this feeling should 
be non-existent anywhere it should be in America; and if any 
nation should gather all peoples of all climes within the 
circle of its sympathy and regard, it should be this same 
America. 

Dr. Edward Alfred Steiner recently wrote: “Can we learn 
to think and feel in terms of all the races, or must there 
always be antipathy which grows into prejudice, and prejudice 
which ripens into hate? Must we be doomed to live looking 
at one another as problems, meeting one another with fear, and 
irritating one another with war ? 


246 REV. S. B. MCCORMICK, D.D., ON 


“Was he a false prophet who cried out in some such per- 
plexity of spirit : 

“«Thou lookest down from heaven; thou beholdest the 
children of men ; thou fashionest their hearts alike ?’ 

“Was he a false Messiah who sent apostles to the other 
sheep and who will never regard His work as finished until all 
the sheep are in the fold? He taught His disciples to pray in 
terms of the common human needs and common human 
relationship—‘ Our Father’ He lifted Himself from the 
narrowest social race views and, with a sublime gesture, pointing 
to the crowd, spoke majestically: 

“¢ For whosoever shall do the will of My Father Who is 
in Heaven he is My brother and My sister and My mother.’ ” 

Professor Steiner is right. Some nation must arise which 
will for ever put away race feeling and substitute for it the 
perfect social consciousness, warmed and directed by the spirit 
of Him Who made all nations one, and all men brothers. 
What nation so likely as America, to whose sheltering arms 
all the peoples have come, there to abide until the great inter- 
racial composite shall be complete? No matter how far 
removed we are as yet from this conception the process of 
assimilation will be finished only when the social composite 
is made perfect. When that day has come—and God grant 
that England and Germany and all the others may have reached 
it also—then war cannot be; for war springs out of prejudice, 
and ignorance, and selfishness, and lust of power, and pride of 
life ; not out of sympathy and friendship, and brotherhood and 
love; and these are the elements of the Social Composite which 
some time America will become. Who shall then say that it 
is far removed from what the Scriptures call “The Kingdom 
of God.” ? 


4. The Religious Composite. 


Sociology has no meaning apart from religion. The social 
composite and the religious composite are, if not identical, at 
least intermingled one with the other, as psychology is mingled 
with both. Strictly, a social composite is impossible save as 
religion makes it possible. 

It is said that the skull of the man who embraced the 
teformed Faith in Switzerland, Germany and Holland, has 
certain readily distinguishable measurements and_ shapes. 
Presumably this is fiction ; but if it were fact it would be an 
interesting inquiry as to whether the head produced the theology 


THE COMPOSITE OF RACES AND RELIGIONS IN AMERICA. 247 


or the theology produced the head. I have no intention of 
discussing the problem of the origin and development of 
religion, nor what psychology and environment have to do with 
it. It is enough in this place to note the fact that the human 
race, always dynamic, has during all the centuries instinctively, 
or under the inspiration of a more or less intelligent faith, 
moved forward toward a higher intelligence and a _ purer 
religion ; that it has ever sought in the future something better 
than it had known before, because always it has been endowed 
with curiosity, energy, endurance, vision and courage. Satisfac- 
tion follows achievement. When one task is completed there 
is readiness for one more difficult still—and power also. 
Whether the final goal is Heaven or the superman, the fact 
stands. What effect upon the forms of religion, differences in 
government, industry, education, language, customs, dress, social 
conditions and physical environment may have is an interesting 
inquiry. We do not stop to discuss it here. 

The important and basic fact for our purpose is that the 
American people are profoundly religious. This means sub- 
stantially the same thing asif we should say, as we well may, that 
the English people are profoundly religious. Yet it is not 
exactly the same. If they are equal to the same thing they are 
not equal to each other. Whatever it be that makes the 
difference, 1t still exists. 

The faith of the vast majority of American people is 
Christian ; and of the largest part of these, evangelical. North- 
western Hurope and Canada have furnished the greater part of 
the foreign-born and with them their religious faith; and this 
has also been the religious faith of most of the native-born 
citizens. This fact has the same significance in the religious 
development of the nation as the similar fact has in the racial 
development. The more recent immigration from South- 
eastern Europe with a variant religious faith must obviously 
least affect the religious life of the nation. The strong and 
ever-operating tendency is that the faith of the native people 
will profoundly affect and modify the faith of these who come 
—according to a law which cannot be set aside. Roman and 
Greek Catholicism cannot, for instance, be in America what 
they are in Spain and in Russia. 

The American nation is unique in that it achieved political 
solidarity without a corresponding solidarity of religious 
interests. This was inevitable for several reasons. Most of the 
colonies brought with them from Europe traditions of religious 
freedom, purchased at. the price of bloodshed and persecution, 


248 REV. S. B. MCCORMICK, D.D., ON 


and hence as dear to them as life itself. Furthermore the 
movement towards political unity among the colonies was by 
no means strong enough at first to insist upon religious 
uniformity had the political leaders felt so inclined. And 
finally, these religious differences were supported to some 
extent by the slight differences of racial stock, although all 
belonged to the same ethnic group. The Presbyterians 
were mainly Scotch-Irish; the Lutheran and Reformed sects 
were of Dutch and German extraction ; the Congregationalists 
drew from the Puritan English middle class; and Catholicism 
from the Irish. Religious solidarity seemed to presuppose to 
some extent ethnic sohdarity. 

The ethnic homogeneity which our political institutions pre- 
suppose and encourage has, as already shown, increased steadily 
in spite of the stream of immigrants that come to us yearly 
from Europe. With increasing ethnic homogeneity has come 
the triumph of democracy and a decreasing emphasis of sectarian 
differences. The theological tenets once sharply emphasized by 
the various Protestant sects have now dropped entirely into 
the background. Apart from differences of worship and ritual 
—which, since they are matters of individual taste and 
preference, in all probability will persist—the content of the 
religious message as delivered from our leading pulpits to-day 
is practically the same. It would hardly be possible for the 
stranger listening to the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, or 
Episcopalian preacher of to-day to tell from his discourse what 
his theological affiliations are. Even the great Roman Catholic 
Church, which through its system of education has carefully 
safeguarded its sectarianism against the levelling influences of 
nationalism, is not likely to hold its own in the struggle. In 
spite of its rock-ribbed institutionalism and its magnificent 
traditions it must in time bow before the insistent demand of 
democracy that human life is one and that we cannot separate the 
citizen from the saint. Theological orthodoxy and unquestion- 
ing obedience to authority are not more important than social 
service and civic righteousness. In fact, authority, whether of 
theology or ecclesiasticism, 1s giving way to the insistent and 
authoritative power of truth in whatever form it may come. 

The spirit of democracy, therefore, together with scientific 
method, are the two forces which are destmed to give to the 
religion of the future in this country its final form. The spirit 
of democracy will insist upon a modification of institutional forms 
in religion with reference to modern needs, and an application of 
the spiritual dynamic, that religion alone can give in the struggle 


THE COMPOSITE OF RACES AND RELIGIONS IN AMERICA. 249 


against social ills. Science will gradually effect, and that in spite 
of the strenuous resistance of religion itself, a simplification and 
a purification of our religious faith, without which such a faith 
cannot hope to gain and hold the loyalty of an intelligent people. 

The democratization of religion is even now progressing at a 
rate undreamed of by the average layman. The test of social 
efficiency which is being applied with such thoroughness to 
education, politics and the administration of justice is being 
extended to religion. Indeed, a conventionalized and institu- 
tionalized religion must undergo reconstruction to meet the 
needs of the changing social order, or it must perish. The 
perfecting of the means of intercourse has brought with it a 
widening of our sympathies and quickened sense of social 
solidarity. This is thoroughly antagonistic to the old selfishly 
individualistic faith of other days. Increasing industrial 
development has deepened the feeling of human brotherhood. 
The pooling of interests and the extensive mutualization of 
society have forced men in thought and in action to ignore the 
accidental and the non-essential and to seize upon the things 
that are of universal and permanent worth. Religious values, 
since they are the most comprehensive, must be restated so as 
to fit the new social conditions. This re-evaluation must be 
from the standpoint of democracy. 

The chosen instrument for this rehabilitation of our faith in 
terms of modern life is science. For science is no longer the 
goddess worshipped by the esoteric few: she is fast becoming 
the servant of all, the high priestess of social efficiency. The 
representatives of religion have too often seen in science 
religion’s bitterest foe. Certainly no two attitudes are appar- 
ently more opposed than that of the passionate, heaven-storming 
religious reformer and the patient, critical, emotionless, scientific 
investigator. But there is little doubt that the religion of the 
future will owe its greatest debt to science. In the face of 
vigorous protests science is applying the methods of modern 
psychology to religious experience, with the result that the 
theologies of yesterday must be re-written. Scientific criticism 
18 humanizing and vitalizing the Old Testament, providing us 
with the true historical perspective and giving us a new Book. 
Above all, science is teaching the religion of the future to be 
open- -minded and loyal to the truth. ‘The religion of the future 
is thus returning to the ideal of its Founder, “Ye shall know 
the truth and the truth shall make you free.” 

What, then, is to be the Religious Composite in America ? 
It will be that which results from the purifying and the 


e 


250 REV. 8S. B. MCCORMICK, D.D., ON 


socializing of the faith of to-day. So far as content is con- 
cerned it will include the loftiest, the most permanent and the 
most comprehensive human values. It will provide ultimate 
sanctions for business integrity, personal purity, patriotism and 
social righteousness in general. It will not degenerate into the 
religion of humanity, and it will be more than a religion the 
content of which is identical with democracy. We have reason 
to believe that it will still retain for the most part its denomi- 
national and institutional forms as the necessary setting for the 
spiritual ideal. Creeds will exist, but their content will be 
limited to those ideas which have been found of proven worth 
as a result of experience and the test of social efficiency. 
tituals also will survive. They will not be subordinated, 
however, to dogmatic prejudices. Through them will be 
provided a beautiful and effective setting for religious 
truth. 

Central in the religion of the future will be the idea of God. 
The God as men will come to know Him will not be identical 
with the external deistic conceptions of the past, nor with the 
tri-theistic monotheism of the present. The Deity of the 
democracy of the future will embody the highest spiritual 
aspirations and provide the ultimate relgious and moral 
sanctions for a progressive and intelligent community. The life 
of that democracy will be His life. He will share in its 
triumphs and defeats, in its suffering and sinning. “Society as 
a federal union, in which each individual and every form of 
human association shall find free and full scope for a more 
abundant life, will be the large figure from which is projected 
the conception of the God in Whom we live and move and 
have our being.” 

Finally, the religious faith of America, each race contributing 
something to it, will be the enthronement of the Gospel of 
Scripture as the supreme law of life. Religion will more and 
more become the life of men, not something outside of them. It 
will be as Micah expresses it, “ To do justly and to love mercy 
and to walk humbly with thy God.” It will be as James expresses 
it, “To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to 
keep oneself unspotted from the world.” It will more and 
more tend to put emphasis upon what is vital and essential ; 
less and less upon what is formal and ceremonial. The 
wonderful words of Jesus, setting forth fundamental and 
universal truth, will become the very heart of the religious 
faith of the people. Their application to the need of universal 
mankind will receive more general recognition, and conduct and 


~ 


THE COMPOSITE OF RACES AND RELIGIONS IN AMERICA, 251 


character will be influenced and perfected thereby in a measure 
never before attained. 

In this attempt to forecast the future religious faith of 
America and the religious composite which will some time come 
into being, one is necessarily handicapped by the fact that so 
little progress has been made toward the realization of any 
considerable part of it. Nevertheless it is easy to perceive the 
growing impatience of the people with theological polemic, with 
unmeaning ceremonial, with ecclesiastical and dogmatic 
authority, and with any doctrine or teaching which hghtly or 
ineffectually touches their real life. They are demanding that 
religion, like everything else, shall submit itself to the test of 
effectiveness. People are hungry for the truth which touches 
the heart of their life and are satisfied only when they get it. 
The Church will more and more heed this cry, becoming as it is 
increasingly insistent, and will come more perfectly to appre- 
hend and to fulfil its divine mission of mediating between God 
and man so that the people will come into a larger knowledge 
of their Sovereign Lord and into fuller participation in the riches 
of His Grace. 

DISCUSSION. 


The CHAIRMAN said: I have no hesitation in saying on your 
behalf as well as on my own that Chancellor McCormick has 
given us the opportunity of listening to a very interesting and 
suggestive paper on the subject which he has chosen. 

The problems of the future in the United States are not different 
to those which we have to face here in Great Britain, and it is with 
very great interest that we listen to an authoritative voice explain- 
ing to us how they are likely to be dealt with by the Great 
Republic across the Atlantic. 

I think we must all recognize the glorious spirit of optimism and 
confidence in the future which runs through the paper. Immigrants 
from some of the most backward races of Europe are pouring in by 
the hundreds of thousands, but the author feels confident that it is 
only their best and most valuable qualities which will enter into the 
composition of the future nation. So confident is the author on this 
point that he seems rather to take the fact for granted than very 
definitely to assign reasons for the conclusion. 

The most definite reason assigned is the very interesting law which 
he formulates as the power resident in first settlers to determine 
for all time the character of new communities. 


252 REV. S. B. MCCORMICK, D.D., ON 


Now I think the greatest compliment that one can pay such a 
paper as we have listened to is to give it careful consideration and 
well-weighed criticism. I will not therefore further apologise for 
asking for some fuller justification of the existence of a “law ” of 
this kind than the statement that it exists. The author tells us that 
it is only in such a country as the United States of America that it is 
possible to observe and carefully study this law. Further, since his 
historical summary shows us that until 1880 the nation was fairly 
homogeneous, it is only during the last thirty-four years, and chiefly 
during the latter part of that period, that any circumstances can 
have arisen that could test the enduring validity of the law laid 
down. Stated in this way the “law” described looks rather 
dangerously like a wide generalisation from a single instance. No 
doubt the Chancellor will be able to show that this is not really the 
case. 

The author speaks of the conflict between the intense and domi- 
nant individualism of the past in the United States and the impact 
of the social idea of nationality. We, too, are in the midst of that 
struggle, and it is encouraging to learn that the final result is not in 
doubt and to gather that that final result will be the cessation of 
all class and racial hatred and the final extinction of war. It is not 
wonderful that the author should identify the nation in which all 
this has taken place with—The Kingdom of God. It isa magnificent 
and alluring ideal. Let us hope with the author that it is certain 
to be realised. 

I have spoken of the wide sweep of the paper and the multitude 
of questions discussed in it. Not the least interesting is the 
author’s description and forecast of the future of religious thought 
in the United States, in which the spirit of democracy together with 
scientific method is to result in the purifying and socialising of the 
faith of to-day. However tempting this theme may be I must not 
occupy more of the time left for discussion. Doubtless other 
speakers will take this point into consideration. 

Lieut.-Col. ALVES noted that the lecturer had omitted to consider 
the effect of the Indian, Negro and Oriental elements on the popula- 
tion of the United States. In England this was an easy-chair 
problem ; in the States it was serious and very actual. He thought 
that the lecturer’s first law held good, as the original settlers were 
of the Anglo-Saxon race, which alone showed real genius for self- 


THE COMPOSITE OF RACES AND RELIGIONS IN AMERICA. 253 


government. Racial qualities might be classed as follows :—Saxon, 
masculine ;—Celtic, feminine ;—Negro, the servant. Under no 
circumstances should the inferior race govern the superior; nor 
should the Negro intermarry with either of the two white races. 
He could not quite accept the lecturer’s final remarks as to the 
connection between democracy and authority in religion. 

Mr. Martin L. Rowse said that such a lecture, as they had 
listened to that afternoon, warmed their blood and tended to 
strengthen still further the bonds that united Englishmen and the 
descendants of England’s first colonists in America. The misguided 
policy of the British Government a hundred and forty years ago 
had driven those colonies out of political union with ourselves ; but 
they still inherited the same common lauguage and traditions, and 
the kinship of the two countries was more treasured than ever. He 
had observed with delight the children of many different 
nationalities in a State school in Buffalo, learning to read the Word 
of God in common; and he felt that such schools were a great force 
for welding all the citizens of the country into one compact body 
imbued with the fear of God. But he was sorry that, through the 
traditions which had come down from the old slave-holding days, 
the feelings of brotherhood in Americans seemed blunted when 
dealing with one large section of their community—the Negroes. 

Mr. E. WALTER MAUNDER had been much struck with the masterly 
way in which the lecturer had arranged his paper and ordered his 
argument. The problem before the United States was a very 
difficult one, because both the proportion and the character of the 
immigration had undergone so great a change in the last generation, 
and it was natural to suppose that, under such changed conditions, 
the experience of the past was no sufficient guide as to the future. 
To meet this objection, the lecturer had formulated two laws, which 
he had defended with great force. With regard to the first 
law, many illustrations might be brought from history to support 
the lecturer’s contention. Thus, there had been a long succession of 
waves of population flowing over Greece, so that some of our best 
ethnologists claimed that the present Greeks had practically no 
racial connection with ancient Greece. Yet the Greek peasantry of 
the present day were very little changed in their characteristics from 
what the inhabitants of the same regions were three thousand years 
ago. Similarly the Ulstermen of to-day, in many points resembled 


254 THE COMPOSITE OF RACES AND RELIGIONS IN AMERICA. 


the population of the same province, as described to us by tradition, 
long before Strongbow landed in Ireland. As to the second law, he 
doubted whether the present immigrants were all of the same high 
type as the earliest. Most of those who went to America in the 
last half century or so went in search of material advantages, 
because they hoped to make a living there more easily than they 
could at home. There was no such thought before the Pilgrim 
Fathers: they gave up all their material advantages for their 
religious principles. ‘The fundamental question for any nation was 
not its physical or mental abilities, but its spiritual character : its 
attitude towards God. For this reason he had not felt quite 
satisfied with the lecturer’s closing words ; it did not lie within the 
province of man to alter religion to suit his convenience: a man- 
made religion was worthless. If they read the prophets of old, 
they would see that they always spoke as being directly commissioned 
from God ; it was always “‘ Thus saith the Lord.” 

The LECTURER in replying, thanked the meeting for the very 
kind reception they had given to him. He was not hurt by any 
criticism that had been passed on his paper; he had expected it, 
and indeed much more. Talking to a theological professor of 
Harvard College before he left home, he had told him of this paper, 
and the professor had differed from him entirely. Nevertheless 
there need be no fear of the future. He fully agreed with the 
closing words of the Secretary, Mr. Maunder. But the fact 
remained that, though the bulk of the immigrants at the present time 
might be of an inferior stock, their children were educated and 
became filled at once with the genuine American spirit. The whole 
of the country had been settled by genuine Americans, of the 
Anglo-Saxon stock, and he believed they would assimilate all the 
new material, though the Anglo-Saxon was apt not to be too 
considerate of those whom he considered his inferiors. He, the 
Lecturer, still maintained both his propositions ; he believed in God’s 
over-ruling providence, and that He was not conducting any failure 
either in England or America, Even in the questions of Mexico and 
Ulster he remained an optimist. 


The Meeting adjourned at 6.5 p.m. 


558TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING, 


HELD (BY KIND PERMISSION) IN THE ROOMS OF THE 
ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS, ON MONDAY, 
JUNE 8rtu, 1914, AT 4.30 p.m. 


THe Rev. PREBENDARY H. E. Fox ToOK THE CHaIR. 


The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed. 


The SECRETARY announced the election of the Rev. Albert J. Nast 
(Editor, Der Christliche Apologete,) and the Rev. Arthur Louis Breslich, 
B.A., B.D., President of the Baldwin-Wallace College, Berea, Ohio, as 
Associates of the Institute. 


The CHAIRMAN, in introducing the Right Rev. Dr. J. E. C. 
Welldon, Dean of Manchester, to the Meeting, said that he felt 
great pleasure in presiding on this occasion, the more so that he 
was himself an old Harrow boy, and, as all there knew, Bishop 
Welldon had been Headmaster of Harrow. The Bishop had asked 
him to apologize to the meeting on his behalf, since he would have 
to leave early in order to catch the express train to Manchester, 
where on the morrow he would be taking part in the memorial 
service for those who had lost their lives in the terrible disaster to 
the “‘Empress of Ireland.” He would, therefore, not take up any 
more time of the meeting, but would at once invite Dr. Welldon to 
give them his address. 


THE SUPREMACY OF CHRISTIANITY. . By THe Ricur 
Rev. J. KE. C. WELLDON, D.D., Dean of Manchester. 


SUMMARY. 
Ge claims to be the one ultimate universal 


religion among mankind. But the spirit of Christian mission- 
aries towards other religions than their own should, as far 
as possible, be one of sympathy. Such was St. Paul’s spirit when 
at Athens he took the inscription ’"Ayveot@ Jeo on an altar in 
the city as the basis of his appeal for faith in Jesus Christ and 
His Resurrection. I have often regretted that there is no 
epistle to the Athenians among St. Paul’s extant writings. 
The universality of the religious instinct is recognized by 
anthropologists of the highest distinction, such as Tiele and 


256 THE RIGHT REV. J. E. C. WELLDON, D.D., ON 


Tylor, and, I may add, by Frazer in his book, “The Belief in 
Immortality.” It is not difficult to trace the evolution of 
religious belief from Animism to Polytheism, then, with some 
diversion in favour of a dualistic system, such as Manichaeism 
to Monotheism, and, ultimately, to that finer Christian Mono- 
theism in which God is held to be not only one God, but to be 
the Father of all His children upon the earth. 

In the comparison of religious systems it is possible to put 
aside, as not aspiring to universal supremacy, all purely local, 
tribal, racial, or national religions. Among these religions the 
most remarkable is, of course, Judaism, as the Hebrew genius for 
veligion was unrivalled, and the Hebrew religious literature 
has been far more influential than any similar literature upon 
the moral and spiritual fortunes of humanity. Not less is it 
possible, I think, to put aside such religions as not only were 
originally, but have remained, in their essential features, 
Oriental. To this class of reigions belong Hinduism, Parseeism, 
Shintoism, and, I think it is not unfair to add, Buddhism. All 
these religions have found, and still find, their natural homes in 
the East. There was a time when the religion of Islam 
threatened to inundate Europe; but the overflowing tide was 
driven back by Charles Martel and John Sobieski, and in spite 
of Gibbon’s ironically regretful words about the lost teaching of 
the Koran in the University of Oxford, it has never seemed 
probable that Islam would become acclimatised in Europe, or 
that Mohammed would be treated as a rival of Jesus Christ. 

Two great religions there are which by a singular fortune 
have flourished, not in the countries where they were born, but 
in the countries to which they were transplanted, viz., Buddhism 
and Christianity. But Buddhism, if it migrated from India to 
Ceylon, Burma, China and Siam, never lost its Oriental character. 
Christianity is the sole example of an Oriental religion achieving 
ascendancy over the minds and hearts of nations in the West. 

I put, then, first as a proof of the supremacy which Chris- 
tianity claims among the religions of the world, that it alone has 
shown its capacity of fusing in spiritual sympathy the Hast and 
the West. Jesus Christ, it is clear, contemplated the univer- 
sality of His religion; for He bade His disciples to make 
converts of all nations. His Church, after evangelising the 
Western World, has within the last two or more centuries reacted 
upon the East, in India, in China, and in Japan. Nor is it too 
much to say that in all these countries, as also in Africa, the 
Church has proved its capacity for evoking, at least among 
certain select representatives of the native population, the 


THE SUPREMACY OF CHRISTIANITY. aM 


distinctive virtues and graces of the Christian life. It is not 
necessary to accept all the glowing tribute of a religious 
reformer like Keshub Chunder Sen to the ascendancy of Jesus 
Christ in India; but the fact remains, I believe, that even 
to-day the East and the West are never so nearly harmonized 
as when in Southern India, for example, native converts, both 
men and women, are seen kneeling side by side with Kuropean 
missionaries at the Holy Communion of Christ’s Body and 
Blood. For myself, I cherish the hope that, if India embraces 
Christianity, its intellectual and spiritual effect upon the Church 
of Christ will be surpassed only by the effect of Greece in the 
second, third and fourth centuries of the Christian era. 

Another point of Christian supremacy I hold to be the Bible. 
To me the sacred literatures of the world are, upon the whole, 
disappointing. No one of them is comparable with the Old or, 
a fortiori, with the New Testament. ‘The noble series of the 
Religious Books of the East, published under the auspices of 
the late Professor Max Miiller, has for the first time afforded 
the Western World an opportunity of acquainting itself with the 
literary expression of Oriental creeds. I can only say that those 
books are in my judgment not only inferior to the Bible, but 
that the later parts of them are generally inferior to the earlier ; 
whereas the Bible exhibits a continuous moral and _ spiritual 
advance from Genesis to Revelation. At any rate, there can be 
no higher authority upon Oriental literature than that illus- 
trious scholar, Sir William Jones, and he wrote in his Bible, “ I 
have carefully and regularly perused the Holy Scriptures, and 
am of opinion that the volume, independently of its divine 
origin, contains more sublhmity, purer morality, more important 
history, and finer strains of eloquence than can be collected 
from all other books, in whatever language they may have been 
written.” 

Yet another point of supremacy in the Creed of Christendom 
is its moral elevation. It will not, I think, be denied that 
Mohammedanism, by its toleration of slavery and polygamy, or 
Hinduism, by such practices as sati and such ceremonies as the 
holi festival, to say nothing about the worship of cows, stand 
upon a lower moral platform than Christianity. The Brahmo 
Sonia} is, in fact, on its moral side a protest against the degra- 
dation of Hinduism. Contrast with Mohammedanism or 
Hinduism the morality of the Sermon on the Mount, of whicha 
critic so dispassionate as Goethe could’ say that it represented 
the unsurpassable ideal of human conduct, and the gulf between 
Christianity and the other religions of the world at their best is 

S 


258 THE RIGHT: REV, J. E. C, WELLDON, D.D., ON 


self-evident. If I were to choose an instance as showing how 
far Jesus Christ has lifted the moral standard of humanity 
above His predecessors, I would put His treatment of the woman 
taken in adultery beside the conversation between Socrates and 
the courtezan as related by Xenophon. The Christian Saint, 
whether man or woman, 1s, in fact, the realisation of a type 
which the pre-Christian or the non-Christian world can scarcely 
imagine. 

Let me add the fidelity of the Christian revelation to human 
nature. Christianity 1s based upon the facts of man’s inherent 
sinfulness, yet his natural affinity to God, and his conscious need 
of redemption or atonement. By the doctrine of the Incarnation 
it satisfies the human desire of contact with the Deity; in the 
fact of the Crucifixion it exemplifies by a unique example the 
principle of self-sacrifice. It sets its seal upon the truth enun- 
ciated by the prophet Micah, that not in ritual or oblation, but in 
obedience to the Divine Law lies the true performance of 
religious duty. It were strange indeed:that the Bible, if it were 
a purely human book, should always take God’s side as against 
man’s; but if holy men of old spake in the Bible as they were 
moved by the Divine Spirit, then it is natural that the Bible 
should “ justify the ways of God to man.” Such a religion as 
Confucianism or Buddhism seems to stifle the human instinct of 
prayer and devotion. Other religions admit it, but fail to satisfy 
it. In Christianity alone is the spiritual side of human nature 
completely satisfied. 

Again, the progressiveness of the Christian revelation distin- 
guishes it from religions which are hidebound by some rigid 
institution, as Hinduism is by caste, or incapable, as Moham- 
medanism is, of rising above a certain level. Hinduism and 
Buddhism are stationary religions. Mohammedanism, as being 
historically later than Christianity, may be said to be a religion 
comparatively retrograde. Itis areligion of conquest; and if it 
lifts a pagan society with singular rapidity to a certain height, 
beyond that height it 1s apparently impotent to ascend. It is 
morally and spiritually weakened by its inadequate conception 
of the Godhead ; for the Mohammedan God is a God of Power ; 
the Christian God is a God of Love. 

I come then, lastly, to the person of Jesus Christ ; for it is His 
personality which gives His religion its most distinctive 
superiority to all other religions of the world. It may be not 
unfairly said that Mohammed, by the defects of his personal 
life, fails to answer the highest instincts of humanity. Buddha, 
if he was the Light of Asia, is not, and cannot be, the Light of 


THE SUPREMACY OF CHRISTIANITY. 259 


the World. There is something morally defective in the very 
renunciation which his followers treat as the birth and touch- 
stone of his religion. The sinlessness of Jesus Christ, His 
self-sacrifice, His infallible authority, His unity with God, 
separate Him from all other founders and teachers of religion. 
It is true of His Crucifixion as it is true of no other event in 
any other life, “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all 
men unto Me.” He is the Sovereign Head of humanity. If it 
is asked who is the archetypal man, the man who seems to sum 
up in himself all that humanity may be and ought to be and 
longs to be, there can be no other answer than that it is He. So, 
too, His divine eternal life, transcending death, enables Him, as 
in the Holy Communion, to impart Himself in mysterious 
intimacy to His disciples. They lvea life not their own, a life 
which He originates, preserves and sanctifies ; they are one with 
Him, and He with them. 

As I look forward and try to estimate what the future may 
portend, as I see democracy advancing to its full prerogative of 
power, as I see the nations of the Far East awakening to new 
life, I feel more and more that the supreme need of the world is 
to permeate all nations and all classes of men in the nations 
with the spivit of Jesus Christ. The religious instinct in man 
is not dead; but it demands a faith which shall satisfy both 
intellect and conscience. Christianity alone still holds the key 
of life’s abiding mysteries. In the simplification of the Christian 
Creed, or its accommodation to the variety of national characters 
and dispositions, in the approximation of the Christian Churches 
each to the others; above all, in the personal devotion which 
Jesus Christ evokes from devout hearts and minds all the world 
over, hes the hope that, as humanity develops, it will bow its 
head in humble, reverent adoration before the Incarnate and 
Crucified Son of God. 


DISCUSSION. 


The CHAIRMAN asked for an immediate and hearty vote of thanks 
to the Lecturer, since Bishop Welldon was obliged to leave at once. 
They had all listened with profit to his clear and impressive 
address. 

It was their duty to consider the religion of other races without 
prejudice, and to extend to them, as the Lecturer had done, every 

Ss 2 


260 THE RIGHT REV. J. E. C. WELLDON, D.D., ON 


fairness and sympathy. But they should agree with the Lecturer 
in his conclusion, not from the influence of their own personal 
predilections, but in accordance with the evidence of fact. He 
would draw attention to one fact in particular, namely, that there 
was a marked absence from sacred books, other than the Bible, 
of any answer to three most vital questions—questions that 
Christianity answered fully. 

Man yearns after a Supreme Being, someone outside and above 
himself to control his life. Other religions give no such concep- 
tion as that of the Fatherhood of God, declared by Christianity. 

Next came the question of access to God by sinful man ; how can 
God and man meet? The only answer possible is through Jesus 
Christ. | 

And the third question is as to where man can find the power to 
live a holy life. These three questions were answered in that noble 
formula with which they were all so familiar: The grace of Our 
Lord, Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the 
Holy Ghost.” These were only learned in Christianity; no other 
religion could produce such a benediction. 

And no other religion had the same unifying influence. He had 
witnessed some two or three hundred native converts kneeling with 
Englishmen in a wattle hut on the banks of the Godaveri to receive 
the Holy Communion, and, as he had watched the scene, he thought 
that nothing could illustrate more forcibly the ‘‘ Communion of 
Saints,” nothing else than Christianity could have brought together 
in such communion those of such different races and character. 

Lt.-Col. MAcKINLAY desired to join heartily with the Chairman in 
thanking the Bishop for his paper. He rejoiced in the statement 
that Christianity stood alone; that the religion of the Lord Jesus 
Christ was the only one ; that it was true and all others false. 

The superiority of Christianity to all other religions as to its 
world-wide character was well brought out by comparing it with 
Judaism, itself of Divine origin. The Jew was forbidden to mix 
with other races for fear of corruption to himself; he did not seek 
to make converts, and he was ordered to destroy the wickedness in 
the land of Canaan by slaying the wicked inhabitants. The 
followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, on the other hand, were ordered 
to go and preach the Gospel to every creature, and his disciples 
early obeyed this injunction, and now Christians are to be found 


THE SUPREMACY OF CHRISTIANITY. 261 


the wide world over. Heathens are not now to be destroyed, but the 
Gospel of God’s love was taken to them. 

Mr. MAuUNDER felt that the subject did not lend itself for 
discussion ; they had come to be instructed and edified by the 
Bishop, not to criticize him. He had been especially glad that the 
Bishop had pointed out so clearly that he was not taking up the 
subject of “comparative religions,” to use a current phrase, but 
was claiming that Christianity was supreme, not as the first among 
equals, but as being unique. For himself, he much disliked the 
expression “comparative religions.” St. Augustine had said that 
“God was One,” not in contrast to many gods, but because He 
“escaped numeration.” Religion meant the binding of men to God. 
So it was only where One God, the Creator of heaven and earth, 
was recognized and adored that we could properly apply the term 
“religion” at all. And there were three faiths that answered to 
that definition, and these corresponded to the three stages in God’s 
revelation of Himself. Mohammedanism was a far-off and corrupt 
echo of the patriarchal religion ; then came Judaism ; and lastly, in 
Christianity, God revealed Himself in His Son. 

Mr. E. J. SEWELL wished to comment upon a single point. To 
deal with a subject like that of the present lecture, we ought to 
endeavour to put ourselves in the position of men who had been 
brought up in other religions, and had met Christianity for the first 
time. But since we ourselves had been brought up in Christianity, 
it was impossible for us to take this standpoint. But at the great 
missionary conference, held in Edinburgh in 1910, there were not 
only gathered together men who had studied other religions deeply 
and without prejudice, but they had the testimony of men who had 
been born and brought up in other religions, and who had been 
converted to Christianity. Other religions could, and did, point out 
the difference between the characteristics of spiritual health and 
disease in men, but it was Christianity alone that supplied the 
effective power by which the diseased could be restored to health. 
No other religion opens to man a road by which he can pass from a 
state of sin to that of holiness. 

The Meeting adjourned at 5.45. 


559TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. 


HELD (BY KIND PERMISSION) IN THE ROOMS OF THE 
ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS, ON MONDAY, 
JUNE 22np, 1914, at 4.30 P.M. 


THE RicuT Hon. THe Earut or Hatspury, F.R.S., PRESIDENT 
‘OF THE INSTITUTE, OCCUPIED THE CHAIR. 


The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed and 
the SkcrRETARY announced the election of Mr. Arthur Spencer Chamber- 
lain as Member of the Institute, and of Mr. Smetham Lee as Associate. 


The PresipEnT then called upon Col. Sir Charles M. Watson, K.C.M.G., 
C.B., M.A., to deliver the Annual Address. 


ANNUAL ADDRESS. 
JHRUSALEM, PAST AND PRESENT. 
(With about 50 Lantern Illustrations.) 


By Cot. Str CHARLES M. Watson, K.C.M.G.,C.B.,M.A., Chairman 
of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 


SUMMARY. 


EGINNING with the reproduction of a raised map of 
Palestine, the original of which is to be seen at the 
offices of the Palestine Exploration Fund, the 
Map of . Lecturer briefly sketched the physical features of 
Palestine. the country, and also traced the lines of its distant 
railways. In particular, he devoted attention to 
the line which ran—if a railway could be said to run, when it 
went at not much more than a walking pace—from the seaport 
of Jaffa, on the site of the Joppa of the Acts of the Apostles, 
up to Jerusalem. 
Jerusalem is one of the most interesting cities in the world, 
a city that has a history of more than four thousand years and 
that holds the position of a sacred city for three of the most 
important religions of the world—the Jewish, the Christian, 
and the Mahomedan. It has been destroyed over and over 
again, but has always risen from the ruins, and now in the 
twentieth century, more than three thousand years since it was 


JERUSALEM, PAST AND PRESENT. 263 


adopted by King David as the capital of the Jewish monarchy, 
it is still great and thriving; a growing city for, outside the 
walls, what was called “the new Jerusalem” was steadily 
rising up. 

There are many routes to Jerusalem, but perhaps for the 
modern traveller the most usual way is to land at Jaffa, and to 


proceed thence by road or railway. Jaffa has a bad 


Tandine harbour, and landing there is frequently both 
oO ‘Aan . 
at Jatta. difficult and disagreeable on account of the 


dangerous nature of the reefs. Of the old town 
there is very little left, and the place has completely 
Town of changed, even since the times of the Crusaders, 
oes when King Richard 1. fought with Saladin under 
its walls. 

From Jaffa, it is best for the traveller to go on by train, as the 

railway runs over an interesting district, and as the train goes 
very slowly, while climbing the ascent of 2,500 feet, 
Railway to it is easy to get a good idea of the features of the 
Jerusalem. land. The railway goes first through the low 
country formerly occupied by the Philistines, and 
then turns east into the mountains of Judea by the Wady 
es-Surar, known in the Bible as the Valley of Sorek, the site of 
many battles between the Israelites and the Philistines. Then, 
passing through a narrow gorge, the railway mounts 
Jerusalem higher and higher, until it reaches the station at 
Station. Jerusalem, 2,500 feet above sea level. The railway 
station is outside the walls to the south-west, and 
a cab-ride of about three quarters of a mile—tancy 
The Jaffa, 2 cab-rank in the city of the Prophets—takes the 
Gate. traveller up to the Jaffa Gate, a busy place, the 
centre of the life of modern Jerusalem; close to 
this gate is Al Kal’a, the citadel of Jerusalem, 
founded upon the site of the palace of Herod the Great. 

The prevalent notion that Jerusalem is an exceedingly hot 
city is wrongly based, for although fairly hot in summer, it 
is very cold in winter,and the Lecturer once saw six inches 
of snow there at the beginning of March. Tourists going to 
Jerusalem certainly ought not to date their visit before the 
beginning of April at the earliest. 

To one who arrives at Jerusalem for the first time it is 
Plan of lmnpossible to realise what the ancient city was like, 
Jerusalem. aS the form of the ground has entirely altered, 
The Hills 2nd what now appears to be a comparatively level 
and Valleys. surface, covered with houses, was formerly intersected 


264 COL. SIR CHARLES M. WATSON, K,C.M.G., C.B., M.A., ON 


with several deep valleys which have been filled up with the 
ruins of the past, and have almost entirely disappeared. In 
some places this accumulation of débris is as much as 
100 feet in depth, and it is only by exploration, very difficult 
to carry out on account of the streets and houses, that one can 
get some idea of the ancient cities, now buried underground. 

The Lecturer then showed maps and plans of Jerusalem, 
locating its special features and reconstituting its appearance in 

former times. There are certain places, respecting 
Sea which there can be no doubt, such as the site of the 
an of 
Jerusalem, ‘reat Temple -of the Jews, first, built by Solomon, 
restored by Zerubbabel and again by Herod, and 
finally and completely destroyed by the Emperor Titus, more 
than 1,000 years after its original foundation. Of the ancient 
walls of the city there are but few traces left, and the very 
lines they followed are subject for discussion, while the existing 
walls are modern as Jerusalem history went, having been built 
about 400 years ago when the Turks took possession. ‘The old 
wall built by David has entirely disappeared underground, and 
can only be reached by sinking deep shafts and galleries. 
Tourists sometimes go to Jerusalem expecting to find the old 
city, and they are necessarily disappointed, because the old city 
is many feet underground. Such an expectation is as reasonable 
as that of a visitor to London who should come believing that 
he would find the old Roman city still visible. And the 
ancient Jerusalem is much further underground than Roman 
London. 

The Jaffa Gate is a good place from which to start. on an 
examination of the city. On the right is the old building 
called the Tower of David, the foundations of which may 

_ possibly be those of one of the towers of the palace 

The Pool erected by Herod the Great. On the leit is a 

of Hezekiah. yegervoir called the Pool of Hezekiah, which is 

probably part of the ditch of the second wall, and 

is referred to by Josephus as the place where the 10th Legion, 

eens the siege by Titus, set up their machines to batter the 
wall. 

A little further to the north-east is the Church 


me be of the Holy Sepulchre, the centre of Christian 
Bole pilgrimage for more than sixteen centuries. The 


most interesting feature here is perhaps the view 
of the court outside, crowded with beggars, many of them the 
most picturesque characters imaginable. These, together with 
the endless succession of pilgrims of all nationalities, make up 


JERUSALEM, PAST AND PRESEN’. 265 
a human panorama of continual and sometimes pathetic 
interest, and bring to the photographer better opportunities for 
ficure study than any other place in the world. The only time 
when this part of Jerusalem is fairly free from beggars is 
immediately after Easter, when, the devout pilgrims having 
gone on to Nazareth and other places, the beggars follow them 


almost in a body. 
The question as to whether the so-called tomb was really the 
scene of the Resurrection of the Lord is one that has given rise 


Portrait of 


to much controversy, but all that can be said with 
certainty is that it is the place which was selected 


a Beggar. hy Bishop Macarius in the fourth century, when he 
was ordered by the Emperor Constantine to find it. 
Plan of Of the buildings erected by Constantine there is 
Holy practically nothing left, and his great basilica, the 
Sepulchre. Church of the Martyrium, has disappeared with the 
Ben exception of the crypt, having been destroyed by 
mee the Persians when they captured Jerusalem in the 
seventh century. The present choir and transepts 
The Greek are comparatively recent, having been built by the 
Church. Crusaders during the Christian occupation in the 
twelfth century. 
The North The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and its 
Transept. —_ chapels are now allotted among the various denomi- 
nations of Christians who are very careful to main- 
The Holy tain their special privileges, while the Mahomedan 
Sepulchre. oyardians see that order is preserved, and that 
there is no fighting within the sacred precincts. 
Chapel of The oldest part of the Church is the Chapel of 
St. Helena. 


The Greek 


St. Helena, probably the crypt of the basilica of 
Constantine. It is cut in the rock, and at its 
eastern end a flight of steps leads down to the cave, 
in which were found, it is said, the three crosses 


Patriarch. 

upon which Jesus Christ and the two thieves were 
The crucified. The actual holy tomb beneath the dome 
Armenian —_jg underneath a canopy of quite modern construction 
Patriarch. and rather out of taste. Portraits of the Greek 

and Armenian patriarchs were shown, and a 
Piesian remarkable picture of a group of Russian pilgrims 
Pilgrims. on their way to worship at the Holy Sepulchre. 


There are no people who take so much trouble or 


come so far, or hold the pilgrimage in such regard as the 
outstanding event of their lives, and the sight in its way is 
extremely touching. 


266 COL. SIR CHARLES M. WATSON, K.C.M.G., C.B., M.A., ON 


To the south of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre are the 
remains of the Hospital of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, 
which was established for the assistance of sick and 

The poor pilgrims. The ruins of these buildings have 
Muristan. been almost completely obliterated within the last 
few years by the erection of a new. Greek bazaar, 

while the old Church of St. Mary has been entirely rebuilt by 
the Germans. It is satisfactory that the British branch of the 
Order of St. John still carry on the good work of 

British their predecessors, as they maintain an excellent 
ao tas hospital for the treatment and cure of ophthalmia, 

pes“ that terrible scourge of the East. 

Gi teeta The streets of Jerusalem are very narrow. and 
Jerusalem. many of them are very steep. They are therefore 
unsuited for wheel traffic and even for beasts of 

burden are not always convenient. In some cases the 
houses are built over the streets, an arrangement due to 
the fact that space is limited. One of the relics of 

The Ecce antiquity which is visited by every tourist is the 
Homo Arch. Arch, where, according to tradition, Pontius Pilate 
presented Jesus Christ to the people. But it could 

not have been built at the time of the Crucifixion, and probably 
dates from the time when the Emperor Hadrian rebuilt the 


city—A.D. 132—and called it Atha Capitolina. 

The Going towards the north the Damascus Gate is 
Damascus reached, the principal entrance to the city on this 
Gate. side. The present gate only dates from the 


sixteenth century, but 1t probably stands on the 
site of a much older gate in the wall built by 
King Agrippa in A.D. 41, some remains of which 


eee are still visible. 
Gare Proceeding through the Damascus Gate on the 
without. north, the Lecturer traced the wall on its northern 


and eastern sides, showing the spot where the 

crusader, Godfrey of Bouillon, effected an entrance into the 
city in 1099, subsequently becoming King of Jerusalem in 
fact, though not in name, for he said that where his Master 
had worn a crown of thorns he would not wear a crown of gold. 
From the Damascus Gate the wall of the city runs east and 
west, and nearly opposite is a hill in which is a curiously 
shaped cavern known as Jeremiah’s grotte. Not 

The North far from this is an old rock-cut tomb, which has of 
Wall. late years been assumed by some people to have 
been the real scene of the Resurrection, but there 


JERUSALEM, PAST AND PRESENT. 267 


are no good grounds for the idea, and it is doubtful whether 
the tomb could have been in existence at the time of the 
Crucifixion. 

Proceeding along the north wall one soon comes to the 
Valley of the Kedron, with the Garden of Gethsemane, and 
the Mount of Olives, with the Church of the Ascension on the 
top. None of the sacred trees, of course, remain; for when the 
Romans besieged Jerusalem they cut down every tree. The 
Turks, by their method of taxation, discourage the growth 

of the olive. Near the latter there have recently 
Remains of been found the foundations of the Church of the 
the Eleona. Eleona, built by the Empress Helena in the fourth 
century. The Church was destroyed in very early 
Apse of times, and its site was unknown until the founda- 
the Eleona. tions were recently found by accident in the 
vicinity of the modern Church of the Paternoster. 

It is interesting to compare the map of modern Jerusalem 
with the oldest plan of the city that exists. This forms part 

of a mosaic map of Palestine which was found a few 
The Medeba years ago in the ruins of an ancient church at 
Mosaic. Medeba, east of Jordan. It probably dates from 

the end of the sixth century. The mosaic has 

been much injured, but the part containing the 
Plan of plan of Jerusalem has been fairly well preserved 
Jerusalem. and gives a good idea of the city and the churches, 

as they then existed, so that it is very helpful in a 
study of the history of Jerusalem. 

A notable feature in the east wall of the city is the Golden 
Gate with its two portals, which formerly led into the Valley 

of the Kedron from the Haram area. The date of 
The Golden its erection is uncertain but it may possibly have 
Gate. been originally built in the fourth century. It was 

closed when the walls of Jerusalem were restored 
by the Turks in the sixteenth century. 

The Haram area, in the south-east portion of Jerusalem, 
corresponds more or less to the enclosure constructed by Herod 

for his great Temple. Following the east wall of 
The South- the city southwards we reach the south-eastern 
Kast Angle. corner of the Haram enclosure, a point where 
Captain Warren made some remarkable explora- 


ak Pee tions, and proved that the wall at this place is 
‘Ancle  ©COVered with 80 feet of rubbish, and that at that 
et ae depth the original foundations are as perfect as 


ground. when they were laid, possibly in the time of King 


268 COL. SIR CHARLES M. WATSON, K.C.M.G., C.B., M.A., ON 


The Solomon. The careful placing of the huge blocks 
nage of stones, both those above ground level ‘and those 
oe hidden from sight down to the solid rock below was 
a creat achievement. 
On the slope of the hill to the south stood the royal city of 
King ee which has entirely disappeared. At the foot of the 
hill is the Pool of Siloam, near to which some 
The Church interesting discoveries were made for the Palestine 
at Siloam. Exploration Fund by Dr. Bliss, who found an 
ancient church twenty feet underground, which was 
The Siloam probably built by the Empress Eudocia in the fifth 
Tunnel. and destroyed in the seventh century. Under the 
church the well-known tunnel brings the water 
The Siloam from the Virgin’s Fountain to the Pool, and in this 
Inscription. was found the famous inscription which is generally 
believed to have been cut in the time of King 
Hezekiah. 
Returning to the Haram area, there is to be seen near the 
south-west corner the remains of an ancient arch, which 
Captain Warren found to be the commencement 
Robinson’s of a grand approach to the Royal Cloister of the 
Arch, Jewish Temple. The springing of the arch is now 
close to the surface, but the valley at this point was 
originally 80 feet deeper, so great has been the accumulation of 
debris in the course of centuries. 
A little to the north of the arch the Jews, who, by the way, 
now number 50,000 in Jerusalem and are more numerous than 
the Christians or the Mahomedans, have their 
The Wailing Wailing Place whither they resort on Fridays to 
Place. lament the loss of Jerusalem and to pray for its 
create restoration. Near the south wall of the Haram is 
ape the Mosque of Aksa, originally built by the Khalif 
Abd-el-Melek in a.p. 691, but since destroyed and 
rebuilt several times. It was the head-quarters of the 
The Haram tights’ Templars during the Christian occupation 
eae of Jerusalem in the twelfth century. North of the 
Mosque of Aksa stretches the Haram enclosure 
Plan of the upon which formerly stood the great Temple of the 


Temple. Jews. That Temple has now entirely disappeared ; 
so completely has the prophecy been fulfilled that 
Temple not one stone was to be left on another. But an 


Inscription. interesting relic was found by Monsieur C. 
Ganneau in the form of one of the Greek inscrip- 
tions which, as we are told by the historian Josephus, were 


JERUSALEM, PAST AND PRESENT. 269 


placed on the barrier beyond which Gentiles were not allowed 
to pass, 
The site of the Temple is now occupied by the beautiful 
Mahomedan building in the centre of the Haram 
The Dome — enclosure, and wrongly called the Mosque of Omar. 
of the Rock. Tt is not a mosque and was built, not by Omar, but 
by the Khahf Abd-el-Melek in the seventh century 
The over the Sakhrah or Holy Rock. Its proper name 
Sakhrah, was the Dome of the Rock, and the Lecturer 
showed a remarkable view of its interior, with the 
bare rock in the place of a pavement—the rock, once the 
refuse heap of Jerusalem, but long since cleaned and sweetened, 
and made holy, and with traditions clustering around it, the like 
of which appertained to no other rockin the world. Its 
traditions relate to Abraham, Jacob, and David, and it formed 
the base of the Holy of MHolies in the Temple of King 
Solomon. 


The PRESIDENT, at the close of the lecture, proposed a hearty 
vote of thanks to the LECTURER, which was seconded by Lt.-Gen. 
Sir HENRY GEARY, K.C.B., Vice-President, and supported by the 
Treasurer, Mr. A. W. Sutton, by Professor EpwarD HULL, and 
the Ven. Archdeacon PorrEr. The LECTURER briefly replied, and 
on the motion of the Very Rev. the DEAN oF CANTERBURY the 
thanks of the Meeting were passed to the PRESIDENT for taking 
the Chair, and the proceedings terminated at 6 p.m. 


*,* The titles given in the insets are those of the chief illustrations 
shown. 


Eloh OF; THE 


ASSOCIATES, 


MEMBERS, 


COUNCIL AND OFFICERS. 


Prestvent. 


THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE EARL OF HALSBURY, 
D.C.L., F.R.S. 


Vice-Presivents. 


SIR T. FOWELL BUXTON, BART., K.C.M.G. 
DAVID HOWARD, ESQ., D. ‘Te F.C, S., EE: 
LEB UN GEN. Sik Gale: GEARY, ROA. K. CB. 
PROFESSOR EDWARD HULL, M.A., 1k D., E.R:S:, EGS, 
REV. CANON R. B. GIRDLESTONE, M.A. 

GENERAL J. G. HALLIDAY. 

VERY REV. H. WACH, D.D., Dean of Canterbury (Trustee). 


Ponorary Auditors. 
EH. J. SEWELL, ESQ. | H. LANCE GRAY, ESQ. 


Wonorary Treasurer. 
ARTHUR W. SUTTON, ESQ, J.P., F.LS. 


Secretary and Evitor of the Hournal. 
E, WALTER MAUNDER, ESQ., F.R.AS. 


Assistant Secretary. 
MR. ALBERT E. MONTAGUE. 


Council, 
(In Original Order of Election.) 


REV. CHANCELLOR J. J. LIAS, M.A. 
THEO. G. PINCHES, ESQ., LL.D., M.RB.A.S. 

VEN. ARCHDEACON W. M. SINCLAIR, M.A., D.D. 
REV. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.B.A°S. 
LIEUT.-COLONEL GEORGE MACKINLAY (Chairman). 
ARTHUR W. SUTTON, ESQ,, J.P., F.L.S. 

REV. PREBENDARY H. BE. FOX, M.A. 
PROFESSOR H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.Sc. 
RT. REV. BISHOP J. E. C. WELLDON, D.D 
SYDNEY T. KLEIN, ES@., F.LS., F.R.A.S., M.RI. 
WILLIAM J. HORNER, ESQ. 

ALFRED T. SCHOFIELD, ESQ., M.D. 

HEYWOOD SMITH, ESQ., M.A., M.D. 

REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A. 

VEN. ARCHDEACON BERESFORD POTTER, M.A. 
J. W. THIRTLE, ESQ., LL.D., M.R.A.S. 

E. J. SEWELL, ESQ 

ALFRED W. OKE, ESQ., B.A., LL.M. 

LT..COLONEL M. A. ALVES. 

REV. PROFESSOR D. 8S. MARGOLIOUTH, D.LITT. 
R. W. DIBDIN, ESQ,, F.B.G.S. 

JOSEPH GRAHAM, ESQ. 


273 


* Members of Council. 

+ Life Members or Life Associates. 

| Distinguishes those who have contributed Papers to the Institute. 
S$ Foundation Members or Associates (elected before Dec. 31, 1866). 


1914 
1876 


MEMBERS, 


A. 


Acworth, J. J. Hsq. Ph.D. F-LC. F.C.S. 
Aitken, Rev. Canon W. Hay M. H. M.A. Oxon. 


1895 *Alves, Lt.-Colonel M. A. R.E. 


1896 


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


Bs 


1882 +Baring, Rev. F. H. M.A. Camb. F.R.G.S. 
1869 +Barker, John L. Esq. 


1912 
1914, 
1901 
1873 
1910 
1908 


1907 
1912 
1884 
1907 
1913 
1896 


1912 
1891 


1914 
1894 
1904 


Baron, Rev. David. 
Baxter, William Henry, Esq. J.P. 


Bell, Colonel Alexander W. C. (late Indian Army). 


Bevan, Francis A. Esq. D.L. J.P. 

Bishop, T. B. Esq. 

Bowles, Edward Augustus, Esq. M.A. Cantab. F.L.S. 
E.E.S. 

Braun, Mrs. D. von. 

Brocklebank, Mrs. Richard M. 

Brown, Rev. Claud, M.A. Oxon. 

Bruce, Rev. John Collingwood Gainsferd, M.A. 

Burton, John T. Esq. 

Buxton, Sir T. Fowell, Bart. K.C.M.G. F.R.G.S. 
(Vice-PRESIDENT. ) 


C. 


Campbell, Charles Stewart, Esq. B.A. Camb. I.C.S. 
Carr, Rev. Arthur, M.A. late Fell. Oriel, Hon. See. 

Cent. Soc. Higher Relig. Educ. 
Chamberlain, Arthur Spencer, Esq. B.Sc. 
Chapman, Geo. John, Esq. M.A. 8.C.L. F.Z.S. 
Clough, G. Benson, Esq. 


274 


1911 Coles, Rev. J. J. B. M.A. 

1906 Collett, Sidney, Esq. 

1890 Collins, Brenton H. Esq. J.P. 

1871 +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). 
1913 Cruddas, Miss Florence. 

1897 Cunningham, Francis A. Esq. M.A. B.Sc. (Attorney- 
at-Law). 


Dy; 


1871 +Day, William, Esq. 

1903. Deacon, J. F. W. Esq. M.A. J.P. D-L. 

1889 tDodge, Rev. D. Stuart, M.A. 

1899 Drummond, Mrs. J. M. A. 

1903 Ducie, Right Hon. The Karl of, F.R.S. F.G.S. 


i. 
1882 +Ellis, Alston, Esq. A.M. Ph.D. LL.D. 


F. 


1878 Fairfax, Sir James R. 

18754 *Fox, Rev. Prebendary H. E. M.A. Camb. 
1876 Freeman, Miss F. H. 

1892 Fremlin, R. H. Esq. 


Ge 


1892 Geary, lieut.-General Sir H. LL. K.C.B. R.A. 
(V 1cE-PRESIDENT.) 

1877 YGirdlestone, Rev. Canon R. B. M.A. (VicE- 
PRESIDENT. ) 

1896 +Gregg, Rev. David, D.D. LL.D. 


jel 


1899 Halliday, General J.G. (Vice-PRESIDENT.) 

1888 {Hatspury, The Right Hon. Hardinge Stanley Giffard, 
Harl of, K.G. P.C. F.R.S. (PRESIDENT.) 

1901 Harrison, Edgar Hrat, Esq. 

1882 Head, J. Merrick, Esq. F.R.G.S. 

1893 Heath, Captain G. P. R.N. 


275 
1890 Hellier, Rev. Prebendary Henry Griffin, Balliol Coll. 


Oxon. 

1879 +Hingston, C. A. Esq. M.D. B.Sc. Lond. 

1914 Hogan, H. C. Esq. 

1895 Hooper, George Norgate, Esq. F.R.G.S. F.S.S. 

1912 _ Hopkins, Rev. Evan H. 

1906 *Horner, William J. Esq. 

1873 Howard, David, Esq. D.L. J.P. F.C.S. F.1L.C. (Vice- 
PRESIDENT.) 

1873 Howard, R. Luke, Esq. F.R.M.S. 

1888+9] 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. Soc. Geol. de Belg. 
( VICE-PRESIDENT. ) 


J. 
1891 +Jex-Blake, The Very Rev. T. W. D.D. 


K. 


1882 +Kent, Mrs. E. Isis, F.R.Inst.Soc. 

1911 King, George A. Esq. M.A. Master of the Supreme 
Court. 

1893 +Kinnaird, The Honourable Louisa E. 

1900* 4 Klem; Sydney TT: Hsq. F..S.-E.R.ACS. FRM: 
F.E.S. M.R.I. 


lp 


1913 Lamplough, Williamson, Esq. 

18914 +Lansdell, Rev. Henry, D.D. Memb. RI. Asiatic Soc. 
ERGs: 

1898 Laurence, Miss M. A. 

1911 F Lewis, Mrs. Agnes Smith, LL.D. 

18759 *Lias, Rev. Chancellor J. J. M.A. Hulsean Lecturer 
1884. 

1808 Longdon, Miss. 

1911 Llandaff, The Right Rev. Joshua P. Hughes, D.D. 
Bishop of. 


M. 


18974 *Mackinlay, Lieut.-Colonel George, late R.A. (CHatr- 
MAN OF COUNCIL.) 

1912 Maconachie, Robert, Esq. B.A. 

1885 +Marshall, Rev. C. J. 

1907 Martin, George H. Esq. M.D. 


276 


19089 +Maunder, E. Walter, Esq. F.R.A.S. (Secrerary.) 

1909 McLarty, Pharmacist Colin, U.S.N. 

1898 Molony, Edmund Alexander, Esq. (Indian Civil 
Service. ) 

1913 Monro, Rev. Charles G. M.A. M.B. 

1905 +Mortimer, Rev. Alfred G. D.D. Philadelphia. 

1881 +Mullens, Josiah, Esq. F.R.G.S. 

1911 {Munro, Rev. J. Iverach, M.A. Edin. 


N. 


1881 Newton, Rev. Canon Horace, M.A. Camb. of York. 
1911 Niblock, Rev. Alex Moncur. 


(Os 


1908*+Oke, Alfred William, Esq. B.A. LL.M. 
1891*+4Orchard, H. Langhorne, Esq. Prof. of Logic, M.A. 
B.Sc. (Gunning Prizeman, 1909.) 


le 


1881 {Patton, Rev. F. L. D.D. LL.D. Prof. Relations of 
Philosophy and Science to the Christian Religion, 
Principal, Princeton Theo. Seminary. 

1896 +Petter, Rev. W. D. H. M.A. Camb. 

1911 Phillips, Charles, Esq. F.R.G.S. 

18984 *Potter, Ven. Archdeacon Beresford, M.A. T.C.D. 


R. 


1911 Richardson, Robert D. Esq. 
1880 Rivington, Rev. Cecil 8. M.A. Hon. Canon of Bombay. 
1899 €| Rouse, Martin Luther, Esq. B.A. B.L. 


8. 


1903 Schuster, Rev. W. P. M.A. 

1882 +Scott-Blacklaw, Alex. Esq. 

19049]*Sewell, Ebenezer J. Esq. (How. Avprror.) 

1889 tSimpson, Prof. Sir Alexander R. M.D. D.Sc. LL.D. 
1873 Smith, Chancellor Philip Vernon, M.A. LL.D. 

1892 +Stilwell, John Pakenham, Hsq. J.P. 


277 


19039*Sutton, Arthur W. Esq. J.P. F.L.S. (Hon. 
TREASURER. ) 
1906 Sutton, Leonard, Esq. F.L.S. 


he 


1908 *Thirtle, James W. Esq. LL.D. M.R.A.S. 

1906 Townley, Rev. Charles F. M.A. 

1899 Tremlett, James Dyer, Esq. (Barr.-at-Law) M.A. 
Camb. 

1889 Tritton, Joseph H. Esq. F.R.G.S. F.8.S. 

18949 *Tuckwell, Rev. John, M.R.A.S. 

1883 Turton, Lt.-Col. W. H. D.S.O. R.H. F.R.G.S. 


Wl 


1889 Urquhart, Rev. John. (Gunning Prizeman, 1905.) 
1880 Usherwood, The Ven. Archdeacon T. EK. M.A. 


W. 


18769 *Wace, Very Rev. H. D.D. Dean of Canterbury; Hon 
Chap. to the Queen; late Principal of King’s 
College, Lond. (TrRustes.) (Vice-PResiDEN’.) 

1873 Walters, William Melmoth, Esq. 

1878 +Watson, Rev. A. Duff, M.A. B.D. 

1914 Wetherfield, David A. F. Esq. 

1903 +Whidborne, Miss Alice M. 

1910 Whidborne, Mrs. G. F. 

1899 Wigram, Rev. H. F. HE. M.A. 

1910 Wilkinson, Rev. Samuel Hinds, F.R.G.S. 

1894 Willams, Colonel Robert, M.P. 

1879 Willis, Right Rev. Alfred, D.D. 


Be 
1876 Young, C. HE. Baring, Esq. M.A. F.R.G.S. 


1878 
1888 


1905 
1887 
1914: 
1887 
eS) 
1909 
1891 


1914 
1906 
1912 
1918 
1911 
1912 
LOE 
1912 
1895 
1902 
Oil 
1909 
1913 


1906. 


1887 
1894, 


1890 
1888 


ASSOCIATES. 


Adams, Rev. Canon James. 


+Anprews, Rt. Rev. Walter, M.A. Bishop of Hokkaido, 


Japan. 
Arnstrom, Rev. D. A. 
Arrowsmith, KE. M. Esq. 
Ash, William Henry, Esq. J.P. 
Ashby, Robert, Esq. 
Ashwin, Rev. Edward Godfrey, M.A. Camb. 
Ashwin, Rev. Hamilton, LL.D. T.C.D. 


+Atkinson, Rev. Edward, D.D. Master Clare Coll. 


Cambridge. 

Avenell, George, Esq. 

Baker, Lt.-Colonel W. W. R.E. 

Balfour, Frederick R. 8. Esq. M.A. Oxon. 

Balfour of Burleigh, The Right Hon. Lord. 

Banham, Rev. William, B.A. 

Barbour, Mrs. G. 

Bardsley, Rev. Joseph Udell Norman, M.A. 

Barker, Miss Marian. 

Barlow, Rev. C. H. M.A. Oxon. Chap. Bengal. 

Barton, Rev. Professor G. A. Ph.D. 

Baumer, Miss KE. M. 

Beachcroft, Miss Mary. 

Benjamin, Edgar A. Esq. 

Bent, Mrs. Theodore. 

Berry, Rev. Canon D. M. M.A. Oxon. Demy of Magd. 
Ellerton Prizeman. 

Bevan, Ven. Archdeacon H. HK. J. M.A. Camb. 
Gresham Prof. of Divinity. 


+Bigelow, Professor Melville M. Ph.D. 


Bird, Arthur, Esq. F.R.G.S. 


1904 +Birkett, Rev. Arthur Ismay, M.A. 


1911 
1910 
1910 
1879 
roe 
1905 
1900 
1890 


Bishop, Herbert M. Esq. M.D. Yale. . 
Bishop, Miss Lisa. 

Bishop, Miss Penelope M. 

Bishop, Mrs. Amy. 

Blackburn, Rev. Eastwood, M.A. L.Th. 

Blandy, Miss Grace. 

Bolton, Miss Elsie H. 

Bomford, Rev. L. G. M.A. 


279 


1902 Boord, Miss Eva J. 

1911 Braddon, John B. Esq. 

i912. Bramwell, Miss Cecilia. 

1914 Bramley-Moore Swinfen, Esq. 

1895 Breed, Rev. Professor David R. D.D. 

1895 Breed, Rev. F. W. B.A. Durham. 

1914 Breslich, Rev. President Arthur Lonis B.A. B.D 
Baldwin-Wallace College, Ohio, U.S.A. 

1887 Bridgeman, Col. the Hon. Francis C. 

1882 Broadbent, Colonel J. E. 0.B. R.E. 

1900 Brown, J. Walter, Esq. 

1889 Browne, John, Esq. C.E. 

1911 Bruce, Sir Charles, G.C.M.G. 

1893 +Bryan, Joseph Davies, Esq. 

1913 Buchanan, Rev. L. G. M.A. 

1911 Burn, Major Henry Pelham. 

1893 Buswell, Ven. Archdeacon H. D. 

1892 +Butt, Rev. Canon G. H. B.A. 

191lL Buxton, Thomas Fowell Victor, Esq. M.A. Camb. 

1912 Cesar, Charles Edward, Esq. F.S.I. 

1889 +Cain, Rev. John. 

1910 Candy, Charles Harrison, Esq. B.A. LL.M. Camb. 

1912 Cartwright, George, Esq. 

1907 Carus- Wilson, Henry, Esq. 

1889 +Caudwell, Eber, Esq. M. R C.S.E. L.B.C.P. 

1890 +Caudwell, ae Esq. B.A. 

1906 Chambré, poe H.W: Adan, 

1889 Chatterton, Rev. F. W. 

1884 Chichester, Rev. E. A. M.A. R.D. Hon. Canon of 
Winchester. 

1909 Chichester, Henry H. lL. Esq. 

1911 Churchill, Miss Louisa. 

1888 Clyde, Rev. J. C. A.B. A.M. D.D. 

1891 +Cobern, Rev. Prof. Camden M. B.A. S.T.B. Ph.D. 

1911 Cochrane, Rev. Archibald, M.A. Camb. 

1893 Cockin, Rev. J. 

1905 Collison, Harry, Esq. M.A. Barr. 

1885 +Coote, S. V. Esq. M.A. Oxon. F.R.G.S. 

1877 Crewdson, Rev. Canon G. M.A. Camb. 

1890 Crosbie, Rev. Howard A. M.A. 

1914 Danson, Francis Chatillon, Esq. F.S.A. 

1884 Daunt, The Ven. Archdeacon W. M.A. 

1876 Dawson, Rev. W. M.A. F.R.H:S. 

1880 Day, Rev. A. G. M.A. Oxon. 

1888 Deedes, Ven. Archdeacon Brook, M.A. 

1913 Denyer, Rev. George. 

1908 Derr, Andrew F. Esq. M.A. 
1890 +De Witt, Rev. Prof. John, D.D. 


1898 
1874: 


nial 


Jeet 
1888 
1885 


1883 
1891 
L910 


280 


*Dibdin, R. W.. Esq. ERGs. 
Dimond- Churchward, Rev. Prebendary M. D.. M.A. 
Dreaper, Miss Anna B. 
Dubois, Ernest A. Esq. 
Duneatn, The Rt. Ban H.L. Mulholland, Lord, D.L. 
DuruHam, The Rt. Reverend H. C. G. Moule, D.D. 
Bishop of. 
Ebbs, Miss Hllen Hawkins. 
Hckersley, Rev. Jas. M.A. 
Edensor, Miss Florence M. 


18859 +Elwin, Rev. Arthur. 


1909 
1886 
1899 


Evans, George, Esq. 
Evans, Mrs. James Joyce. 


Fairbairn, H. A. Esq. M.D. M.A. 


1899 +Farquharson, Mrs. M. 


1892 
1876 
1879 
1914 
1885 
1881 


1900 


Feilden, J. Leyland, Esq. 

Field, Rev. Arthur T. M.A. Camb. 

Finnemore, Rev. J. M.A. Ph.D. F.G.S. 

Fitzgerald, Thomas, Esq. 

Fleming, Rev. R. H. B.A. D.D. 

Fleming, Sir) Sandtord, KeC.M.G.7 hii, Sa Ga: 
F.R.G.S. V.-President Royal Soc. of Canada. 

Flint, Charles A. Esq. 


1889 +Fioripa, The Right Rev. E.G. Weed, D.D. 8.T.D. 


Bishop of. 


1897 (Flournoy, Rev. Parke Poindexter, D.D. (Gunning 


Prizeman, 1912.) 


1915 }+Flournoy, Professor Theodore. 
1894 +Forster, Miss EK. J. 
18824 ft Fox, C. Dillworth, Esq. 


1913 


Fox, Miss Selina F. M.D. B.S. 


1904 QFrost, Edward P. Esq. D.L. J.P. 


eat 
1900 


Fussell, Rev. James C. L.Th. 
Gardiner, Miss Grace Dorothea. 


1873 +Gardner, Mrs. Ernest L. 
QF +Gedge, Sydney, Hsq. M.A. F.R.G.S. 


1899 
hall 
1908 
1913 
1903 
1914 
TOE 
1913 
1881 
1910 
1914 
1877 


Gibbon, Colonel J. Aubrey, R.E. 

Gibson, Mrs. Margaret Dunlop, LL.D. D.Litt. 

Given, J. C. M. Esq. M.D. M.R.C.P. 

Gladstone, Robert, Esq. 

Goodridge, Richard H. W. Esq. 

Gosset-T'anner, Rev. James, M.A. Oxon. 
*Graham, Joseph, Ksq. 

Grantham-Hill, W. St. G. Esq. M.D. M.R.C.S 

Gray, Charles, Esq. 

Gray, H. Lance, Esq. (Hon. Avupitor.) 

Greenlees, Archibald, Esq. 

Greenstreet, Colonel W. L. R.E. 


281 


1897 Greer, Mrs. Thomas. 

1881 Grey, Rev. Principal H. G. M.A. 

1915 Grindley, Miss Edith. 

1901 €Griswold, Rev. H. D. M.A. Ph.D. 

1887 Gutch, George A. Esq. C.E. 

1910 Habershon, Miss A. 

1914 Haigh, Alfred, Esq. 

1903. Hamlyn-Harris, Dr. Ronald, D.Sc. F.G.S. F.L.8. 

1899 Harlowe, David, Esq. 

1878 Harper, The Ven. Archdeacon H. W. M.A. 

1911 Hawtayne, W. C. C. Hsq. M.I.E.E. 

1911 Heath, Robert, Esq. 

1904 Heaton, James, Esq. Memb. Soc. Arts. 

1913. Heaton, Rev. W. J., B.D., F.R.Hist.S. 

1908 +Hemming, Miss A. E. 

1889 +Herbert, Rev. Edward P. 

1896 Hewitt, David Basil, Esq. B.A. L.R.C.S. L.R.C.P. 
J.P 


1882 Hicks, Rev. Edward, M.A. D.D. D.C.L. 

1891 Higgens, T. W. EH. Esq. A.M.I.C.H. 

1892 +Hildesley, Rev. Principal A. H. M.A. Sanawar. 

1912 +Hill, Prof. W. Bancroft. 

1908 Hodgkin, Miss Alice Mary. 

1902 +Hogarth, Rev. Oswald J. M.A. 

1912 Hogg, Mrs. C.S. 

1911 Holmes, Mrs. Mabel. 

1883 +Houstoun, G. L. Esq. 

1902 Howard, Sir Frederick, D.L. J.P. 

1888 Howard, Joseph, Esq. B.A. Lond. J.P. F.R.G.S. 

1911 Hughes, Thomas George, Esq. 

1897 Hutton, Henry, Esq. 

1890 Hyslop, Rev. James, M.A. Ph.D. 

1904 Irving, Rev. Alexander, D.Sc. F.G.S. 

1902 +Jacob, Colonel Sir 8S. Swinton, K.C.LE., C.V.O. 

1914 James, Miss Ethel Denison, B.A. 

1898 Janvier, Rev. Cesar A. Rodney, M.A. (Princeton). 

1902 Jessop, Arthur, Esq. 

1912 Johns, Rev. C. H. W. M.A. Litt.D. Master of 
St. Catherine’s College, Camb. 

1910 Johnson, Miss E. Zoé. 

1911 Johnson, Rev. Gifford H. M.A. 

1896 +Johnstone, Miss J. A. 

1912 Karslake, John B. P. Esq. M.A. F.S.A. 

IF Kemble, Mrs. Stephen Cattley. 

1915 Kerr, Robert, Esq. 

1887 Kirkpatrick, Rev. R. C. M.A. Oxon. and Dub. 

1880 +Knight, Rev..C. F. M.A. Camb. 

1884 Lach-Szyrma, Rev. W. S. M.A. Oxon. 


282 


1905 Lampe, Rev. Joseph J. D.D. Ph.D. 

1913 Lancaster, Rev. George Harold, M. A F.R.A.S. 

1914 Laughton, Colonel A. F. C.B. 

1873 Lawrence, Ven. Archdeacon C. D. M.A. 

1873. > lhea, Miss Gon: 

1914: Lee, Smetham, Esq. 

1905 - Lees, Rev. Harrington Clare, M.A. 

1901 Lerroy, The Right Rev. G. A. D.D. Bishop of Calcutta. 
India. 

1911 Leslie, Wilson Edwards, Esq. 

1873 +Lewis, Rev. J. S. M.A. 

1911 Lightfoot, Rev. J. A. M.A. Oxon. Principal C.M.S. 
College, Islington, N. 

1897 Linton, Rev. E. C. M.A. Camb. 

1883 +Lock, Rev. W. M.A. D.D. Oxon. Fell. Jun. Bursar and 
Tutor of Magdalen, Warden of Keble College. 

1892 +Logan, The Honourable James D. 

1901 Liénnbeck, Fredrick Waldemar, Stockholm. 

1909 Lovely, Rev. F. Cecil, B.A. Oxon. 

1887 Lowber, Rev. Chancellor J. W. M.A. LL.D. D.C.L. 
Se.Ds Ph.D. P:S.D. EABsG Sith) Mee 

1888 Lowrie, Rev. S. T. M.A. D.D. 

1910 Macgregor, Colonel Henry Grey, CB. 

1913 Macgregor, Ronald, Esq. 

1909 MacEwan, Miss Madge D. 

1914 Mackinlay, Miss Norah Ure. 

1882 Maitland, Rev. H. F. M.A. Oxon. 

1912 +tMajor, Charles H. F. Esq. 

1911 Mansel-Pleydell, Rev. J. C. M. M.A., Canon of 
Salisbury. 

1911 +Manson, Miss Amy. 

191441*Margolicuth, Rev. Prof. David 8. M.A. D.Litt. 

190949*Marston, Rev. Herbert J. R. M.A. Durh. 

1913 Martin, John Benjamin, Hsq. 

1893 +Martineau, A. H. Esq. (Ind. Civ. Serv.). 

18924 +Masterman, E. W. Gurney, Esq. M.D. Durh. F.R.C.S. 
WEG eee 

1901 Matthews, Ernest R. Esq. A.M.I.C.E. F.G.S. 

1913 +Maunder, Mrs. Annie Scott Dill. 

1912 Maunder, George William, Esq. 

1909 Maunsell, Rev. F. W. M.A. Dub. 

1888 Maxwett of Calderwood, Lady. 

1911 YMcCormick, Rev. Samuel Black, D.D. LL.D. Chan- 
cellor of Pittsburg University, 

1913. MecNeile, Capt. Malcolm, R.N. 

1892 F Mello, Rev. J. Magens, M.A. F.G.S. 

1889 Millingen, J. R. Van, Esq. 

SF Milner, Rev. W. M. H. M.A. F.R.G.S. 


1911 
1903 
1899 
1892 
1913 
1907 
1912 
1882 
1878 
1893 
1914 
1871 
1885 
1914. 
1888 
1887 


1912 
1879 
1886 
1880 
1902 


1914, 
1911 
1913 
1883 
1903 
1885 


1913 
1894. 


1911 
1908 
tots 
1887 
1908 
1911 
1884. 
1881 


283 


Minifie, Rev. William C. Ph.D. D.D. F.R.S.L. 
Mireurnson, Right Rev. Bishop J. D.D. D.C.L. 
Moffat, Rev. J. S. C.M.G. 


+Molony, Major Francis A. R.E. 


Monck, Wm. Henry Stanley, Esq. M.A. 
Moore, Rev. Henry N. M.A 

Morier, Miss A. C. 

Moule, Ven. Archdeacon A. E. B.D. D.D. 


+Mullings, John, Ksq. 


Munt, Harry G. Esq. 
Nast, Rev. Albert J. M.A. D.D. 


+Nelson, J. H. Esq. M.A. 
+Neve, A. Esq. F.R.C.S. L.R.C.P. Edin. 


Newbegin, Algernon Montague, Esq. F.R.A.S. 


+Nimr, Faris, Esq. (Ed. ‘‘ Mouktataf’’), Cairo. 


Norbury, Inspector-Gen. Sir H. F. K.C.B. M.D. 
F.R.C.S. K.H.S, R.N. 
Nugent, Miss Sophia M. A. 


+Oake, Rev. R. C: 


Oates, Rev. Alfred. 

O’Dell, Professor Stackpool E. 

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. 

Orr, Frederic Layton Esq. M.D. Lond. 

Outram, Francis D. Esq. late Lieut. R.E. A.M.I.C.E. 

Panin, Ivan, Esq. 

Paterson, Rev. T. M. B. 

Payne, George Herbert, Esq. 


tPayne, J. A. Otonba, Esq. F.R.G.S. Chief Registrar 


and ‘Taxing Master of the Supreme Court of Lagos. 
Payne, Rev. W. Laporte. 
Peake, Professor A. S., M.A. D.D. Oxon. Fell. 
Merton, late Tutor Mansfield Coll. Oxon. 
Pearce, The Dowager Lady. 
Peirce, Harold, Esq. 
Pelly, Mrs. Agnes H. 


+Penford, Rev. E. J. 


Perkins, E. Walter, Esq. 
Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Miss Mary H. 

Piper, F. H. Esq. 

Pippet, Rev. W. A. 

Plaister, William Henry, Esq. M.R.C.S. 
Plantz, Rev. President Samuel, D.D. Ph.D. 
Poate, William Henry, Esq. 

Pratt, Rev. J. W. M.A. D.D. 


+Priestley, Rev..d: J: 8: P:G: 
+Pringle, of Torwoodlee, Mrs. 


284 


1903 Proctor, Henry, Esq. H.M.C.S. M.R.A.S. F.R.S.L. 

1912 Radstock, The Rt. Hon. Lord. 

1891 Reddie, deena Esq. 

1876 Rendell, Rev. Canon A. M. M.A. Gaue 

1899 Revie, Dugald, Esq. M.B. C.M. Glas. Univ. late Free 
@hares of Scot. wee eal Mission. 

1877 » Rhodes, Rev. D. 

1911 Rice, Philip, Esq. M.D. 

1912 Ridley, Rev. John. 

1885 Riggs, Rev. J. F. B.A. M.A..D.D. 

1910 Roberts, Rev. Samuel. 

1899 Robinson, Rev. Andrew Craig, M.A. 

1895 Robinson, Maj.-General C. G. R.A. 

1911 Rose, Reverend P. 

1908 Rouse, Miss Ellen. 

1912 Rudd, H. P. Esq. 

1891 St. Johns, New Brunswick Free Pub. Lib. 

1913 Saulez, Rev. William H. M.A. B.D. 

1903 Salmensaari, Herra Sulo, M.A. Finland. 

1881 Sandford, H. Esq. 

1895 SasxaTcHEewan, Rt. Rev. J. Newnham, D.D. Bishop of. 

1891*4 Schofield, Alfred Taylor, Esq. M.D. 

1908 Schwartz, John, Esq. Junior. 

1912 Scott, John, Esq. J.P. 

1906 Searle, Malcolm W. Esq. K.C. M.A. LL.B. 

1876 +Seeley, Rev. E. 

1910 Shann, William Arthur, Esq. M.B. Cantab. 

1875 YSharp, Rev. J. M.A. Queen’s Coll. Oxon.; late Editorial 
Superintendent, Bible Soc. 

1882 Shepherd, Mrs. F. Wolfskill De. 

1911 Sheppard, Rev. James W. ffranck, M.A. Dub. 

1901 +Sherard, Rev. Clement EK. M.A. Camb. 

1882 Shore, Captain the Hon. H. N. RN. 

1906 Sidebottom, Colonel W. J.P. 

18769 *+Sinclair, The Ven. Archdeacon W. Macdonald, M.A. 
D.D. form. Sch. of Balliol, Oxon. 

1903 Stnearorn, Rt. Rev. C. J. Ferguson Davie, Bishop of. 

1909 Skrine, Rey. fH aie eS 

1892 Smith, Hon. Sir Charles Abercrombie, M.A. Fell. 
St. Peter’s Coll. Camb. 

1873 Smith, Major-General H. Davidson. 

1896 Seats His Honor Judge George Hugh. 

1893 Smith, Sir George J. J. Pees 

1906 “Smith, Heywood, Esq. M.A. M.D. 

1891 Smith, S. Ashley, Esq. M.D. 

1901 +Smith-Bosanquet, Miss Ella. 

1914 Smith, Mrs. Helen Dill, M.D. B.Ch. 


285 


Ol 


1914 Smith, Lt.-Colonel Henry I.M.S. V.H.S. B.A. M.D. 
M.Ch. M.A.O. 

1902 Smyth, William Woods, Esq. L.R.C.S. L.R.C.P. L.M. 

1913. Solade-Solomon, J. EH. Esq. 

1879 (Statham, H. J. Esq. A.I.C.E. 

1914. Sterry, John, Hsq. 

1911 Stevens, Rev. Thomas Palmer. 

1879 +Stewart, Alex. Esq. 

1912 Stewart, Rev. David Alexander, M.A. Camb. 

1872 Stewart, Sir Mark J. McTageart, Bart. M.A. M.P. 

1918 Stock, Eugene, Esq. D.C.L. 

1890 +Stokes, Anson Phelps, Esq. Vice-Pres. XIX Cent. 
Club U.S.A. Memb. Council 8.S. Assoc. 

1894 Stokes, James, Hsq., Officer of the Legion of Honour. 

1887 Stokes, Rev. W. Fenwick, M.A. 

1903 Stovin, Mrs. Caroline. 

1911 Strange, Miss Mary R. 

1902 *Strong, John Alexander, Esq. 

1902 +Strong, Rev. Rupert S. M.A. Camb. 

1914 Sutton, Martin Hubert Foquett, Esq. F.L.S. F.R.G.S. 

1895 Swinburne, Hon. George, C.EH. 

1899 Symonds, Hon. J. W. 

1899 +Talmage, Professor James E. Ph.D. F.R.M.S. F.G.S. 
WOR.S oH. W.G.S:A. 

1913 Tambyah, T. Isaac, Esq. 

1882 Taylor, Rev. Hugh Walker, M.A. 

1891 +Taylor, Rev. Stephen, B.A. Corpus C. Coll. Camb. 

1905 Thomas, Rev. W. H. Griffith, D.D. late Principal 
Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. 

1911 Thornton, Rev. Claude Cyprian, M.A. Camb. 

1906 Tindall, Miss Caroline. 

1910 Titterington, Edw. J. G. Esq. M.A. 

1909" Wrench, EP. P. Hsq. MB. R:C.S. Edin. 

1911 Trotter, Mrs. Edward. 

1902. Trumbull, C. G. Esq. Philadelphia. 

1882 Turrie, Right Rev. D. 8. D.D. Bishop of Missouri. 

1902 Twigg, John Hill, Esq. late India Civil Service. 

1912 Van Someren, Colonel G. J. 

1913 Vickers, Miss M. B.Sc. 

1912 Vismes, H. J. H. de Esq. 

1893 Waller, Rev. C. Cameron, M.A. Camb. Principal of 
Huron Coll. 

1889 +Wallis. Right Rev. Fr ederic, D.D. late Bishop of 
Wellington. 

1892 Walter, Rev. H. M. M.A. Oriel Oxon. 

1913 Walton, Rev. Wm. H. Murray, B.A. Camb. 

1894 Ward, H. B. Esq. 

1881 ' Waring, F. J. Esq. C.M.G. M.Inst.C.H. 


286 


1895 Way, the Right Hon. Sir Samuel James, D.C.L. LL.D. 
Chief Justice S. Aust. 

1895 Weaver, George M. Esq. 

1879 Webb- Peploe, Rev. Prebendary H. W. M.A. Camb. 

1911 Wedekind, George Hermann, Hsq. 

1893*+1WELLDON, Right Rev. Bishop J. H. C. D.D. Dean of 

Manchester. 

1911 Weller, William, Esq. 

1887 Wherry, Rev. H. M. D.D. Lodhiana, Punjab, India. 

1907 ¢@White, Rev. G. E. M.A. D.D. Dean of Anatolia 
College. 

1882 White, Rev. J. M.A. T.C.D. Hon. M.A. Maged. Oxf. 

1912 White, W. Duncan, Esq. 

1894 +Whitehead, Rev. George, B.A. Lond. 

1911 Whitfield, Peter, Hsq. 

1881 Whiting, Rev. J. Bradford, M.A. Camb. 

1914 Wigeg, Charles Barnard, Esq. M.I.E.E. 

18709 +Whitmee, Rev. 8. J. F. e G.S. Cor. Mem. Z.S. 

1881 +Williams, H. S. Esq. M.A. F.R.A.S. A.C. 

1876 Willams, Right Rev. William Leonard, B.A. late 
Bishop of Waiapu. 

1896 +Wills, Harold Temple, Esq. M.A. B.Sc. 

1910 Wilson, Henry, Esq. 

1912 Wingate, Sir Andrew, K.C.1.E. 

1885 Winslow, Rev. W. C. D.D. D.C.L. LL.D. L.H.D. D.Se. 
S.T.D. Ph.D. Amer. Vice - President Egypt 
Exploration Fund. 

1913. Winstone, Miss Jessie. 

1889 +Winter, The Ven. Archdeacon G. Smith. 

1877. Wood, The Venerable A. Maitland, M.A. Archdeacon 
of Macclesfield. 

1893. Wood, Peter F. Esq. F.R.G.S. 

1899 Wood, Walter James, Hsy. F.R.M.S. 

1914 Wood, John, Esq. Hon. Sec. Evangelization Soc. and 
Evangelical Alliance. 

1892 +Woodd, Rev. C. H. Basil, M.A. Camb. Nat. Sci. Trip. 
1890, M.A 

1913 Woods, Rev. W. Hervey, D.D. Litt.D. 

1913. Wolsey, Miss Florence. 

1877 Worthington, T. Esq. B.A. T.C.D. 

1903 +Wright, Rev. Ernest Alexanderson, M.A. 

1912 Wyatt, Herman Richard, Esq. 

1914 Wynne, Mrs. H. 

1912 Yeldham, Miss F. A., B.Sc. 

SF = Young, Rev. Charles, M.A. Camb. 

1912 Young, Sir W. Mackworth, KG.81, 


i) 
10) 
=~] 


MISSIONARY ASSOCIATES. 


Anstey, Rey. Martin, M.A. B.D. London City Mission, E.C. 

Baylis, Rev. F. Ferndale, Warren Road, Reigate. 

Bomford, Rev. Trevor, M.A. Hdward’s College, Peshawar, Punjab. 

Byrde, Rev. Louis, B.A. Yung Chow Fu, Hunan, China. 

Carpentaria, Right Rev. Bishop of Thursday Island, Queensland. 

Cavalier, Rev. A. R. Lindula, Northwood, Middlesex. 

Elwin, Rev. W. H. B.A. 7, Sasugaya Cho, Koishikawa, Tokyo. 

Fisher, Rev.: William M.A. Kingham Rectory, Chipping Norion. 

Joseland, Rev. Frank P. Amoy, China. 

Moore, Rev. E. A. L. Royapet House, Madras. 

Moule, Ven. Archdeacon W. 8S. M.A. Ningpo, China. 

Mylrea, C. Stanley G. Esq. M.D. Kowezt, Persian Gulf. 

Reade, Miss F. Theological Library, Cuddalore, S. India. 

Robinson, Miss L. G. Berhampore, Bengal. 

4 Thornton, Right Rev. Bishop 8. D.D. 80, Elsham Road, W. 

Turner, Rev. G. Reynolds, M.B. Hwei-an-hsein, S. China. 

Wilkinson, Rev. D. H. D. M.A. 29, Murray Road, Wimbledon. 

Willis, The Ven. Archdeacon W. L. Cambridge, Auckland, New 
Zealand. 


288 


LIBRARY ASSOCIATES. 


Adelaide Public Library, South Australia. 

Berlin Royal Library (per Asher & Co.). 

Birmingham Free Library. 

Boston Public Library (per Kegan Paul & Co.). 

Chicago Public Library. 

Chicago University, U.S.A. 

Cornell University, U.S.A. 

Dublin Society, Royal. 

Harvard University (per Kegan Paul & Co.). 

Libraire Le Soudier, 1748, St. Germaine, Paris. 
Manchester, The John Rylands Library. 

Melbourne Public Lib. and Museum, Melbourne, Victoria. 
Michigan, University of Ann Arbor. 

Mitchell Library (F. T. Barrett, Esq.), 21, Miller Street, Glasgow. 
Newcastle-on-Tyne Public Library. 

New York Public Library, New York, U.S.A. 
Nottingham Public Library. 

Ottawa, Library of Parliament. 

Preston, Public Library. 

Rochester Theological Seminary, U.S.A. 

Rugby School Library. 

St. Andrews University Library. 

Sydney Free Library, New South Wales. 

Texas University, Austin, Texas, U.S.A. 

Wellington, New Zealand, General Assembly Rooms Library. 
Yale University Library, New Haven, Conn., U.S.A. 


289 


SOCIETIES EXCHANGING TRANSACTIONS WITH 
THE INSTITUTE. 


American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 
American Geographical Society. 
American Geological Society. 

American Journal of Archeology. 
American Journal of Philology (Johns Hopkins Press). 
American Philosophical Society. 
Anthropological Society, New York. 
Anthropological Society, Washington. 
Archeological Institute of America. 
Canadian Institute. 

Colonial Museum of New Zealand. 
Geographical Society of California. 
Geographical Society of the Pacific. 
Geological Society. 

Harvard Museum of Comp. Zoology. 
Manitoba Historical and Scientific Society. 
New Zealand Institute. 

Nova Scotian Inst. of Natural Science. 
Royal Asiatic Society, Bombay. 

Royal Colonia! Institute. 

Royal Dublin Society. 

Royal Geographical Society. 

Royal Institution. 

Royal Irish Academy. 

The Royal Society. 

Royal Society of Canada. 

Royal United Service Institution. 
Smithsonian Institution (Washington). 
Société Scientifique du Chili. 

Society of Arts. 

Society of Biblical Literature, U.S. 

Soc. Bib. Lit. and Exeg., Boston. 

Sydney Museum, New South Wales. 
United States Bureau of Ethnology. 
United States Geological Survey. 

United States Government Geological and Geographical Survey. 
United States Government Reports. 


290 


HON. CORRESPONDING MEMBERS. 


HOME. 


1892 Clifford, Right Rev. A. D.D. 

1890 4 Geikie, Paes James, D.C.L, bb). ES. i. RS. hao 
Prof. Geo. and Min. Uniy. Edin. Hon. Mem. Phil. Soc. 
York, Geo. Soc. Stockholm and Geo. Paleo. Hydrol. 
Belg. Memb. Amer. Phil. Soc. Cor. Memb. Acad. Sci. 
Phila. 31, Merchiston Avenue, Edinburgh. 

1881 Guppy, H. B. Esq. M.B. F.G.S. Mem. Min. Soc. &c. Rosario, 
Salcombe, S. Devon. 

1903 Howorth, Sir Henry H. K.C.LE. F.R.S. 30, Collingham 
Place, S.W. 

1888 Hughes, Prof. T. MK. M.A. F.R.S. F.S.A. F.G.8.; Wood- 
wardian Prof. of Geology, Cambridge, Trin. Coll. 
Camb. Ravensworth, Brooklands Avenue, Cambridge. 

1886 Mylne, Right Rev. L. G. D.D. Alvechurch fRectory, 
Birmingham. 

1903 “Petrie, Prof. W. M. Flinders, D.C. Lith) aia: 
F.R.S.18, Well Road, Hampstead, N.W. 

1889* Pinches, Theo. G. Esq. LL.D. Sippara, 10, Oxford Road, 
Kilburn, N.W. 

1912 Royston, Rt. Rev. P. 8. D.D. 

1889 {Sayce, Rev. Prof. A. H. M.A. LL.D. Fellow and Tutor 
Queen’s Coll. Oxford. 

1899 Turner; Sir William, VD. UB iD) DCL sc. bak: 
Prof. Anatomy, Univ. Edin. 6, Hton Terrace, Hdinburgh. 

1890 Wakefield, Right Rev. G. R. Eden, D.D. Bishop of. 

1905° Woodward, Dr. Henry, F.R.S. F.G.S. 129, Beaufort Street, 
Chelsea. 


FOREIGN. 


1895 His Masesty Kina Momotu Massaquor, West Africa. 

1881 Abbe, Professor Cleveland, M.A. Assistant in the office of 
the Chief Signal Officer of the Weather Bur eau, U.S.A, 

1883 Beckwith, The Right Rev. J. W. D.D. U.S.A. 

1884 Herzog, Right Rew EK. D.D. Bishop of the Old Catholic 
Ch, of ier eniaee Berne. 

1895 Hilprecht, Rev. Professor H. V. D.D. Univ. of Pennsyl- 
vania. U.S.A. 

1893 Hommel, Prof. Fritz, Ph.D; Li.D, Prot, oi Semiue 
Languages in Univ. of Munich, Leopolds Strasse, 
Munich. 


291 


1889 d’Hulst, Count Riamo, Cairo. 

1878 Jaggar, Right Rev. Bishop T. A. D.D. Bishop of S. Ohio, 
Episcopal’ Rooms, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A. 

1895 Lugard, His Excellency Brigadier-General Sir F. J. D. C.B. 
D.S.O. Governor of Hong Kong. 

1896 FMacloskie, Prof. G.,D.Sc. LL.D. Prof. Biology (Princeton), 
U.S.A. 

1883 {Maspero, Prof. Sir Gaston, K.C.M.G. D.C.L. College de 
France, Cairo, Egypt; 24, Avenue de lObservatoire, 
Paris. 

1904 Nansen, Prof. Fridtjof, D.Sc. LL.D. D.C.L. Lysaker, Norway. 

1883 FY Naville, Prof. E., D.C.L. LL.D. F.S.A., Malagny, Geneva, 
Switzerland, 

1888 North China, Right Rev. C. P. Scott, D.D. Bishop of, 
Peking, North China. 

1912 | Roget, Professor F. F. Geneva. 

1890 Ottawa, Most Rev. C. Hamilton, D.D. D.C.L. Bishop of. 

1895 Sabatier, Professor Armand, M.D. Montpellier, France. 

1898 Stosch, Rev. Prof. D.D. 24, Lutzow Street, Berlin. 

1904 Upham, Warren, Esq. M.A. D.Sc. F.G.S. Amer. Sec. 
Minnesota Historical Society. 

1880 Vail, Right Rev. T. H. D.D. Bishop, U.S.A. 

1898 Zahn, Rev. Prof. T. H. Hrlangen. 


292 


ADDITIONAL 
HON. CORRESPONDENTS. 


Adams, Rev. Richard, M.A. T.C.D. 87, Burntwood Lane, S.W. 

Anderson, J. F. Esq. E.R.G.S. Melrose, Curepipe, Mauritius. 

Batchelor, W. Esq. 7, Agnes Road, Northampton. 

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. 18, Howden Road, 
S. Norwood, S.E. 

Corbet, Frederick H. M. Esq. Barrister-at-Law, F.R.C.I. F.I.Inst. 
Hon. Executive Officer for Ceylon at the Imperial 
Institute, 42, Kenilworth Avenue, Wimbledon. 

Davies, Rev. R. V. Faithfull, M.A. 15, Southend Road, Beckenham. 

Davis, Rev. W. B. M.A. Lupton, Torquay. 

Dixon, Prof. J. M. Washington Univ. St. Louis, Mo. U.S.A. 

Kast, Rev. H. EH. Leithfield, Christchurch, New Zealand. 

q Eells, Rev. M. M.A. Union City, Mason Co. Washington, D.C., 
Wes As 

Finn, Mrs. 75, Brook Green, W. 

Fleming, Rev. T. S. F.R.G.S. Boston Spa, Leeds (fF). 

q Frost, Edward P. Esq. D.L. J.P. West Wratting Hall, Cambridge. 

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 Sir W. L. M.D. K.C.B. M.V.O. K.H.S. 
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, Hong Kong, China. 

Harrison, Rev. A. J. B.D. LL.D. Magdalen Lodge, North End, 
Newcastle. 

Hassell, Joseph, Esq. Brittany Lodge, London Road, St. 
Leonards. 

Hechler, Rev. Prof. W. H. City House Hotel, 160, City Road, H.C. 

Hetherington, Rev. J. St. Peter’s Vicarage, Huli. 

Hudson, Rev. Canon J. C. M.A. Thornton Vicarage, Horn- 
castle. 

Hutchinson, Rev. A. B. Fukuoka, Japan. 

Hutchinson, Rev. T. S. M.A. 15, Aldridge Road Villas, Westbourne 
Park, W. 

Kerr, Robert, Esq. 14, Loudoun Terrace, Kelvinside, Glasgow. 

q Kidd, Walter A. Esq. M.D. B.S. M.R.C.S. F.Z.S. 12, Montpelier 
Row, Blackheath. 

Kydd, Robert, Esq. 164, Stobcross Street, Glasgow. 

McLeod, Rev. R. F. Walsden Vicarage, Todmorden. 

Nutt, Rev. George, The Rectory, Llwidas Vale, Jamaica. 

Oates, Rev. W. Somerset Hast, South Africa. 


293 


O’ Donel, G. H. Esq. Mission School, Seoni Chappara, C.P. India. 

Oliver, Rev. T. D.D. 118, Hampton Road, Southport. 

Oulton, Rev. R. C. M.A. B.D. 17, Warrington Place, Dublin. 

@ Parker, Prof. H. W. 47, 7th Avenue, New York, N.Y. U.S.A. 

“|Peet, Rev. Stephen D. Ph.D. Editor ‘‘ American Antiquarian,” 
5817 Madison Avenue, Chicago, Ill. U.S.A. 

Perowne, Edward 8S. M. Esq. F.S.A. 20 Randolph Road, Maida 
Vale, W. 

Petherick, Rev. G. W. B.A. Hawksleigh, Southport. 

Postlethwaite, J. Esq. F.G.S. Cockermouth, Keswick and Penrith 
Railway, Keswick. 

Rage, Rev. F. W. M.A. The Manor House, Lower Boddington, 
Byfield. 

Ramanathan, P. B.A., M.R.A.S., F.R.H.S., Manénmani Villas, 
Chintadripet, Madras. 

Redman, Rev. J. Simla, India. 

Robertson, Rev. Cavaliere 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.8.E. New College, meee 

Stefansson, Jon, Esq. Ph.D. 

Storrs, Rev. W. T. B.D. Vicarage, Sandown, I.W. 

Thomas, Rev. James, British and Foreign Bible Society, 
146, Queen Victoria Street, E.C. 

§[Tisdall, Rev. W. St. Clair, M.A. D.D.32, Kimbolton Road, Bedford. 

Weidemann, Professor Alfred, Ph.D. 2, Kénig St. Bonn. 

Whiteway, Rev. R. W. B. Beulah House, Selby, Yorks. 

Williams, W. Esq. Supt. Govt. Telegraphs, India (ret.), Crofton, 
Combe Park, Bath. 

Willis, R. N. Esq. M.B, 2, Carlton Terrace, Rathmines, Dublin. 

Willis, T. Gilbert, Esq. 4, Kildare Street, Dublin. 

Winslow, Rev. W.C. Ph.D. D.D. D.C.L. LL.D. D.Sc. 525, Beacon 
Street, Boston, U.S.A. 

“Zimmerman, Rev. Prof. Jeremiah, D.D. LL.D. L.H.D. 107, 
South Avenue, Syracuse, N.Y., U.S.A. 

«Zwemer, Rev. S. M. M.A. D.D. F.B.G.S. Bahrein, Persian Gulf. 


OBJECTS, CONSTITUTION, AND BY-LAWS 


OF 


Che Wictoria Institute, 


OR 


Philosophical Society of Great Britain. 


Adopted at the First Annual General Meeting of the Members and Associates, 
May 27th, 1867, with Revisions of 1874-75, 1910 and 1912. 


a 


§ I. Objects. 


l. THe Victoria Instrrute, 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 bringing together the 
results of such labours, after full discussion, in the printed 
Transactions of an Institution: to give greater force and 
influence to proofs and arguments which might be little 
known, or even disregarded, if put forward merely by 


individuals. 


ul 

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 Kternal 
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 popular kind, and to 
publish such Lectures. 


Sixth. To publish English translations of important foreign works 
of real scientific and philosophical value, especially those 
bearing upon the relation between the Scriptures and Science; 
and to co-operate with other philosophical societies at home 
and abroad, which are now or may hereafter be formed, in the 
interest of Scriptural truth and of real science, and generally 
in furtherance of the objects of this Society. 


Seventh. To found a Library and Reading Rooms for the use of 
the Members and Associates of the Institute, combining the 
principal advantages of a Literary Club. 


S$ IL. Constitution. 


1. The Society shall consist of Members and Associates, who in 
future shall be elected as hereinafter set forth. 


2. The government of the Society shall be vested in a Council 
(whose Members shall be chosen from among the Members and 
Associates of the Society and be professedly Christians), consisting of a 
President, two or more [not exceeding seven] Vice-Presidents, an 


ill 
Honorary Treasurer, and twelve or more [not exceeding twenty-four] 


Ordinary Members of Council. The Trustees for the time being of the 
funds of the Institute shall be ev officio Members of the Council. 


3. The President, Vice-Presidents and Honorary Ofticers [other than 
the Trustees for the time being of the funds of the Institute] shall be 
elected annually at the Annual General Meeting of the Institute, with 
power to the Council to fill up any casual vacancies. 

At the Annual General Meeting in, each year, one-third of the 
Ordinary Members of Council [or if their number be not a multiple of 
three then the number nearest to one-third] shall also retire, in order of 
seniority of election to the Council, and be eligible for re-election : as 
between Members of equal seniority the Members to retire sball 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 cn the 
Council the election shall be by ballot. 


5. Any person desirous of becoming a Member or Associate shall 
send to the Secretary an application for admission, which shall be 
signed by one Member or Associate recommending the Candidate for 


admission. ° 


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


may deem proper. 


7. Application for admission to join the Institute being made as 
before laid down, such application shall be considered as ipso facto 
pledging all who are thereupon admitted as Members or Associates to 


1V 


observe the Rules and By-laws of the Society, and as indicative of their 
desire and intention to further its objects and interests ; and it is also to 
be understood that only such as are professedly Christians are entitled 
to become Members. 


8. Each Member shall pay an Entrance Fee of One Guinea, which 
the Council may from time to time suspend, and an Annual Contribution 
of Two Guineas. A Donation of Twenty Guineas shall constitute the 
donor a Life Member. 


9. Each Associate shall pay an Annual Contribution of One Guinea. 
A donation of Ten Guineas shall constitute the donor a Life Associate. 


10. The Annual Contributions shall be considered as due in advance 
on the Ist day of January in each year, or, by resolution of the Council, 
on the anniversary of election, and shall be paid within three months 
after that date; or, in the case of new admissions within three months 
after election. 


11. Any Member or Associate who contributes a donation in one sum 
of not less than Sixty Guineas to the funds of the Institute shall be 
enrolled as a Vice-Patron thereof, and will thus also become a Life 
Mernber 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 By- 
laws relating to donations, annual contributions or obligations to serve 
in any office of the Society, shall be considered as applicable to such 
personages of Royal Blood. 


13. Any Member or Associate may withdraw from the Society at any 
time, by signifying a desire to do so by letter, addressed to the Secre- 
tary; but such shall be liable for the contribution of the current 
year, and shall continue liable for the annual contribution, until all sums 
due to the Society from such Member or Associate shall have been paid, 
and all books or other property borrowed from the Society shall have 
been returned or replaced. 


14. Should there appear cause, in the opinion of the Council, for the 
exclusion from the Society of any Member or Associate, a private 
intimation may be made by direction of the Council, in order to give 
such Member or Associate an opportunity of withdrawing from the 


Vv 


Society ; but, if deemed necessary by the Council, a Special General 
Meeting of Members shall be called for the purpose of considering 
the propriety of expelling any such person: whereat, if eleven or more 
Members shall ballot, and a majority of those balloting shall vote that 
such person be expelled, he shall be expelled accordingly. One month’s 
notice, at least, shall be given to the Members of any such Special General 
Meeting. 


15. Non-resident Members and Associates, or others desirous of 
promoting the objects and interests of the Institute, may be elected by 
the Council to act as corresponding Members abroad, or as Honorary 
Local Secretaries, if within the United Kingdom, under such arrange- 
ments as the Council may deem advisable. 


16. The whole property and effects of the Society shall be vested in 
two or more Trustees, who shall be chosen at a General Meeting of the 
Society. The Trustees are empowered to invest such sums as the Council 
may, from time to time, place in their hands, in, or upon any of the Stocks, 
Funds, or Securities, for the time being, authorized by statute for the 
investment of trust funds by trustees, and shall have the usual powers of 
trustees in regard thereto. ['The President, the Hon. Treasurer, and the 
Secretary may officially give effect to such resolutions as a General 
Meeting may pass in regard thereto. | 


17. All moneys received on account of the Institute shall be duly 
paid to its credit at the Bankers, and all cheques shall be drawn, under 
authority of the Council, and shall be signed by any two of the following, 
the Chairman of Council, the Honorary Treasurer and the Secretary. 


18. The accounts shall be audited annually, by a Committee, con- 
sisting of two Members or Associates,—one of whom may be on the 
Council,—to be elected at an Ordinary Meeting of the Society preceding 
the Anniversary Meeting. This Committee shall make a written Report 
to the Council at the first Meeting after such audit, and also to the 
Institute, upon the day of the Annual General Meeting,—stating the 
balance in the Treasurer’s hands and the general state of the funds of the 
Institute. 


§ II. By-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. 


v1 


2. Members and Associates shall not be entitled to any privileges, or 
have the right to be present, or to vote at any of the Meetings of the 
Society, till they have paid the contributions due by them. 


3. Annual subscriptions shall be considered as in arrear, 
if not paid within three months after they become due. 


4, Should any annual subscription remain in arrear for six months the 
Secretary shall forward to the Member or Associate from whom the sub- 
scription is due, a letter, Form D, unless such Member or Associate reside 
out of the United Kingdom, in which case the Form D shall not be sent 
unless the subscription continues unpaid for twelve months. 


5. If any arrears be not paid within tweive months, the Councii shal] 
use their discretion in erasing the name of the defaulter from the list of 
Members or Associates. 


6. Members shall be entitled to introduce two Visitors at the 
Ordinary Meetings of the Society; and to have sent to them a copy 
of all the Papers read before the Society, which may be printed in its 
Transactions or otherwise, and of all other official documents which 
the Council may cause to be printed for the Society ; they will also be 
entitled to a copy of all such translations of foreign works or other books 
as are published under the auspices of the Society in furtherance of 
the Sixth Object (§ 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 such prices as the Council may 
determine. ; 


vil 


allowed to attend any Meeting of the Society, nor have access to any 
public rooms which may be in its occupation. 


9. The Library shall be under the management ‘and direction of the 
Council, who are empowered to designate such works as shall not be 
allowed to circulate. 


10. Members may borrow books from the Library, and have not more 
than three volumes in their possession at the same time ; pamphlets and 
periodical publications are not to be kept above fourteen days, nor any 
other book above three weeks. Associates may see books in the Library 
during office hours. 


11. Members who may borrow books from the Library shall be 
answerable for the full value of any work that is lost or injured. 


12. Periodical publications shall remain on the table for a month, 
other books for a fortnight, after they are received. 


13. When a book or pamphlet is wanted, and has been the stipulated 
time in the possession of any Member, the Secretary shall request its 
return, and a fine of threepence a day shall be incurred for every day it 
may be detained, which fine shall commence on the third day after the 
transmission of the notice in the case of town Members, and after the 
sixth day in the case of country Members ; and until the return of such 
works, and the discharge of all fines incurred, no further issue of books 
shall be permitted to the Member applied to. 


14. The books shall be ordered in for inspection at such times as the 
Council shall appoint, and a fine of half-a-crown shall be incurred for 
neglecting to send in books by the time required in the notice. 


15. A book shall lie on the Library table in which Members may 
insert, for the consideration of the Council, the titles of such works as 
they desire to be purchased for the Institute. 


§ IV. By-laws (General and Ordinary Meetings). 


1. A General Meeting of Members and Associates shall be held 
annually on 24th May (being Her late Majesty’s birthday, and the 
Society’s anniversary), or on the Monday following, or on such other day 
as the Council may determine as most convenient, to receive the Report 


vill 
of the Council on the state of the Society, and to deliberate thereon ; 
to discuss and determine such matters as may be brought forward 


relative to the affairs of the Society ; and to elect Members of Council 
and Officers for the ensuing year. 


2. The Council shall call a Special General Meeting of the Members 
and Associates, when it seems to them necessary, or when required to do 
so by requisition, signed by not less than ten Members and Associates 
specifying the question intended to be submitted to such Meeting. Two 
weeks’ notice must be given of any such Special General Meeting ; and 
only the subjects of which notice has been given shall be discussed 
thereat. No alteration in, or addition to, the existing rules shall be 
made except at such Special General Meeting. 


3. The Ordinary Meetings of the Society shall usually be held on the 
first and third Monday afternoons or evenings in each month, 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. At the Ordinary Meetings the order of proceeding shall be as 
follows: The President, or one of the Vice-Presidents, or a Member of 
the Council or someone specially invited by the Council shall take the 
chair at the time fixed for the commencement of the Meeting; the 
minutes of the last Ordinary Meeting shall be read by the Secretary, and, 
if found correct, shall be signed by the Chairman ; the names of. new 
Members and Associates shall be read ; the presents made to the Society 
since their last Meeting shall be announced ; and any other communi- 
cations which the Council think desirable shall be made to the Meeting. 
After which, the Paper or Papers intended for discussion shall be 
announced and read, and the persons present shall be invited by the 


Chairman to make any observations thereon which they may wish 
to offer. 


The claims of Members and Associates to take part in a discussion 
are prior to those of Visitors. The latter, when desiring to speak upon 
any Paper, must first send their cards to the Chairman and ask permission, 
(unless they have been specially invited by the Council to attend, and 


join in considering the subject before the Meeting, or are called upon by 
the Chairman). 


1X 
5. The Papers read before the Society, and the discussions thereon 
fully reported, shall be printed by order of the Council; or, if not, the 


Jouncil shall, if they see fit, state the grounds upon which this Rule has 
been departed from, in the printed Journal or Transactions of the Society. 


6. The Council may at their discretion authorize Papers of a general 
kind to be read at any of the Ordinary Meetings, either as introductory 
lectures upon subjects proper to be afterwards discussed, or as the results 
of discussions which have taken place, in furtherance of the Fifth 
Object (§ 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. By-laws (Council Meetings), 


1. The Council shall meet at least once every month from October 
to June inclusive, or at any other time and on such days as they may 
deem expedient. The President, or any three Members of the Council, 
may at any time call a Special Meeting, to which the whole Council shall 


be summoned. 


2. At Council Meetings three shall be a quorum ; the decision of the 
majovity shall be considered as the decision of the Meeting, and the 


Chairman shall have a casting vote. 


3. Minutes of the Proceedings shall be taken by the Secretary, 
or, in case of his absence, by some Member present, whom the Chair- 
man may appoint; which Minutes shall afterwards be entered in a 
minute-book kept for that purpose, and read at the next Meeting of the 
Council, when, if found correct, they shall be signed by the Chairman. 


S VI. By-laws (Papers). 


1. Papers presented to be read before the Society shall, when read, be 
considered as the property of the Society, unless there shall have been 
any previous engagement with its author to the contrary; and the 
Council may cause the same to be published in any way and at any time 
they may think proper after having been read. If a Paper be not read, 
it shall be returned to the author; and, if a Paper be not published 


x 


within a reasonable time after having been read, the author shall be 
entitled himself to publish it, and he may borrow it for that purpose. 


2. When a Paper is sent to the Society for the purpose of being read, it 
shall be laid before the Council, who may refer it to two of that body, or 
of the other Members or Associates of the Society whom they may select, 
for their opinions as to the character of the Paper and its fitness or 
otherwise for being read before the Society, which they shall state as 
briefly as may be, in writing, along with the grounds of their respective 
opinions. Should one of such opinions be adverse to the Paper and 
against its being read before the Society, then it shall be referred to some 
other referee, who is unaware of the opinion already pronounced upou the 
Paper, in order that he may state his opinion upon it in like manner. 
Should this opinion be adverse to the Paper, the Council shall then 
consult and decide whether the Paper shall be rejected or read ; and, if 
rejected, the Paper shall be returned to the author with an intimation of 
the purport of the adverse opinions which have been given with respect to 
it; but the names of the referees are not to be communicated to him, 
unless with their consent or by order of the Council. All such references 
and communications are to be regarded as confidential, except in so far as 
the Council may please to direct otherwise. 


3. The Council may authorize Papers to be read without such previous 
reference for an opinion thereon ; and when a paper has been referred, 
and the opinion is in favour of its being read in whole or in part, the 
Council shall then cause it to be placed in the List of Papers to be so 
read accordingly, and the author shall receive due notice of the day 
fixed for its reading. 


4, The authors of Papers read before the Society shall, if they cesire 
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. By-laws (General). 


1. The government of the Society, and the management of its 
concerns are entrusted to the Council, subject to no other restrictions 
than are herein imposed, and to no other interference than may arise 
from the acts of Members and Associates in General Meeting assembled. 

2. With respect to the duties of the President, Vice-Presidents 
and other Officers and Members of Council, and any other matters not 
herein specially provided for, the Council may make any regulations and 


XI 


arrangements as they deem proper, and as shall appear to them most 
conducive to the good government and management of the Society, and 
the promotion of its objects. And the Council may hire apartments, and 
appoint persons, whether Members of the Council, or Members or Asso- 
ciates of the Institute, or not, to be salaried officers, clerks, or servants, for 
carrying on the necessary business of the Society ; and may allow them 
respectively such salaries, gratuities, and privileges, as to them, the 
Council, may seem proper ; and they may suspend any such officer, clerk 
or servant from his office and duties, whenever there shall seem to them 
occasion ; provided always, that every such appointment or suspension 
shall be reported by the Council to the next ensuing General Meeting of 
the Members and Associates to be then confirmed or otherwise as such 
Meeting may think fit. 


“M'S ‘1oqsuTUT4se AQ ‘sSurpying [erqueg ‘T 
‘HLOLILSNT WINOLOIA OY} Jo A.reqotoog AIRLOUOFT 


oY} OF qUas aq of sv mot sryq pap7r UauA 


‘paqvys avay aq hnw sysom | “OPBIOOSSY OFUT 
Ss ajoppung ey, fo awnw ayy ‘woymny un fr ue 
‘OYVIDOSS VW 
ssauppy 40 
LOMO OFT 
“WOIIUYSY LaYIO .LO > 0 
e “9.9 ‘aashap hyrssaarvug ‘worssoforg ‘27707, ‘roquto py 
i 40 
‘hapssavau fr ‘awmnu ‘WOLV-9OT A 
linf pun ‘ainjoubry hvourpso sagopypuny - J JHOSUL OLOTT 


‘NIVIING LVGUL) AO ALAIOOG IVOIHdOSOTIHG YO ‘TLOALILSNT 
VINOLOTA 947 Jo yD payjolua aq 07 auisap hiqasey J 
é1— ——[ayoq) 


“HLOALILSNT =VIMOLOTA 


ay, f0O saqyowoss Lo ‘suaquayy ‘suoung-a0r14 fo wossnupp ay) “of NOILVOrIddy dO WUOg 


‘Vo WdOd 


Xi 


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 Victoria INSTITUTE, OR 


PHILOSOPHICAL Society oF GREAT BRITAIN. 


I have the honour to be, Sir, 
Your faithful Servant, 


FORM —@. 
(Bankers) Messrs. 


* Please pay Messrs. Barcuay & Co., 1, Pall Mall Kast, 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. 

Iam, 


Your obedient Servant, 


tec poe SP AY eee) 


Ii this Form be used, please add your Signature, Banker’s Name, and the 
Date, and return it to the Office, 1, Central Buildings, Westminster, S.W. 
Receipt-stamp required. 


* The above is the form for Members. The form for Associates is the same 
except that the Subscription stands as ‘ONE GUINEA.” 


FORM D. 
Sin, 19 
Permit me to remind you that your subscription to the 


Institute for this year ( ) has not yet been paid. I 
shall be grateful for an early remittance. 


Yours faithfully, 


Sec. 


THE 


PierOnhe INSTITUTE 
TRANSACTIONS. 


INDEX to VOLS. I. to XLIII. 


October, 1914. 


Back Volumes, except Vols. I, III, and V, can be obtained 
from the Secretary at 10s. 6d. each. 


1, CENTRAL BUILDINGS, 


WESTMINSTER, 8.W. 


INDEX TO AUTHORS. 


Arthur, Rev. W. Time and space. Vol. 22. 
Ashwin, Rev. C. Godfrey, M.A. Modern science and natural religion. Vol. 23. 
Avery, Prof. J. On the religion of the Aboriginal tribes of India. Vol. 19. 


Ball, Sir Robt., LL.D., F.R.S. Origin of new stars. Annual Address. Vol. 33. 

Bardsley, Archdeacon. ‘The origin of man. Vol. 17. 

Bateman, Mr. J. F., F.R.S., F.R.S.E. Darwinism tested by recent researches 

in language. Vol. 7. 

Meteorology, rainfall. Vol. 15. 

Baylee, Rev. J..D.D. Nature of human language, ete. Vol. 3. 

Baylis, Rev. F., M.A. Science in reiation to Missions. Vol. 43. 

Beale, Prof. Lionel S., M.B., F.R.C.P.Lond., F.R.S. New materialism un- 
scientific. Vol. 16. 

—— The living and the non-living. Vol. 16, 

—— The new materialism. Vol. 16. 

—— Structure and structureless. Vol. 20. 

—— The nature of life. Vol. 32. 

—— Vitality. Vol. 33. 

— - Water essential to all life. Vol. 34. 

—— The living God of living nature from the science side. Vol. 35.’ 

— Unseen life of our world and of living growth. Vol. 35. 

Obituary notice, June 1906. Vol. 38. 

Bernard, Prof., D.D. The philosophic basis of the argument from design. 
Vol. 26. 

Bey, Dr. Grant. The climate of Egypt in Geologic, Prehistoric, and Ancient 
Historic Times. Vol. 32. 

Birks, Rev. Prof., M.A. Indestructibility of force. Vol. 9. 

On the uncertainties of modern physical science. Vol. 11. 

— On the Bible and modern astronomy. Vol. 11. 

Modern geogenies and the antiquity of man. Vol. 18. 

Blackett, Rev. W. R., M.A. Some thoughts on the evolution of religions. 
Vol. 19. 

Blencowe, Rev. G. Modern science of religion. Vol. 15 (Max Miiller’s 
Chips, ete.). 

—— Human responsibility. Vol. 19. 

Bompas, Mr. G. Cox, F.G.S. Evolution and design. Vol. 29. 

Boord, Miss Hilda. On the hot lakes district, New Zealand. Voi. 36. 

Boscawen, Mr. W. St. C., F.R.Hist.Soc. Cuneiform inscriptions as illustrating 
times of Jewish captivity. Vol. 18. 

—— Historical evidences of the migration of Abram. Vol. 20. 

Boultbee, Rev. ‘I. P., LL.D. Moral and social anarchy of modern unbelief. 
Vol. 8. Annual address. 


4 INDEX TO AUTHORS. 


Bree, Dr. C. R., M.D. Darwinism and its effects on religious thought. Vol. 7. 

Brinton, Dr. D. G. Human footprints in Nicaragua. Vol. 22. 

Brodie, Rev. J.. M.A. Lessons taught us by geology in relation to God. Vol. 1. 

Brooke, Mr. Ch., M.A., F.R.S. Simplification of first-principles in physical 

science. Vol. 3. 

Force and energy. Vol. 7. 

Brown, Mr. R., E.S.A. The system of Zoroaster—archaic monotheism. 
Vol. 13. 

— Religion and mythology of the Aryans of N. Europe. Vol. 14. 

Language and the theories of its origin. Vol. 15. 

Bruce, Sir Charles, G.C.M.G., Annual address—The true temper of Empire. 
Vol. 48. 

Budge, Mr. BH. A., M.A., M.R.A.S. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon— 
recently discovered inscriptions of this King. Vol. 18. 

Bullen, Rev. R. Ashington, B.A., F.G.S8. Eolithic implements. Vol. 33. 

Burnett, Mr. C. Mountford, V.P. Difference in scope between science and 
scripture. Vol. 1. 


Caldecott, Prof. A., King’s College, London. Heredity and eugenics. Vol. 42. 
Callard, Mr. T. K., F.G.S. Does the contemporaneity of man with extinct 
maimalia prove the antiquity of man. Vol. 13. 

Breaks inthe continuity of mammalian life at certain geological periods— 

fatal to Darwinism. Vol. 16. 

Carus-Wilson, Mr. C. A., M.A., M.I.C.E. Ezekiel’s Vision of the Divine 
Glory. Vol. 41. 

Challis, Prof., M.A., F.R.S., F.R.A.S8. On the principles of modern pantheistic 
and atheistic philosophy, ete. Vol. 8. 

— On the magnitudes in creation, etc. Vol. 9. 

—— On the relation of the Bible account of the deluge to physical science. 
Vol” 10; 

— On the metaphysics of scripture. Vol. 11. 

On the indestructibility of matter. Vol. 12. 

Chaplin, Dr. T. Some diseases mentioned in the Bible. Vol. 34. 

Charlesworth, Mr. E., F.G.S. On the structure of the gorilla. Vol. 20. 

On flint bodies in the chalk known as paramoudra. Vol. 26. 

Christian, Mr. F. W., B.A. On the evidence of Malay, Japanese, Arabian, and 
Persian admixture in the Inca or Keshua language of Peru, amongst the 
Aymara language of the peasant class. Vol. 40. 

Clarke, Rev. H. J., The fundamental assumptions of agnosticism. Vol. 20. 

Evolution. Vol. 21. 

—— The meaning and history of the logos of philosophy. Vol. 23. 

—— The science of rectitude as distinct from expedience. Vol. 24. 

Deontology. Vol. 25. 

Claughton, Bp. Piers C., D.D. On Buddhism. Vol. 8. 

Cleland, Prof. J., F.R.S. Classification of the vertebrata. Vol. 30. 

Coles, Rev. J. J. B., M.A., F.R.G.S. Theosophy. Vol. 43. 

Collingwood, Dr. C., M.A., M.D. Instinct and reason. Vol. 24. 

Collins, Rev. &., M.A. On Buddhism. Vol. 18. 

——— On some characteristics of primitive religions. Vol. 19. 

— On Krisnna. Vol. 21. 

— Budahism and the hght of Asia. Vol. 28. 

Conder, Col. C. R., R.E., D.C.L. On the Canaanites. Vol. 24. 

---— On the comparison of Asiatic languages. Vol. 27. 

Cooper, Mr. W. R., F.R.A.S., M.R.A.S. Serpent myths in ancient Egypt. 
Vol. 6. 

—— The myth of Ra. Vol. 11. 

—- The Horus myth. Vol. 12. 


INDEX TO AUTHORS. 3) 


Cotterill, Bp., D.D. On the relation of scientific thought to religion. Vol. 12. 

On the relation of science and religion—principles of unity, order, and 

causation. Vol. 15. 

Courtney, Dr. W. L., LL.D. On the reality of the self. Vol. 25. 

The alleged scepticism of Kant. Vol. 27. 

Crommelin, Dr. A. C. D., D.Sc., F.R.A.S. The return of Halley’s comet. Vol. 42. 

Cunningham, Rev. W., D.D., Deacon of Ely. Christianity and Socialism. 
Vol. 41. 


Dabney, Prof. R. L., D.D., LL.D. Inductive logic. Vol. 19. 

On final cause. Vol. 20. 

Davison, Rev. M. The Noachian deluge. Voi. 4. 

Dawson, Sir J. Wm., C.M.G., F.R.S., etc. Introduction of genera and species 

in geological time. Vol. 7. 

Biblical interpretation in connection with science. Vol. 9. 

—— Flint agricultural implements of America. Vol. 11. 

—— Pliocene man in America. Vol. 15. 

—— On prehistoric man in Egypt and the Lebanon. Vol. 18. 

—— Chronology of animal life on the earth prior to advent of man. Vol. 20. 

— Useful and ornamental stones of ancient Egypt. Vol. 26. 

Causes of climatal changes. Vol. 26. 

—— Specimens illustrating physical characters, etc., of Guanches of Canary 
Islands. Vol. 29. 

De la Mare, Rev. A., M.A. On theology asa science. Vol. 3. 

Duns, Prof. J., D.D., F.R.S.E. On the theory of natural selection and the 
theory of design. Vol. 20. Ditto Vol. 22. 

—— Stone folk-lore. Vol. 29. 

—— Marks of mind in nature. Vol. 32. 


Eells, Dr. M., Rev. The worship and traditions of the aborigines of America. 
Volto: 

— The worship and traditions of the aborigines of the islands of the Pacific 
Ocean. Vol. 32. 

Elwin, Rey. Arthur. Ancestral worship. Vol. 36. 

Confucianism. Vol. 37. 

English, Rev. W. W., M.A. On miracles, their compatibility with philosophical 
principles. Vol. 1. 

— Ethical philosophy. Vol. 3. 

—— Biblical pneumatology and psychology. Vol. 6. 


Rea Ot Joseph, M.D., K.C.S.1., F.R.S. On rainfall and climate of India. 
Oe isy 
--— On serpent worship and the venomous snakes of India. Vol. 26. 
Fisher, Rev. J... D.D. On the organ cf the mind. Vol. 14. 
Fleay, Mr. Fredk. Gard., M.A. ‘he synchronous chronology of the Kings of 
Israel and Judah. Vol. 36. 
Forsyth, Mr. W., Q.C., LL.D., V.P. On the rules of evidence as applicable tc 
the credibility of history. Vol. 8. 
eae et C. Dillworth. On the glaciers in the south island of New Zealand. 
ol. 40. 
Fradenburgh, Dr. J. N., Ph.D., D.D., LL.D. The literature of Egypt in the 
time of Moses. Vol. 31. 
F ee ae J., LL.D. Aborigines of Australia, their ethnic position and relations. 
ol. 22. : 


6 INDEX TO AUTHORS. 


Frazer, Rev. W. H., D.D. Experiences in South Africa during the war. 
Vol. 35. . 

Frost, Dr. Edw. P., D.L. The influence of physiological discovery on 
thought. Vol. 37. 


Gabbett, Rev. Edw., M.A. On respective provinces of the observer and reasoner 
in scientific investigation. Vol. 4. 

Galton, Rey. Arthur, M.A. Present position of Catholics in France. 
Vol. 41. 

Garratt, Canon M.A. Samaritan text of the Pentateuch. Vol. 36. 

Geikie, Prof. James, D.C.L., F.R.S. The glacial period and the earth move- 
ment hypothesis. Vol. 26. 

Gerard, Rev. John. Species and their origin. Vol. 42. 

Gill, Sir David, LL.D., F.R.S. The sidereal universe. Vol. 43. 

Girdlestone, Rev. Canon, M.A. Scientific research and biblical study. 
Wols29: 

—— The resurrection of Jesus Christ April 17,1905. Voi. 37. 

—— The scriptural idea of miracles. Vol. 39. 

Indications of a scheme in the universe. Vol. 48. 

Gladstone, Dr., F.R.S. Mutual helpfulness of theology and natural science. 
Volt: 

Gordon, Surg.-Gen. Sir Ch. A., M.D., K.C.B., Q.H.P. On climate in relation 
to organic nature. Vol. 17. 

— On certain theories of life. Vol. 17. 

—— Ethnology and ancient chronology of China. Vol. 23. 

— Philosophy and medical knowledge of ancient India. Vol. 25. 

— Chinese ethics and philosophy. Vol. 28. 

China’s place in ancient history. Vol. 29. 

Gosse, P. H., Esq On the high numbers in the Pentateuch. Vol. 5. 

Gosse, E. W., Ou the ethical condition of the early Scandinavian peoples. Vol. 9. 

Graham, Rev. C. Some scriptural aspects of man’s tripartite nature. Vol. 6. 

Grimaldi, Rev. A. B., M.A. The zodiacal arrangement of the stars. Its 
historical and biblical connections. Vol. 38. 

Grimthorpe, Rt. Hon. Lord. Did the world evolve itself? Vol. 17. 

—— On the beauty of nature. Vol. 21. 

On human responsibility. Vol. 25. 

Griswold, Rev. H. D., M.A., Ph.D.Lahore. The Arya Samaj. Vol. 35. 

The Messiah of Qadian. 15 May, 1905. Vol. 37. 

Ground, Rev. W. D. On Herbert Spencer’s theory of the will. Vol. 16. 

Examination of the philosophy of Herbert Spencer. Vol. 16. 

Guppy, Mr. H. B., M.B., F.R.S.E. Keeling Atoll. Vol. 23. 

— Coral Islancls and savage myths. Vol. 23. 

—— Dispersal of the plants : . . of the Keeling Islands. Vol. 24. 

Polynesians and their plant names. Vol. 29. 

Plant distribution from an old standpoint. Vol. 39. . 

Gwatkin, The Rev. Prof. H. M., Dixie Prof. Eccles. Hist. Camb. Arianism 
in its bearing on modern questions. Vol. 42. 


Hammond, Canon, LL.B. Samaritan passover of 1861. Vol. 36. 

Hassell, Mr. J. Theory of evolution taught by Haeckel, ete. Vol. 16. 

Was primeval man a savage? Vol. 19. 

On Agnosticism. Vol. 20. 

Hendley, Col. T. Holbein, C.I.E. Rajputs and the history of Rajputana. 
16 Jan., 1905. Vol. 37. 

Orissa, a little known province of the Indian Empire. Vol. 39. 

— Resemblances between Indian and Jewish ideas and customs. Vol. 40. 


INDEX TO AUTHORS. : 


Henslow, Rev. G., M.A., F.L.S. Certain analogies between methods of the 
Deity in nature and revelation. Vol. 4. 

— Phyllotaxis. Arrangement of leaves by mathematical law. Vol. 6. 

Natural theology, with respect to modern philosophy. Vol. 7. 

Hill, Dr. Alex., V.C. of Camb. Univ. From reflex action to volition. Vol. 26. 

Hitchman, Dr. W., M.D. The true anthropology. Vol. 5. 

Holland, Rev. F. W., M.A. The topography of the Sinaitic Peninsula. 
Vol. 14. 

Hopkins, Evan, Esq., C.E., F.G.S. General character of geological formations. 
Voit . 

— Terrestrial changes and probable ages of the continents, founded on 
astronomical and geological facts. Vol. 2. 

Howard, D., F.C.S. The structure of geological formations an evidence of 
design. Vol. 11. 

Howard, Mr. J. E., F.R.S. On scientific facts and Christian evidence. Vol. 7. 

On contrast between crystallization and life. Vol. 8. 

—— On the early dawn of civilization from the Bible point of view. Vol. 9. 

—— An examination of the Belfast address from a scientific point of view. 
Vol. 10. 

—— On Egypt and the Bible. Vol. 10. : 

— The influence of true and false philosophy. Vol. 12. 

Creation and providence. Vol. 12. 

— The Torquay caves and their teaching. Vol. 13. 

—— The Druids and their religion. Vol. 14. 

—— The early destinies of man. Vol. 15. 

Scientific facts and the caves of South Devon. Vol. 18. 

—— The supernatural in nature. Vol. 16. 

On certain definitions of matter. Vol. 17. 

Howorth, Sir Henry H., D.C.L., F.R.S. Ice or water. Vol. 38. 

Hudleston, Mr. Wilfred H., F.R.S. Origin of marine fauna of Tanganyika. 
Vol. 36. 

—- Biographical notice. Vol. 41. 

Hughes, Prof. T. McKenny, F.R.S. Evidence already obtained as to the 
antiquity of man. Vol. 13. 

— Evidence of later movements of elevation and depression in British Isles. 
Vol. 14. 

— On caves. Vol. 21. 

— Cuts on bone as evidence of man’s existence in remote ages. Vol. 25. 

— Nationality. Vol. 32. 

Hull, Prof. Edw., M.A., LL.D., F.R.S. Petra. Vol. 21. 

Expedition to Arabia, Petra and Palestine. Vol. 21. 

God in nature. Vol. 24. 

—— Sketch of the geological history of Egypt and the Nile Valley. Vol. 24. 

—— How the waters of the ocean became salt. Vol. 27. 

— Holy scripture illustrated by recent discoveries in the East. Vol. 28. 

Supposed discovery of remains of animal between man and ape. Vol. 28. 

British Isles. Vol. 30. 

Proposed scheme for embanking waters of Nile. Vol. 30. 

— Where is Sinai? See Vol. 31. 

—— Physical conditions of the Mediterranean basin. Vol. 31. 

—— Sub-oceanic terraces and river valleys on west coast of Europe. Vol. 31. 

—— Another cause of the glacial epoch. Vol. 31. 

— Our coal resources at the end of the ninteenth century. Annual 

address. Vol. 32. 

Sub-oceanic river valleys of West African continent, ete. Vol. 32. 

—— Physical history of Norwegian Fjords. Vol. 34. 

—— Cheesewring, Cornwall, and its teaching. Vol. 35. 

—— Age of last uprise in the British Isles. Vol. 36. 


8 INDEX TO AUTHORS. 


Hull, Prof. Edw., Thickness of the Lucerne glacier of the Post- Pliocene period. 
Vol. 36. 

— Dr. Nansen’s bathymetrical researches in the Arctic Ocean as compared 
with those on the Atlantic coast. Vol. 37. 

—- On the spread of existing animals through reise and to the islands of 
the Atlantic; based on Dr. Scharf’s. recent work, “ European animals.” 
Vol. 40. 

— Geneva and Chamounix half a century ago and to-day. Vol. 41. 

— Abnormal conditions of water. Evidence of Design. Vol. 42. 

Hull, Miss E. H. The early Celtic churches of Britain and Ireland. 
Vol. 38. 


Irons, Preb., D.D. Analysis of human responsibility. Vol. 4 (twice). 
The Darwinian theory. Vol. 6. 

Prof. Tyndall’s Fragments of science for unscientific people. Vol. 7. 
—— Mr. Mill’s essay on theism. Vol. 9. 

Examination of the unseen universe. Vol. 11. 

Irving, Rev. A., D.Sc. Evolutionary law in the creation story. Vol. 38. 
Light, luminaries and life. Vol. 42. . 


Jack, Dr. R. Logan, LL.D. Artesian water in Queensland. Vol. 34. 

James, W. P., F.L.S. The argument from design in nature. Vol. 17. 
Pessimism. Vol. 18. 

Relation of fossil botany to theories of evolution. Vol. 19. 

—- On accounts of the creation. Vol. 20. 

Jervis, Chev. W. P., F.G.S.  Thalassographical and thalassological notes on 
the North Sea. Vol. 32. 

Prehistoric remains near Tenda, Italy. Vol. 36. 

—— The minerals and metals mentioned in the Old Testament. Vol. 37. 


Kelvin, Lord, G.C.V.O, Extracts from his Presidential address before British 
Association. Vol. 31. On design. 

— The age of the earth as an abode of life. Annual address. Vol. 39. 

Kidd, Dr. Walter A., F.Z.S. Plan and purpose in nature. Vol. 31. 

Creation or evolution. Vol. 32. 

— Methods of protection among animals. Vol. 33. 

—— Adaptation and selection in nature. Vol. 34. 

Two paths, one goal. Vol. 36. 

Kirby, Mr: W. F., F.G.8. The butterflies and moths of Africa. Vol. 23. 

Kirk, Rev. Prot. John. Past and present relations of geological science to 
sacred scriptures. Vol. 1. 

—— Relations of metaphysical and physical science to Christian doctrine of 
Prayer. Vol. 2. 

— Doctrine of creation according to Darwin, Agassiz, and Moses. Vol. 4. 

—— Spontaneous generation ; or, problem of life. Vol. 5. 

Origin of the moral sense. Vol. 7. 

Klein, Mr. Sydney T., F.L.S., F.R.A.S. Conception of the great reality. 
Vol. 36. 


Laming, Mr. R. Immediate derivation of science from the great first cause. 
Vol. 3, 

Lansdell, Rev. H., D.D., M.R.A.S., F.R.G.S. ‘Tithe-giving among Pagan 
nations. Vol. 31. 

Legge, Prof. J., M.A., Oxford. Chinese chronology. Vol. 26. 

Leitner, Dr., Ph. 1BE ina D.O.L. On the sciences of language and ethno- 
graphy. Vol. 23. 


INDEX TO AUTHORS. 9 


Lias, Rev. Chancellor, M.A. Christianity as a moral power. Vol. 11. 

Mr. Mat. Arnold and modern culture. Vol. 12. 

Is it possible to know God? Vol. 17. 

— Miracles, science, and prayer. Vol. 29. 

—— Modifications in the idea of God. Vol. 34. 

— Modernism. Its origin and tendencies. Vol. 40. 

— On the decay of Ultramontanism from an historical point of view. 
Vol. 40. 

Lobley, Prof. J. Logan, F.G.S., F.R.G.S. Sub-oceanic depression—‘ La fosse 
de Cap Breton.” Vol. 33. 

— Preparations of the earth for man’s abode. Vol. 34. 

Voleanic action and the West Indian eruptions of 1902. Vol. 35. 

Biological change in geological time. Vol. 38. 

-—— History of the spread of the European fauna. Vol. 39. 

—— The American fauna and its origin. Vol. 40. 


McCann, Rev. J., D.D. A demonstration of the existence of God. Vol. 5. 

Force and its manifestations. Vol. 7. 

—— The nature and character of evidence for scientific purposes. Vol. 5. 

McCaul, Rev. A. [., M.A. On biblical interpretation in connexion with science. 
Vol. 9. 

McCausland, Dr., Q.C., LL.D. On some uses of sacred primeval history. 
Vol. 3. 

MacCulloch, Rev. Canon. The descent into Hades; a study in comparative 
theology. Vol. 43. ; 

Macdonald, Dr. John D., I.H.R.N., F.R.S. Man’s place in creation. Vol. 4. 

The human colour sense and its accordance with that of sound as bearing 

on the analogy of sound and colour. Vol. 32. 

Macdougall, Rev. J. The present day materialism. Vol. 10. 

Mackinlay, Lt.-Col. G., late R.A. Biblical astronomy. Vol. 37. 

The morning star in the gospels. Vol. 38. 

-—- The date of the Nativity was 8 B.c. Vol. 41. 

bale Mr. D., F.G.8S. On the recency of the close of the glacial epoch. 
Vol. 19: 

Maclaren, Mr. J. M., F.G.S. Physical history of the New Zealand Fjords. 
Vol. 34. 

Macloskie, Prof. G., D.Se., LL.D. The mechanical conception of Nature. 

Vol. 28. 

Common errors as to the relation of science and faith. Vol. 32. 

Main, Rev. R., F.R.S., V.P.R.A.S. Modern philosophic scepticism examined. 
Vol. 10. 

Margoliouth, Prof. D.S., D.Litt., Prof. of Arabic, Oxford. The future of Islam. 
Vol. 35. 

Marston, Rev. H. J. R., M.A. Plato’s theory of public education in relation to 
the Christian doctrine of human nature. Vol. 42, 

Maspero, Prof. ‘Lhe list of Thothmes ILI. Vol. 20. 

- Excavations round the Sphinx. Vol. 20. 

—— The list of Thothmes III. Vol. 22. 

— The list of Shishak. Vol. 27. 

Masterman, Dr. E.W.G. Water supply of Jerusalem. Vol. 35. | 

Recent discoveries in Palestine in relation to the Bible. Vol. 39. 

Mathews, Mr. R. H. Pictorial art among the Australian Aborigines. Vol. 38. 

Maunder, Mr. E. Walter, F.R.A.S., Greenwich Observatory. Annual Address, 
The Bible and Astronomy. Vol. 40. 

Max Miiller, Prof. Note on Polynesians. Vol. 29. 

—— Note on Tithe givings. Vol. 31. 


10 INDEX TO AUTHORS. 


Mello, Rev. J., M.A., F.G.8. The prehistoric factory of flints at Spennes. 

Vol, 18: 

The dawn of Metallurgy. Vol. 23. 

On primitive man. Vol. 30. 

Mitchell, Rev. R. On the identity of reason in Shienes and Religion. Vol. 8. 

Mitchell, Rev. Walter, M.A. Falling stars and meteorites. Vol. 1. 

— Inaugural Address, Volo. 

—— Geometrical Iso-morphism of crystals . . . cubical system. Vol. 2. 

The wnphilosophical character of some objections to divine inspiration of 

scripture. Vol. 3. 

Monier-Williams, Sir M., K.C.I1.E., D.C.L. Egyptian discoveries in 1888. 

Vol. 21. 

Sacred books of the East. Vol. 21. 

Contrasts between doctrines of Buddhism and Christianity. Vol. 23. 

—— Annual Address. Vol. 23. 

— The Monism, Pantheism and Dualismni of Brahmanical and Zoroastrian 
philosophers. Vol. 25. 

Morris, Prof., of Baltimore. The final cause as principle of cognition and 

principle i in nature. Vol. 9. 

The theory of unconscious intelligence as opposed to Theism. Vol. 11. 

Morshead, Mr. E. J. On comparative psychology. Vol. 3. 

On comparative psychology. Vol. 5. 

On comparative psychology. Vol. 11. 

Moule, Rev. H. More than one universal deluge recorded in scripture. 
Vol. A, 1 

—— Israel in Egypt. Vol. 5. 

Murphy, Mr. J. J. Physical theory of moral freedom. Vol. 22. 

—- The factors of evolution in language. Vol. 23. 

Murray, Rt. Hon. Sir C., K.C.B. On flint arrow heads of delicate structure. 
Vol. 22. 


Naville, Dr. E., Ph.D. Historical results of excavations at Bubastis. Vol. 23. 

The route of the Exodus. Vol. 26. 

Neil, Rev. J., M.A. Land tenure in ancient times in Palestine. Vol. 24. 

Nicholson, Dr., Prof. H. A., M.D., F.R.S.E. On the bearing of certain pale- 
ontological facts on Darwinian theory of the origin of species and evolution 
in general. Vol. 9. 

— On the place of science in education. Vol. 10. 

-~—— Of the nature of life. Vol. 14. 


Odling, Mr. C. W., C.1.E., M.Inst.C.E. Observations on irrigation works in 
India. Vol. 36. 

O’Neil, the Lord. The action of will in formation of universe. Vol. 15. 

—— The credibility of the supernatural. Vol. 16. 

—— On misrepresentations of Christianity. Vol. 18. 

Orchard, Prot. H. Langhorne, M.A., B.Sc. Philosophy and_ evolution. 
Vol. 40. 

—— Attitude of science towards miracles. Vol. 42. Gunning Prize, 1909. 


Parker, Prof. H. W., M.D. The principles of rank among animals. Vol. 27. 
Pattison, Mr. 8. R., F.G.S. Geological proof of divine action. Vol. 5. 

— On the chronology of recent geology. Vol. 10. 

—-- Nature’s limits: an argument for Theism. Vol. 12. 

— Evolution of the pearly nautilus. Vol. 18. 

Pedigree of the coral reefs of England. Vol. 21. 


INDEX TO AUTHORS. LL 


Peet, Rev. S. D. Traditions of the Aborigines of North America. Vol. 21. 

Penny, Mr. E. B. Onmiracles. Vol. 1. 

Petrie, Capt. F. W. H., F.G.S. On the Moabite Stone. Vol. 6. 

Antiquity of man. Note. Vol. 20. 

—— The late Prof. AsaGrey. Vol. 22. 

——~— Importance of Babylonian excavations. Vol. 22. 

Science and religion. Vol. 23. 

— Man’s place in Nature. Vol. 24. 

Petrie, Prof. W. M. Flinders, D.C.L. Annual Address: Discoveries in 

Egypt. Vol. 35. 

Researches in Sinai. Vel. 39. 

Phene, Mr. J. S., LU.D., F.S.A. On prehistoric traditions and customs in 
connection with sun and serpent worship. Vol. 8. 

Pinches, Dr. Theophilus G., LL.D., M.R.A.S. Some recent discoveries in the 
realm of Assyriology. Vol. 26. 

—— Religious ideas of the Babylonians. Vol. 28. 

—— Certain inscriptions, etc., Babylonia and Elam. Vol. 29. 

—— Report on Congress on Religions, Paris. Vol. 33. 

—— Babylonian story of creation, Bel’s fight with the dragon. Vol. 35. 

— Report on Congress of Orientalists at Hamburg. Vol. 35. 

— Hammurabi’s code of laws. Vol. 35. 

—— Discoveries in Babylonia, ete. Vol. 41. 

—— Assur and Nineveh. 7 March, 1910, Vol. 42. 

Prof. Hilprecht’s newly discovered deluge fragment. Vol. 43. 

Pope, Rev. G. U., D.D. History of the Manikka Vacarga “ Foe of Buddhists.” 
Vol. 30. 

Porter, Prof. Noah, President of Yale University. On science and man. 

Vol. 13. 

On physiological metaphysics. Vol. 14. 

Porter, Rev. J. Leslie, D.C.L. Physical geography of the East. Vol. 12. 

—— Science not opposed to revelation. Vol. 18. 

——- Egypt, physical, historical, literary, and social. Vol. 20. 

-— Jewish, Pheenician and early Greek art. Vol. 21. 

Post, Prof. G. H., D.D., M.D. Meteorology of Syria and Palestine. Vol. 20. 

Botanical geography of Syria and Palestine. Vol. 22. 

Potter, Ven. Archdeacon Beresford. Determinism. Vol. 42. 

Powell, Rev. T., F.L.S. A Samoan tradition of the creation. Vol. 20. 

Prestwich, Sir J., K.C.B., D.C.L., F.R.S. A possible cause for the origin of the 
tradition of the Flood. Vol. 27. 

Putnam, Prof. Some Guanche skulls. Vol. 29. 


Ramsay, Sir William, F.R.S., D.C.L. Exploration of Asia Minor, as bearing 
on the historical trustworthiness of the New Testament. Vol. 39. 

A country town of Lycaonia. Vol. 41. 

Rassam, Mr. Hormuzd. Late Assyrian and Babylonian research. Vol. 14. 

Babylonian cities. Vol. 17. 

— The Garden of Eden: acriticism. Vol. 25. 

Biblical lands, races, customs, etc. Vol. 30. 

Reddie, Mr. James. On various theories of Man’s past and present condition. 
Voli fi. 

— Geological chronology, in reply to Huxley. Vol. 2. 

On Utilitarianism. Vol. 2. 

— On credibility of Darwinism. Vol. 2. 

—— Why man must believe in God. Vol. 5. 

Civilization: moral and material. Vol. 6. 

Richmond, Judge C. W. Materialism. Vol. 16. 


12 INDEX TO AUTHORS. 


Robbins, Rev. J.. D.D. Fatalism. Vol. 7. 

Robinson, Rev. Andrew Craig, M.A. The bearing of recent Oriental 
discoveries on Old Testament history. Second Gunning Prize, 1905. 
Vol. 38. 

Roget, Prof. F. F. On Ernest Naville. Vol. 43. 

Rouse, M. L., Esq., B.L. Procopius’s African monument. Vol. 34. 

— The Pedigree of the Nations. Vol. 38. 

— The Pedigree of the Nations. Vol. 39. 

Row, Preb. C. A., M.A. On the relation of reason to philosophy, theology and 
revelation. Vol. 3. 

— On some of the philosophical principles in Buckle’s History of Civiliza- 
tion. Vol. 3. 

— On the testimony of philosophy to Christianity as a moral and spiritual 
revelation. Vol. 5. 

— Dr. Newman’s Essay in aid of a Grammar of Assent. Vol. 6. 

Remarks on some of the current principles of historic criticism. Vol. 7. 

—-— Principles of modern pantheistic and atheistic philosophy as expressed in 
the last work of Strauss, Mill, ete. Vol. 8. 

Rule, Rev. Dr. Monotheism. Vol. 12, 

Rutland, Mr. Joshua. The Maoris’ place in history. Vol. 33. 


Saunders, Mr. Trelawney. Recent survey of West Palestine and its bearing on 
the Bible. Vol. 17. 

Saville, Rev. B. W., M.A. On evidence of Egyptian monuments to sojourn of 
Israel in Egypt. Vol. 6. 

— On the harmony between chronology of Egypt and Bible. Vol. 9. 

On heathen cosmogonies compared with Hebrew. Vol. 10. 

Sayce, Rev. A. H., M.A., D.D., LL.D., Prof. of Assyriology, Oxford. Cuneiform 
inscriptions of Tel el Amarna. Vol. 24. 

Schofield, Dr. A. T., M.D. An inquiry into the formation of habit in man. 
Wole2ie 

—— The natural and the artificial. Vol. 29. 

Some relations of mind and body. Vol. 380. 

—— The scope of mind. Vol. 32. 

— Philosophy of education. Vol. 33. 

—— Springs of character. Vol. 34. 

—— Science and the unseen world. Vol. 41. 

Searle, Mr. G. F. C., M.A., F.R.S., Univ. Lect. in Expl. Physics, Camb. 
Modern conceptions of the universe. Vol. 42. 

Sharp, Rev. John, M.A. The last century’s witness to the Bible. Vol. 438. 

Shaw, Rev. G. A., F.Z.8. Arab immigration n south-east Madagascar. 
Vol. 33. 

Sinclair, Ven. Arch., D.D. On the being of God. Vol. 33. 

Slater, Mr. J. W., F.C.S., F.E.S. The weak sides of natural selection. 
Vol. 26. 

— The philosophy of Comte. Vol. 28. 

Life as compared with physical forces. Vol. 32. 

Smith, Dr. Gerard, M.R.C.S. Design as exemplified in the form of the human 
foot. Vol. 31. 

Smith, Judge G. H., Los Angeles, Cal. Jurisprudence, theory of. Vol. 48. 

Smith, Rev. I. Gregory, D.D. Psychology. Vol. 43. 

Smith, Bp. Saumarez, D.D. Practical optimism. Vol. 21. 

Southall, Dr., of U.S.A. Lapse of time since glacial epoch determined by date 

of polished stone age. Vol. 13. 

Pliocene man in America. Vol. 15. 

Spencer, Dr. J. W., M.A., Ph.D., F.G.S. On geological relationship of the 
volcanoes of the West Indies. Vol. 35. 


INDEX TO AUTHORS. 13 


Statham, Mr. E. J., Assoc.M.Inst.C.E. Ancient script in Australia. 
Vol. 33. 

Stefansson, Dr. Jon, Ph.D. Iceland, its history and _ inhabitants. 
Vol. 34. 

Iceland, its history and inhabitants. Vol. 38. 

Stokes, Sir G. G., Prof. On the bearings of natural science, etv., on our religious 
ideas. Vol. 14. 

—— Absence of real opposition between science and revelation. Vol. 17. 

—— Annual Address. Vol. 20. 

—— The one origin of the books of Revelation and of Nature. Vol. 22. 

—— The luminiferous ether. Annual Meeting. Vol. 28. 

Perception of light. Annual Address, 1895. Vol. 29. 

—— Réontgen rays. Annual Address, 1896. Vol. 30. 

Perception of colour. Annual Address, 1897. Vol. 31. 


Taylor, the Rev. Isaac, M.A. On the Etruscan language. Vol. 10. 

The history of the alphabet. Vol. 12. 

Temple, Sir Richard, Bart., G.C.S.1. The unity of truth. Annual Address. 
Vol. 32. 

Thompson, Dr. J. P., D.D., LL.D. Final cause: a critique of the failure of 
Paley and fallacy of Hume. Vol. 13. 

—— Implements of the stone age as demarcation between man and animals. 
Vol. 15. 

Thompson, Dr. Silvanus P., F.R.S. Reconstruction and restatement. Annual 
Address. Vol. 37. 

Thornton, Rev. R., D.D. On comparative philology. Vol. 1. 

On the logic of scepticism. Vol. 2. 

— On the credulity of scepticism. Vol. 4. 

— The numerical system of the Old Testament. Vol. 5. 

—— The varying tactics of scepticism. Vol. 9. 

The sorrows of scepticism. Vol. 10. 

Thornton, Rt. Rey. Bishop 8., D.D. Problems of aboriginal art in Australia. 
Vol. 30. 

Tisdall, Rev. W. St. Clair, D.D. Islam. Vol. 25. 

——- Mithraism, Christianity’s greatest rival under the Roman Emperors. 
Vol. 43. 

Titcomb, Bp., D.D. Antiquity of civilisation. Vol. 3. 

Common origin of American races with those of Old World. Vol. 3. 

—— Origin of the negro. Vol. 5. 

—— Prehistoric monotheism, in relation to man as an aboriginal savage. 
Vol. 6. 

—- Ethnic testimonies of the Pentateuch. Vol. 6. 

—— On magnitude in creation and their bearings on Biblical interpretation. 
Vol. 9. 

Tomkins, Rev. H. G. On history in the time of Abraham. Vol. 12. 

The life of Joseph (external sources). Vol. 15. 

Biblical proper names from sources external to Bible. Vol. 16. 

Recent Egyptological research in its biblical relations. Vol. 18. 

Tristram, Rev. H. B., D.D., LL.D., F.R.S. Canaan, ancient and modern. 

Vol. 21. 

Obituary notice, p. 12. Vol. 38. 

Tuckwell, Rev. John, M.R.A.S. Modern theories re composition of Holy 
Scripture. Vol. 35. 

Tulloch, Maj.-Gen., C.B., C.M.G. The passage of the Red Sea by the 
Israelites. Vol. 28. 

Turner, Rey. F. Storrs, B.A. The right way in psychology. Vol. 37. 

Mencius. Vol. 39. 


14 INDEX TO AUTHORS. 


Upham, Dr. Warren, M.A., D.Sc., F.G.S8.A., Hon. Corres. Member. On the 
post glacial period. Vol. 25. 

— On the recession of Niagara Falls. Vol. 27. 

— Causes of the ice age. Vol. 29. 

—- The divisions of the ice age. Vol. 33. 

—— The nebular and planetesimal theories of the earth’s origin. Vol. 87. 

—-The San Francisco and Valparaiso earthquakes and their causes. 
Vol. 39. 

Urquhart, Rev. John. Gunning Prize Essay, 1905. The bearings of recent 
Oriental discoveries on Old Testament history. Vol. 38. 


Virchow, Prof. Rudolph. Remarks on evolution. Vol. 19. 
The origin of man. Vol. 24. 


Wace, Henry, the Very Rev. the Dean of Canterbury. On the ethics of beliefs. 
Voleii: 

— On the data of ethics. Vol. 14. 

—- Ethics and religion. Vol. 33. 

—— Authority. Vol. 41. 

Walker, Rev. Dr. F. A., F.L.8. Oriental entomology. Vol. 21. 

—— Oriental entomology. Vol. 22. 

— Colours in nature. Vol. 23. 

—— Botany and entomology of Iceland. Vol. 24. 

— Herodotus (on Egyptian geology). Vol. 31. 

—— Hornets, British and foreign. Vol. 33. 

—-— Locusts and grasshoppers. Vol. 34. 

— Obituary notice, p. 100. Vol. 37. 

Walkey, Mr. R. H. Archeeology and evolution. Vol. 29. 

Ward, Mr. H. B. Note on earthquake of San Francisco. Vol. 38. 

Warington, Mr. G., F.C.S. Existing relations between science and scripture. 

Nolo 

Credibility of Darwinism. Vol. 2. 

Biblical cosmogony considered scientifically. Vol. 3. 

Warring, Dr. Chas. B., M.A., Ph.D. Geological exterminations. Vol. 37. 

Watson, Rev. H.C.M. Onmiracles. Vol. 20. 

Weldon, Rev. G. W., M.A. On the law of creation. Vol. 7. 

Welldon, Bishop, Dean of Manchester. Annual address. Development of the 
religious faculty in man, apart from revelation. Vol. 39. 

Whateley, Rev. A. R., D.D. The demand for a Christian philosophy. 
Vol. 43. 

Wheatley, Dr. J. H., Ph.D. On life, its origin. Vol. 3. 

On life, its origin. Vol. 4. 

Whidborne, Rev. G. F. Evolution from geological point of view. Vol. 33. 

Genesis of nature. Vol. 36. 

Biographical notice, p. 320. Vol. 42. 

White, Rev. G. E., Dean of Anatolia College, Turkey. Visit to the Hittite cities. 

Vol. 33. 

Survivals of primitive religion among people of Asia Minor. Vol. 39. 

—- The Shia Turks. Vol. 40. 

White, Rev. J.. M.A. Remarks on evolution and development. Vol. 19. 

Darwinism and Malthus. Vol. 42. 

Whiting, Rev. J. B. The growth of the kingdom of God. Vol. 37. 

Whitley, Rev. D. Gath. Ivory islands in the Arctic Ocean. Vol. 42. 

Primeval man in Belgium. Vol. 40. 


Whitley, Mr. N. Brixham cavern and its testimony to antiquity of man. 
Vol. 8. 


INDEX TO AUTHORS. 15 


Whitley, Mr. N. Paleolithic age examined. Vol. 8. 

Flint implements of Brixham cavern. Vol. 11. 

Whitmee, Rev. S. J., F.L.S. The ethnology of the Pacific. Vol. 14. 

Wiener, Mr. Harold M., M.A., LL.B. Legislations of Israel and Babylonia. 
Vol. 41. 

Wilson, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. W., R.E., F.R.S. Recent investigations in Moab and 
Edom. Vol. 33. 

The water supply of Jerusalem. Annual Address. Vol. 34. 

Wood, Rev. T., M.A. On the apparent cruelty of nature. Vol. 25. 

Woods-Smyth, Mr. W., L.R.C.S. The Bible in the light of modern science. 
Vol. 38. 

Woolls, Rev. W., Ph.D., F.L.S. Remarks on the past, present, and future of 
the Australian flora. Vol. 32. 

Wright, Prof. G. Fredk., LL.D., F.G.S. Am. The influence of the glacial 
epoch upon the early history of mankind. Vol. 40. 

Wright, Rev. W., D.D. The empire of the Hittites. Vol. 21. 


Young, Prof. J. R. On the language of gesticulation and origin of speech. 
Vol. 1. 


s 


Zwemer, Rey. S. M. Star worshippers of Mesopotamia. Vol. 31. 
Wahabis ; origin, history, tenets and influence. Vol. 33. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 


Aborigines— 
Religion of aboriginal tribes of India. Avery. Vol. 19. 
Worship and traditions of. of America. Eells. Vol. 19. 
Traditions of of North America. Peet. Vol. 21. 

of Australia. Fraser, J. Vol. 22. 


Abram— 
History in the time of ——. Jenkins. Vol. 12. 
Historical evidences of the migration of Boscawen. Vol. 20. 
Africa. The butterflies and moths of Kirby. Vol. 23. 
Agassiz. Creation according to Darwin, -,and Moses. Kirk. Vol. 4. 
Agnosticism— 
Fundamental assumptions of -—-. Clarke. Vol. 20. 
On Hassell. Vol. 20. 
Alphabet. The History of 
America— 
Common origin of American races with those of the Old World. 
Titcomb. Vol. 3. 
Traditions of aborigines of North ——. Peet. Vol. 21. 
Fauna and origin of Lobley. Vol. 40. 
Ancestral worship. Elwin. Vol. 36. 
Anthropology. The true Hitchman. Vol. 5. 
Arabia. Expedition to Petrea. Hull. Vol. 21. 
Archeology and evolution. Walkey. Vol. 28. 
Arianism in its bearing on modern questions. Gwatkin. Vol. 42. 
Arrow heads. Flint of delicate structure. Murray. Vol. 22. 
Art. Jewish, Pheenician, and early Greek ——. Porter. Vol. 21. 
Aryans. Religion and mythology of of Northern Europe. Brown. 
Vol. 14. 
Arya Somaj. Griswold. Vol. 35. 
Asia. On the comparison of Asiatic languages. Conder. Vol. 27. 
Asia Minor— 
Exploration of Ramsay. Vol. 39. 
Survivals of primitive religion in White, G. E. Vol. 39. 
Lycaonia. Ramsay. Vol. 41. 
Assur and Nineveh. Pinches. Vol. 42. 
Assyriology— 
Late Assyrian and Babylonian research. Rassam. Vol. 14. _ 
Some recent discoveries in the realm of Pinches. Vol. 26. 
Astronomy— 
Used in relation to geological facts and ages. Hopkins. Vol. 2. 
On current physical. Reddie. Vol. 4. 
Bible and modern Birks. Vol all: 
Biblical Mackinlay. Vol. 387. 
The Bible and Maunder. Vol. 40. 
Atoll. Keeling Guppy. Vol. 23. 


faylor. Volo Wz: 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS. EF 


Australia— 
Aborigines of 
Problems of aboriginal art in 
Flora of Woolls. Vol. 32. 

Ancient script in Statham. Vol. 33. 
Pictorial art among the aborigines. Mathews. Vol. 33. 

Authority. Wace. Vol. 41. 


Fraser, J. Vol. 22. 
Bishop Thornton. Vol. 30. 


Babylonia— j 
Late Assyrian and Babylonian research. Rassam. Vol. 14. 
Babylonian cities. Rassam. Vol. 17. 
Nebuchadnezzar of , recently discovered inscriptions. Budge. Vol. 18. 
Importance of Babylonian excavations. Petrie. Vol. 22. 
Religious ideas of Pinches. Vol. 28. 
Inscriptions, etc. Pinches. Vol. 29. 
Story of creation. Pinches. Vol. 35. 
Discoveries in ——. Pinches. Vol. 41. 
Legislations of Wiener. Vol. 41. 
Bathymetrical. Dr. Nanseni’s - researches, Arctic Ocean, ete. Hull. 
Vol. 37. ° 


Bible— 
Difference in scope between and science, Burnett. Vol. 1. 
Relations of geological science to Scriptures. Kirk. Vol. 1. 
Sketch of the relations between and science. Warington. Vol. 1. 
Importance of language and phraseology of - Baylee. Vol. 3. 
Objections to Divine inspiration of Mitchell, W. Vol. 3. 
Biblical pneumatology and psychology. English. Vol. 6. 
Biblical interpretation and science. McCaul. Vol. 9. 
Early dawn ot civilization in light of Howard. Vol. 9. 
Magnitudes in creation and bearing on Biblical interpretation. Titcomb. 
Wolo 
On harmony between chronology of Egypt and 
On Egypt and the Howard. Vol. 10. 
--— and modern astronomy. Birks. Vol. 11. 
Metaphysics of Scripture. Challis. Vol. 11. 
Biblical proper names from outside sources. Tomkins. Vol. 16. 
Recent survey of West Palestine and its: bearing on 
Molla. 
Recent Egyptological research and Tomkins. Vol. 18. 
illustrated and confirmed by recent discoveries, etc. Hall. Vol. 28. 
Scientific research and Biblical study. Girdlestone. Vol. 29. 
Biblical Jands, customs, races, etc. Rassam. Vol. 30. 
Diseases in Chaplin. Vol. 34. 
* Modern theories of construction of 


Saville. Vol. 9. 


Saunders. 


Tuckwell. Vol. 35. 


The in the light of modern science. Woods Smyth. Vol. 38. 
The last century’s witness to Sharp. Vol. 43. 
Biology — 


The nature of life. Beale. Vol. 32. 
Vitality. Beale. Vol. 33. 
Water essential to life. Beale. Vol. 34. 
Unseen life of our World. Beale. Vol. 35. 
Bone. Cuts on as evidence of man’s existence. Hughes. Vol. 23. 
Brixham— 
Its testimony to antiquity.of man. Whitley, N. Vol. 8. 
Flint implements of Whitley, N. Vol. 11. 
Bubastis. Historical results of excavations at 


Naville. Vol. 23. 
Y 2 


18 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 


Buddhism— 

On ——. Claughton. Vol. 8. 

On Collins. Vol. 18. 

Contrast between and Christianity. Monier Williams. Vol. 23. 
: and the Light of Asia. Collins. Vol. 28. 
Butterflies. The —— and moths of Africa. Kirby. Vol. 23. 


Canaan, see Palestine— 
ancient and modern. ‘Tristram. Vol. 21. 

On the Canaanites. Conder. Vol. 24. 
Canary Islands. The Guanches of Dawson. Vol. 29. 
Captivity. On cuneiform inscriptions ve Boscawen. Vol. 18. 
Catholics. Present position of Galton. Vol. 41. 


Caves— 
Brixham ——. Whitley, N. Vol. 8. 
Brixham ——. Whitley, N. Vol. 11. 


Torquay ——, etc. Howard. Vol. 13. 
—- of South Devon. Howard. Vol. 15. 
Hughes. Vol. 21. 
Celtic. Early churches of Britain and Ireland. Hull, Miss. Vol. 38. 
Character. Springs of Schofield. Vol. 24. 
Cheesewring, Cornwall. Hull. Vol. 35. 
China— 
Ethnology and ancient chronology of —--. Gordon. Vol. 23. 
Chinese Chronology. Legge. Vol. 25. 
Chinese ethics and philosophy. Gordon. Vol. 28. 
China’s place in ancient history. Gordon. Vol. 29. 
Christianity — 
as amoral power. Lias. Vol. 11. 
On misrepresentation of O’Neill. Vol. 18. 
Civilization. Antiquity of ——. Titcombe. Vol. 3. 
Climate— 


of India. Fayer. Vol. 15. 
in relation to organic nature. Gordon. Vol. 17. 
Causes of climatic changes. Dawson. Vol. 26. 
Coal. Our resources end of nineteenth century. Hull. Vol. 82. 
Colour— 
Colours in nature. Walker. Vol. 28. 
Perception of Stokes. Vol. 31. 
Comets. Halley’s comet. Crommelin. Vol. 42. 
Comte. The philosophy of Slater. Vol. 28. 
Confucianism. Elwin, Arthur. Vol. 37. 
Coral— 
Pedigree of the reefs of England. Pattison. Vol. 21. 
—- Islands and savage myths. Guppy. Vol. 23. 
Cosmogonies— 
On the Biblical 
On heathen 
Creation— 
Doctrine of 


scientifically considered. Warington. Vol. 3. 
compared with Hebrew. Savile. Vol. 10. 


, according to Darwin, Agassiz, and Moses. Kirk. Vol. 4. 
Man’s place in Macdonald. Vol. 4. 

Law of , unity of plan, variety of form. Weldon. Vol. 7. 
Magnitudes in Titcomb. Vol. 9. 

and Providence. Howard. Vol. 12. 

A Samoan tradition of Powell. Vol. 20. 

Accounts of ——. James. Vol. 20. 

Light, luminaries, and life in relation to ——. Irving. Vol. 42. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 19 


Row. Vol. 7. 


Criticism. Current principles of historic 
Crystallization— 
Geometrical Isomorphism of crystals, and derivation of cubical system. 
Mitchell, W. Vol. 2. ¢ 
Contrast between and life. Howard. Vol. 8. 
Cuneiform— 
inscriptions of Jewish captivity. Boscawen. Vol. 18. 
inscriptions at Tel-el-Amarna. Sayce. Vol. 24. 


The 


Darwinism— 

Credibility of Warington, Reddie. Vol. 2. 

The creation according to Darwin. Kirk. Vol. 4. 

The Darwinian theory. Irons. Vol. 6. 
and its effects on religious thought. Bree. Vol. 7. 
— tested by recent researches in language. Bateman. Vol. 7. 
Bearing of paleontological facts on Nicholson. Vol. 9. 
The weak sides of natural selection. Slater. Vol. 26. 
and Malthus. White. Vol. 42. 


Deluge— 
More than one —— recorded in Scripture. Moule. Vol. 4. 
The Noachian -—. Davison. Vol. 4. 


to physical science. Challis. Vol. 10. 
. Prestwich. Vol. 27. 


Relation of Bible account of 
A possible cause of the origin of the tradition of 
Hilprecht’s fragment on Pinches. Vol. 43. 
Deontology. Clarke. Vol. 25. 
Design— 
Structure of geological formations as evidence of -——. Howard, D. 
Vols 4). 
The argument from in nature. James. Vol. 17. 
The theory of Duns. Vol. 20. 
The theory of ——. Duns. Vol. 22. 
The philosophic basis of the argument from 
Evolution and ——. Bompas. Vol. 28. 
in nature, note. Kelvin. Vol. 31. 
Adaptation and selection in nature 
Abnormal conditions of water illustrating 
Determinism and free will. Potter. Vol. 42. 
Devon. Scientific facts and the caves of South 
Druids and their religion. Howard. Vol. 14. 
Dualism: Monier-Williams. Vol. 25. 


Bernard. Vol. 26. 


Kidd. Vol. 34. 
Hull. Vol. 42. 


Howard. Vol. 18. 


Earth— 
as an abode fitted for life. Age of Kelvin. Vol. 31. 
Preparation of for man’s abode. Lobley. Vol. 34. 
Nebular and planetesimal theories of the earth’s origin. Upham. Vol. 37. 
Earthquakes— 
San Francisco. Ward, H. B. p.17, Vol. 38. 
Valparaiso and San Francisco. Upham. Vol. 39. 
East— 
Physical geography of the Porter, J. L. Vol. 12. 
Sacred books of the Monier-Williams. Vol. 21. 
Eden. The garden of ——. Rassam. Vol. 25. 
Education— 
Place of science in Nicholson. Vol. 10. 
Philosophy of Sthofield. Vol. 33. 
Plato’s theory of ——. Marston. Vol. 42. 


20 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 


Wilson. Vol. 33. 


Edom. Recent investigations in 
Egypt— | 
Israel in Egypt. Moule. Vol. 5. : 
Evidence for sojourn of Israel in Savile. Vol. 6. 
Serpent myths in ancient ——. Cooper. Vol. 6. 
Harmony between chronology of and Bible. Savile. Vol. 9. 
On and the Bible. Howard. Vol. 10. 
Prehistoric man in Dawson. Vol. 18. 
Recent Egyptological research in its Biblical relations. Tomkins. Vol. 18. 
Egypt: physical, historical, literary, and social. Porter. Vol. 20 
Egyptian discoveries in 1888. Monier-Williams. Vol. 21. 
Geological history of Hull. Vol. 24. 
Useful and ornamental stones of ancient Dawson. Vol. 26. 
Literature of in time of Moses. Fradenburgh. Vol. 31. 
Geology of Herodotus. Walker. Vol. 31. 
Climate of in ancient times. Grant Bey. Vol. 32. 
Annual address. Petrie, W. Flinders. Vol. 35. 
Elam. Inscriptions at , ete. Pinches. Vol. 29. 
Empire. True temper of Bruce. Vol. 43. 


Entomology— 
Oriental -—-. Butterflies. Walker. Vol. 21. 
Oriental Walker. Vol. 22. 


Eolithic implements. Bullen. Vol. 338. 
Ether. The luminiferous Stokes. Vol. 28. 
Ethics— 
Ethical philosophy. English. Vol. 3. 
On the ethical condition of Scandinavians. Gosse. Vol. 9. 
On the of belief. Wace. Vol. 11. : 
On the data of . Wace. Vol. 14. 
and religion. Wace. Vol. 33. 
Ethnography. Sciences of language and ——. Leitner. Vol. 23. 
Ethnology— 
Ethnic testimonies to the Pentateuch. ‘Titcomb. Vol. 6. 
The of the Pacific. Whitmee. Vol. 14. 
Eugenics. Heredity and Caldecott. Vol. 42. 
European. Fauna of , spread of. Lobley. Vol. 39. 
Evidence— 
Scientific facts and Christian Howard. Vol. 7. 
On the rules of as applicable to credibility of history. Forsyth. Vol. 8. 
Nature and character of -for scientific purposes. McCann. Vol. 10. 
Kvolution— 
Bearing of paleontological facts on Nicholson. Vol. 9. 
Breaks in continuity of mammalia fatal to Callard. Vol. 16. 
Theory of as taught by Haeckel. Hassell. Vol. 16. 
Did the world evolve itself? Grimthorpe. Vol. 17. 
— of the pearly nautilus. Pattison. Vol. 18. 
by natural selection. Hassell. Vol. 19. 
On and development. White. Vol. 19. 
Remarks on Virchow. Vol. 19. 
Relation of fossil botany to theories of James. Vol. 19. 
Thoughts on the of religions. Blackett. Vol. 19. 
Factors of in language. Murphy. Vol. 23. 
Archeology and Walkey. Vol. 28. 
and design. Bompas. Vol. 28. 
Creation or Kidd. Vol. 32. 
from a geological point of view. Whidborne. Vol. 33. 
Law of in Genesis i. . Irving. Vol. 38. 
Orchard. Vol. 40. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS. maak 


Exodus. The route of the Naville. Vol. 26. 
Ezekiel’s vision. Carus-Wilson. Vol. 41. 


Faith. Common errors in relation to science and faith. Macloskie. Vol. 32. 
Fatalism. Robbins. Vol. 7. 
Final cause— 
as principle in cognition and nature. Morris. Vol. 9. 
— Thompson. Vol. 13. 
— Dabney. Vol. 20. 
Flint— 
agricultural implements in America. Dawson. Vol. 11. 
implements of Brixham cavern. Whitley, N. Vol. 11. 
Prehistoric factory of at Spiennes. Mello. Vol. 18. 
arrow heads of delicate structure. Murray. Vol. 22. 
bodies in chalk, Paramoudra. Charlesworth. Vol. 26. 
Folk-lore. Stone Duns. Vol. 28. 
Force— 


and energy. Brooke. Vol. 7. 
and its manifestations. McCann. Vol. 7. 


Indestructibility of Birks. Vol. 9. 
Genesis— 

Evolutionary law in Chapteri. Irving. Vol. 38. 
Geology— 


General character of geological formations. Hopkins, E. Vol. 1. 
Lessons of in relation to God. Brodie. Vol. 1. 
Relation of geological science to Bible. Kirk. Vol. 1. 
Changes and ages of continents. Hopkins. Vol. 2. 
Geological chronology. Reddie. Vol. 2. 
Geological proofs of Divine action. Pattison. Vol. 5. 
Introduction of genera and species in geological time. Dawson. Vol. 7. 
See Glacial epoch. 
See Paleolithic. 
Chronology of recent Pattison. Vol. 10. 
Structure of geological formations on evidence of design. Howard, D. 
Volo. 
Elevation and depression of the British Isles. Hughes. Vol. 14. 
Breaks in continuity of mammalian life. Callard. Vol. 16% 
Volcanoes of West Indies. Spencer. Vol. 35. 
Age of last uprise in British Isles. Hull. Vol. 36. 
Geological exterminations. Warring. Vol. 37. 
Biological change in geological time. Lobley. Vol. 38. 
Glacial epoch— 
Lapse of time since determined by, etc. Southall. Vol. 13. 
On the recency of the close of Mackintosh. Vol. 19. 
On the post period. Upham. Vol. 25. 
The —— period and the earth movement hypothesis. Geikie. Vol. 26. 
Another clause of ——. Hull. Vol. 31. 
The influence of on early history of mankind. Wright. Vol. 40. 
Glaciers in New Zealand. Fox. Vol. 40. 
God— 
Relation of geology’s lessons to God. Brodie. Vol. 1. 
she between His methods in nature and revelation. Henslow. 
ol. 4. ; 
A demonstration of the existence of 


McCann. Vol. 5. 


DD INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 


God—continued— 
Why man must believe in ? Reddie. Vol. 5. 
Is it, possible to know ? Lias. Vol. 17. 
in nature. Hull. Vol. 24. 
On tlhe being of Sinclair. Vol. 33. 
Modifications in the idea of ——. Lias. Vol. 34. 
Gorilla. Charlesworth. Vol. 20. 


Guanches— 

Charactéristics of Dawson. Vol. 39. 

Skulls of Putnam. Vol. 39. 
Habit. An enquiry into the formation of —-- in man. Schofield. Vol. 27. 
Hades. Descent into ——. MacCulloch. Vol. 43. 


Hamburg Congress. Pinches. Vol. 35. 
Hammurabi’s code. Pinches. Vol. 35. 
Heredity and eugenics. Caldecott. Vol. 42. 
Herodotus. On Egyptian geology. Walker. Vol. 31. 
Hittite— 
Empire of the Hittites. Wright, Rev. W. Vol. 21. 
cities. White, G.8. Vol. 33. 
Hornets. Walker. Vol. 33. 


Horus. ‘The myth. Cooper. Vol. 12. 
Human responsibility— 

Analysis of —— (2 parts). Irons. Vol. 4. 
ice— 


Causes of the ice age. Upham. Vol. 29. 
age’s divisions. Upham. Vol. 33. 
Howorth. Vol. 38. 


Tceland— 
Botany and entomology of 
Stefansson. Vol. 34. 
Stefansson. Vol. 38. 
Inca language. Christian, F. W. Vol..40. 
India— 
Rainfall and climate of ——. Fayrer. Vol. 16. 
Religion of the aboriginal tribes of Avery. Vol. 19. 
Philosophy and medical knowledge of ancient Gordon. Vol. 25. 
Worship of snakes in Fayrer. Vol. 26. 
Irrigation works of Odling. Vol. 36. 
On Indian customs. Hendley. Vol. 40. 
Inspiration. Objections to Divine inspiration of Scripture. Mitchell, W. 
Vols. 
Instinct and reason. Collingwood. Vol. 24. 
Islam— 


Walker. Vol. 24. 


Tisdall. Vol. 25. 
Future of Margoliouth. Vol. 35. 
Israel— 


in Egypt. Moule. Vol. 5. 
Synchronous chronology of kings of . Fleay. Vol. 36. 
Ivory islands in Arctic Ocean. Whitley. Vol. 42. 


Jerusalem— 
Water supply of ——. Annual address. Wilson. Vol. 34. 
Water supply of —— Masterman. Vol. 35. 


we 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS. Ze 


Joseph — 
Life of —— from external sources. Jomkins. Vol. 15. . 
Jurisprudence. Smith. Vol. 43. 


Kant. The alleged scepticism of 
Keeling Islands— 

Keeling Atoll. Guppy. Vol. 23. 

Dispersal of plants Guppy. Vol. 24. 
Kingdom of God. The growth of Whiting, Rev. J. B. Vol. 37. 
Krishna. Collings. Vol. 21. 


Courtney. Vol. 27. 


Language— 
On of gesticulation and origin of speech. Young. Vol. 1. 
Nature of human ——. Baylee. Vol. 3. 
Darwinism tested by recent researches in ——. Bateman. Vol. 7. 


The Etruscan Taylor. Vol. 10. 
and the theories of its origin. Brown. Vol. 15. 
Sciences of and ethnography. Leitner. Vol. 23. 
Factors of evolution in - Murphy. Vol. 23. 
Comparison of the Asiatic languages. Conder. Vol. 27. 
Lebanon. Prehistoric man in Dawson. Vol. 18. 
Life— 
On , its origin. Wheatley. Vol. 3. 
On , its origin. Wheatley. Vol. 4. 
Spontaneous generation on the problem of Kirk. Vol. 5. 
Contrast between crystallization and Howard. Vol. 8. 
On the nature of Nicholson. Vol. 14. 
The living and the non-living. Beale. Vol. 16. 
On certain theories of Gordon. Vol. 17. 
Chronology of animal on earth prior to man. Dawson. Vol. 20. 
as compared with physical forces. Slater. Vol. 32. 
The nature of Beale. Vol. 32. 
Light, luminaries and Irving. Vol. 42. 
Light— 
Perception of Stokes. Vol. 29. 
luminaries, and life, etc. Irving. Vol. 42. 
Locusts and grasshoppers. Walker. Vol. 34. 
Logic: Inductive Dabney. Vol. 19. 
Logos. The meaning and history of the 
Lucerne. Thickness of 
Vol. 36. 
Lycaonia. Ramsay, Sir W. M. Vol. 41. 


of philosophy. Ciarke. Vol. 23, 
glacier of the post pliocene period. Hull, 


Madagascar. Immigration of Arabs into Shaw. Vol. 33. 

Malthus. Darwinism and ——. White. Vol. 42. ~ 

Man— 
Theories of man’s past and present condition. Reddie. Vol. 1. 
Man’s place in creation. Macdonald. Vol. 4. 
Bible aspects of man’s tripartite nature. Graham. Vol. 6. 
Brixham cavern’s testimony to antiquity of Whitley, N. Vol. 9. 
Evidence already obtained ve antiquity of Hughes. Vol. 13. 
Contemporaneity of with extinct mammalia. Callard. Vol. 13. 
Modern geogenies and antiquity of Birks: Viol: U3: 


24. INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 


Man—continued— 
Science and * -, Potter. Volnl3; 
Early destinies of Howard. Vol. 15. 


Implements of stone age dividing ——- and animals. Thompson, J. P. 
Vol. 15. 
Pliocene in America. Dawson. Vol. 15. 


Origin of ——. Bardsley. Vol. 17. 

Prehistoric in Egypt. Dawson. Vol. 18. 

Was primeval asavage? Hassell. Vol. 19. 

Antiquity of Petrie, Capt. Vol. 20. 

Chronology of animal life on earth prior to —~—. Dawson. Vol. 20. 


Origin of Virchow. Vol. 24. 
Manikka Vacagar. Pope. Vol. 30. 
Materialism— 

The present day ——. Macdongal. Vol. 10. 


—. Beale. Vol. 16 (2 papers). 
Richmond. Vol. 16. 


Matter— 
On the indestructibility of -——. Challis. Vol. 12. 
Certain definitions of Howard. Vol. 17. 
Matthew Arnold and modern culture. Lias. Vol. 12. 
Mediterranean. Physical conditions of basin, ete. Hull. Vol. 31. 
Mencius. Turner, F. Storrs. Vol. 42. 
Mesopotamia. Star worshippers of 
Metaphysics— 
The of scripture. Challis. Vol. 11. 
On physiological Porter, Neo Voelv i> 
Metallurgy. The dawn of Mello. Vol. 23. 
Meteorites. On falling stars and W. Mitchell. Vol. 1. 
Meteorology. : rainfall. Bateman. Vol. 15. 
Mind— 
On the organ of Fisher. Vol. 14. 
Some relations between and body. Schofield. Vol. 30. 
The scope of Schofield. Vol. 32. 
The marks of in nature. Duns. Vol. 32. 


Zwemer. Vol. 81. 


Minerals. The —— and metals of the Old Testament. Jervis. Vol. 37. 
Miracles— 

On Penny. Voud: 

On imelish -Voled: 

On ——. Watson. Vol. 20. 


, Science and prayer. Lias. Vol. 29. 

Scriptural idea of Girdlestone. Vol. 30. 

Attitude of science towards Gunning Prize. Orchard. Vol. 42. 
Missions. Science in relation to Christian Baylis. Vol. 43. 
Mithraism. ‘Tisdall. Vol. 48. 


Moab— 
Moabite stone. Petrie, Capt. Vol. 6. 
Recent investigations in ——. Wilson. Vol. 33. 


Modernism. Lias. Vol. 40. 
Monism. Monier-Williams. Vol. 25. 


Monotheism— 
Prehistoric in relation to man as savage. Titcomb. Vol. 6. 
On Rule. Vol. 12. 
Archaic ——. Brown. Vol. 13. 
Moral— 
Origin of sense. Kirk. Vol. 7. 


Physical theory of freedom. Murphy. Vol. 22. 
Morning star. Mackinlay. Vol. 38. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 25 


Myths— 
Serpent —— in ancient Egypt. Cooper. Vol. 6. 
The of Ra. Cooper. Vol. 11. 
The Horus Cooper. Vol. 12. 
Coral Islands and savage Guppy. Vol. 23. 


Nativity. Date of Mackinlay. Vol. 41. 

Nationality. Hughes, Prof. T.M. Vol. 82. 

Natural Selection— ; 
Bearing of paleontological facts on ——. Nicholson. Vol. 9. 
Evolution by Hassell. Vol. 19. 
The theory of Duns. Vol. 22. 

Nature— 
Methods in and in revelation. Henslow. Vol. 4. 
Final cause as principle in Morris. Vol. 9. 
—- limits: an argument for Theism. Pattison. Vol. 12. 
The supernatural in Howard. Vol. 16. 
Climate in relation to organic Gordon. Vol. 17. 
The argument from design in James. Vol. 17. 
The beauty of Griuthorpe. Vol. 21, 
The one origin of the books of Kevelation and of 
Colours in Walker. Vol. 23. 
God in Hull. Vol. 24. 
Man’s place in Petrie. Vol. 24. 
On the apparent cruelty of Wood. Vol. 25. 
Mechanical conception of Macloskie. Vol. 28. 
Plan and purpose in ——. Kidd. Vol. 31. 
Marks of mind in Duns. Vol. 32. 
Adaptation and selection in , design. Kidd. Vol. 34. 
Genesis of Whidborne. Vol. 36. 

Nautilus. Evolution of the pearly Pattison. Vol. 18. 

Naville, Ernest. *s life. Roget. Vol. 43. 

Negro. The origin of the Titcomb. Vol. 5. 

New Zealand— 

The Maoris’ place in history. Rutland. Vol. 33. 


Stokes. Vol. 22. 


Fjords of Maclaren. Vol. 34. 
Hot lakes of ——. Boord. Vol. 36. 
Niagara— 


Recession of Falls. Upham. Vol.19. Note. 
Recession of Falls. Upham. Vol 27. 
Nicaragua. Human footprints in ——. Brinton. Vol. 22. 
Nineveh. Assur and Pinches. Vol. 42. 
Norway. fjords. Hull. Vol. 34. 
Numerical System. The of the Old Testament. Thornton. Vol. 5. 


Ocean— 
How waters of became salt. Hull. Vol. 27. 
Sub-oceanic river valleys, British Isles. Hull Vol. 30. 
Sub-oceanic river valleys, West Europe. Hull. Vol. 31. 
Sub-oceanic river valleys, West Africa. Hull. Vol. 32. 
Sub-oceanic depression. Lobley. Vol. 33. 
Optimism. Practical Smith, Saumerez. Vol. 21. 
Oriental discoveries— 
On —-. Urquhart. Vol. 37. 
On ——. Robinson. Vol. 38. 


26 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 


Origin— 
Of man. Bardsley. Vol. 17. 
Of man. Virchow. Vol. 24. 
Orissa. Hendley. Vol. 39. 


Pacific— 

The ethnology of the ——-. Whitimee. Vol. 14. 

Traditions of Aborigines of islands of Ocean. Dr. Eells. Vol19; 
Palestine—- 


Recent survey of West Saunders. Vol. 17. 

Meteorology of =; 2bosn- ~Vol 20: 

Botanical geography of Post. Vol. 22. 

Land tenure in ancient times in ——. Neil. Vol. 24. 

On the Canaanites. Conder. Vol. 24. 

Recent discoveries in Masterman. Vol. 39. 
Paleeolithiec— 

The age examined. Whitley, N. Vol. 8. 

Facts and evolution. Nicholson. Vol. 9. 


Pantheism— 
Principles of modern Row. Vol. 8. 
On Monier-Williams. Vol. 25. 
Pentateuch— 


On high numbers in Gosse. Vol. 5. 
Ethnic testimonies to Titecomb. Vol. 6. 
On Samaritan text of ——. Garret. Vol. 36. 
Pessimism. James. Vol. 18. 
Petra. Hull. Vol. 21. 
Philology. On comparative 


Thornton. Vol. 1. 


Philosophy— 
The relation of reason to -—--. Row. Vol. 3. 
Ethical English. Vol. 3. 


Philosophical principles in Mr. Buckle’s history. Row. Vol. 3. 
The testimony of to Christianity as a moral and spiritual revelation. 
Row. Vol. 5. 
Natural theology and modern Henslow. Vol. 7. 
Influence of true and false Howard. Vol. 12. 
and evolution. Orchard. Vol. 40. 
The demand for a Christian Whateley. Vol. 43. 
Phyllotaxis. Henslow. Vol. 6. 
Plants— 
Polynesians and their names. Guppy. Vol. 29. 
—— Distribution. Guppy. Vol. 39. 
Pliocene. man in America. Dawson. Vol. 15. 
Polynesians. and their plant names. Guppy. Vol. 29. 
Prayer— 
Relation of science to Kirk. Vole 2: 
Miracles, science and ——. Lias. Vol. 29. 
Primeval man in Belgium. Whitley. Vol. 39. 
Primitive man. Mello. Vol. 30. 
Primeval history. Uses of. MacCausland. Vol. 3. 
Procopius. ’s African monument. Rouse. Vol. 34. 
Protection. Methods of of. Kid. Vol. 33. 
Providence. Creation and Havard. Vol. 12. 
Psychology— 
On comparative Morshead. Vol. 3. 
On comparative Morshead. Vol. 5. 
Biblical ——. English. Vol. 6. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 27 


Psychology—con/inued. 
On comparative Morshead. Vol. 12. 
——. Turner, F. Storrs. Vol. 37. 
—. Smith, I. Gregory. Vol. 43. 


Qadian. The Messiah of Griswold. Vol. 37. 
Queensland. Artesian water in ——. Jack. Vol. 34. 


Ra. The myth of Ra. Cooper. Vol. 11. 
Rainfall— 
Meteorology Bateman. Vol. 15. 
and climate of India. Fayrer. Vol. 15. 
Rajputana. Hendley, Col. T. H. Vol. 37. 
Rank. Principles of among animals. Parker. Vol. 27. 
Reason— 
Relation of to philosophy, theology and revelation. Row. Vol. 3. 
Identity of —— in science and religion. Mitchell, R. Vol. 8. 
Instinct and Collingwood. Vol. 24. 
Reconstruction. Thompson, 8: P. Vol. 37. 
Rectitude. The science of as distinct from expedience. Clarke. Vol, 24. 
Red Sea. Passage of —— by Israelites. Tulloch. Vol. 28. 
Religion— 
Identity of reason in science and Mitchell, R. Vol. 8. 
Relation of thought to Cotterill. Vol. 12. 


Modern science of ——. Blencowe. Vol. 15. 
Relation of science and ——. Cotterill. Vol. 15. 
On comparative ——-. Note. Vol. 19. 


Some characteristics of primitive ——. Collins. Vol. 19. 
Science and Petrie. Vol. 23. 

Modern science and natural Ashwin. Vol. 23. 
Religions of the East— 

Some thoughts on the evolution of 


Blackett. Vol. 19. 


List of Society’s publications on Vol. 30. 
Responsibility— 
On human (2 parts). Irons. Vol. 4. 
On human Blencowe. Vol. 19. 
On human Grimthorpe. Vol. 25. 
Resurrection. The of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Girdlestone. 
Vol. 37. 
Revelation— 
Relation of reason to Row. Vol. 3. 
Analogous methods of deity in nature and ——. Henslow. Vol. 4. 


Absence of opposition between science and Stokes. Vol. 17. 
Science not opposed to Porter. Vol. 18. 
One origin of the books of and of nature. Stokes. Vol. 22. 


Roéntgen rays. Stokes. Vol. 30. 


Samaritan— 

text of Pentateuch. Garrett. Vol. 36. 

Passover of the year 1861. Hammond. Vol. 36. 
Samoa. A tradition of creation. Powell. Vol. 20. 
Scandinavians. On their ethical condition. Gosse. Vol. 9. 
Scepticism— | 

The logic of ——. Thornton. Vol. 2. 

The credulity of Thornton. Vol. 4. 

Anarchy of modern ynbelief. Boultbee. Vol. 8. 

The varying tactics of ——. Thornton. Vol. 9. 

Modern philosophic examined. Main. Vol. 10. 


28 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 


Science— 
Mutual helpfulness of theology and physical Gladstone. Vol. 1. 
Difference in scope between scripture and Burnet. Vol. 1. 
A sketch of the relations between scripture and ——. Warington. 
Vols: 
Relation of to prayer. Kirk. Vol. 2. 
Simplification of first principles in physical Brooke. Vol. 3. 
Immediate derivation of from great first cause. Laming. Vol. 3. 
Provinces of the observer and reasoner in investigation. Gabbett. 
Vol. 4. 
Identity of reason in -—— and religion. Mitchell, R. Vol. 8. 
Biblical interpretation and McCaul. Vol. 9. 
Place of in education. Nicholson. Vol. 10. 
Uncertainties of modern physical -——-. Birks. Vol. 11. 
Relation of scientific thought to religion. Cotterill. Vol. 12. 
and man. Porter, N. Vol, 18. 
Bearings of study of - upon our religious ideas. Stokes. Vol. 14. 
Modern of religion. Blencowe. Vol. 15. 
Relation of and religion. Cotterill. Vol. 15. 
Absence of opposition between and revelation.- Stokes. Vol. 17. 
not opposed to revelation. Porter. Vol. 18. 
Note on ——- and religion. Petrie. Vol. 23. 


Modern - and natural religion. Ashwin. Vol. 23. 
Self. On the reality of the Courtney. Vol. 25. 
Serpents— 


myths in ancient Egypt. Cooper. Vol. 6. 
Sun and worship. Phene. Vol. 8. 
On worship and the venomous snakes of India. Fayrer. Vol. 26. 


Shishak. The list of Maspero. Vol. 27. 
Sidon. Discoveries at ——. Vol. 21. 
Sinai— : 
The topography of the —-- peninsula. Holland. Vol. 14. 


Pulling eViole ak: 

Researches in Prof. Petrie, Volx39: 
Socialism. On Christianity and Cunningham. Vol. 41. 
Sound. -~—-and colour. Macdonald. Vol. 32. 
South Africa. Experiences in the war. Frazer. Vol. 35. 
Space. Time and Arthur. ‘Vol. 22. 
Species— : 

Introduction of in geological time. Dawson. — Vol. 7. 
and their origin. Gerard. Vol. 42. 
Spencer, Herbert — 

On -—— philosophy. Ground. Vol. 16. 

On theory of the will. Ground. Vol. 16. 
Spiennes. Factory of flints at Mello. Voi. 18. 
Sphinx. Note on excavations round Maspero. Vol. 20. 
Spontaneous generation. or problem of life. Kirk. Vol. 5. 
Stars— 

worshippers of Mesopotamia. Zwemer. Vol. 31. 

Origin of new Ball. Vol. 33. 


Where is Mount 


Falling Meteorites. 
Sidereal universe. Gill. Vol. 43. 
Stone age— 


Date of the polished Southall. Vol. 13. 

Implements of man, and animals. Thompson, J. P. Vol. 15. 
Structure. and structureless. Beale. Vol. 20. 
Sun. On —— worship. Phene. Vol. 8. 
Supernatural. On the credibility of the 


O'Neill. Vol. 16. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 29 


Syria— 
Meteorology of 
Botanical geography of 


Post. Vol. 20. 
Post. Vol. 22. 


Tanganyika. Marine fauna of Hudleston. Vol. 36. 
Tel el Amarnd. On the cuneiform inscriptions of Sayce. Vol. 24. 
Thalassography. On North Sea. Jervis. Vol. 32. 
Theism— 
Mill’s essay on Irons. Vol. 9. 
Unconscious intelligence as opposed to 
Nature’s limits, an argument for 
Theology— 
Mutual helpfulness of and natural science. Gladstone. Vol. 1. 
asa science. Dela Mare. Vol. 3. 
Relation of reason to Row. Vol. 3. 


Morris. Vol. 11. 
Pattison. Vol. 12. 


Natural and modern philosophy. Henslow. Vol. 7. 
Comparative MacCulloch. Vol. 43. 

Theosophy. Coles. Vol. 43. 

Thothmes— 


Names on the list of 
Names on the list of 
Thought— 
The unknown in modern Lias. Vol. 17. 
The influence of physiological discoveries on 
Time. and space. Arthur. Vol. 22. 
Tithegiving. among ancient Pagan nations and note by MacMiiller on 
same. Lansdell. Vol. 31. 
Turkey. Shia Turks. White,G.E. Vol. 40. 


Maspero. Vol. 20. 
Maspero. Vol. 22. 


Frost. Vol. 37. 


Ultramontanism. lLias. Vol. 40. 
Unity. The of truth. Annual address. Temple. Vol. 32. 
Universe— 
Examination of the unseen Irons. Vol. 11. 
Action of the will in formation of O’Neill. Vol. 15. 
Modern conceptions of Searle. Vol. 42. 


Scheme of Girdlestone. Vol. 43. 
! Sidereal Gill. Vol. 43. 
Unseen world. . On science and ——. Schofield. Vol. 41. 


Utilitarianism. Reddie. Vol. 2. 


Victoria, Queen— 


Communications from ——. Her Jubilee. Vol. 29. 
Death of Vol. 33. 
Volcanoes— 


of West Indies. Spencer. Vol. 35. 
Volcanic action and West Indian eruptions of 1902. Lobley. Vol. 35. 
Volition. From reflex action to Hill. Vol. 26. ; 


Wahabis. Origin, history, etc.,of ——. Zwemer. Vol. 33. 

Will— 
The action of in the formation of universe. O’Neill. Vol. 15. 
On Herbert Spencer’s theory of the Ground. Vol. 16. 


Zodiac. The zodiacal arrangement of stars. Grimaldi. Vol. 38. 
Zoroaster— 
The system of 
On 


and archaic Monotheism. Brown. Vol. 13. 
Philosophers. Monier-Williams. Vol. 25. 


CONTENTS OF SUBSEQUENT VOLUMES. 


WOOL: XCEIV. 


Annual Address. Modern Unrest and the Bible. By Sir ANDREW WINGATE, K.U.1.E 

The Genealogies of our Lord. By Mrs. A.S. Lewis, LL.D. 

Natural Law and Miracle. By Dr. LUDWIG VON GERDTELL. 

The Greek Papyri. By The Rev. Professer G. Miniican, D.D. 

The Conditions of Habitability of a Planet, with Special Reference to the Planet 
Mars. By E. WALTER MAuNDER, Esq., F.R.A.S. 

The Historicity of the Mosaic Tabernacle. By the Rev. Professor JAMES Orr, D.D. 

The Real Personality or Transcendental Ego. By SypNry T. Kuzin, Esq., F.L.S., 
BASS. 

Difficulties of Belief. By the Right Rev. THE BisHop oF Down. 

Some Lucan Problems. By Lieut.-Colonel G. MAcKINLAY. 

Archeology and Modern Biblical Scholarship. By the Rev. Joon TuckweEtu, M.R.A.S. 

Adaptation in Plants and Animals to their Conditions of Life are the Result of the 
Directivity of Life. By the Rev. Professor G. HENstow, M.A. 

International Arbitration in the Greek World. By Marcus N. Top, Esq., M.A 

The Influence of Babylonian Conceptions on Jewish Thought. By the Venerable 
Archdeacon BERESFORD PorrsEr, M.A. 

Index of Authors and Subjects in 43 previous volumes. 


rcv 


Annual Address. From Suez to Sinai. By ArTHuR W. Sutton, Esq., I.P.F.L.S. 
(1llustrations). 

Immortality. By the Rev. A. R. WuaTE ty, D.D. 

Present Day Factors in New Testament Study. By the Rev. Professor R. J. KNOWLING, 
DAD: 

The Fact of Prediction. By the Rev. Joun URQUHART. 

Vision in Sacred and other History. By the Rev. J. H. Skring, M.A., D.D. 

Methods of Biblical Criticism. By the Ven. Archdeacon WILLIAM SINCLAIR, D.D. 

Pompeii. By HE. J. SEWELL, Esq. 

The Bearing of Archaeological and Historical Research on the New Testament. By the 
Rev. PARKE P. Flournoy, D.D. (being the Gunning Prize Essay, 1912). 

The Samaritan Pentateuch, and Philological Questions connected therewith. By the 
Rev. J. lvERAcH Munro, M.A. 

The Origin of Life, what do we know of it? By Professor G. Sims WoopuHEaD, M.A., 
MED: 

Old Testament Criticism, its Position and Principles. By the Very Rev. H. Wack, 
D.D., Dean of Canterbury. 


XLVI. 


Annual Address. Jerusalem, Past and Present. By Colonel Sir CHarutes M. 
Watson, K.C.M.G. 

The Fall of Babylon and Daniel v, 30. By the Rev. ANDREW CRaIG RosInson, M.A. 

Japan, and some of its Problems, Religious and Social. By the Rev. Prebendary H. E. 
Fox, M.A. 

The Christian Doctrine of Atonement. By the Rey. H. J. R. Marston, M.A. 

Is the so-called “Priestly Code” of Post-exilic date? By the Rev. CHANCELLOR 
Lras, M.A. 

The Character of the Bible inferred from its Versions. By the Rey. T. H. DAaRLow, 
M.A. 

The Number of the Stars. By SypNrEy CHAPMAN, Hsq., B.A., D.Sc., Chief Assistant of 
the Royal Observatory, Greenwich. 

The First Chapter of Genesis. By E. WALTER MaunpER, Esq,, F.R.A.S. 

The Latest Discoveries in Babylonia. By T. G. Pincuzs, Esq., LL.D., M.R.A.S. 

Frederic Godet, Tutor of Frederick the Noble. By Professor F. F. RoGEt. 

The Composite of Races and Religions in America. By the Rev. 8. B. McCormick, D.D., 
Chancellor of Pittsburg University, U.S.A. 

The Supremacy of Christianity. By the Right Rev. Bishop J. E. C. WEtupon, D.D. 


HARRISON AND SONS, PRINTERS IN ORDINARY TO HIS MAJESTY, LONDON. 


nn 
.* 
4 
F 
if 
Yy 


- 
‘ 
rf 
- 
, 
= 
~ 


: 
| a 
= 
4 
te , 
. 
. 
“we 
~~ 
4 
~~ 
* 
.- 
ar 
al. 
s 
“ 
- 
Jat 
iy 
wu a mF 
ativan. YC : 
é 
i 
oe 
rr 
© 
<a 
ve 
* 
y 
Ee 
. 
< 
7 
a 
“_ 
wf 
ys. 
€ 
i 
i] 


cs 
7 
A 
Z 
a 
o 
Nag 
Px) 
2 
& 


~ 
-- 
«“ 
v 
® 
Vv 
(Pa 
a 
kK 


fe a aa a - ; 


7 


a 


wae bad 
- 


rc 
Ee? 
¥ 
\ 


? 
PUT 


DEPT ATE VARS STAN THES Ey DPE De PERN TERRY 


DYSEPA VEL NLT yp et ced Lea be re 
AYMAN ORR 


VAUD ARR NT 


PSE ESET Vee 
A RIAAL VY AD SAY 


¥, 
i 


\ i 


“NYP h By 
NASA 


AY 
| 


is 
\ AN) ¢ . 
We 


¥ 


J 
¢ 


Ute 


E 


N 


22 rm nya 


" 
{ 


AH 


ae 


x 


\ 


ry 


i 


it mf : 
Mh 


i 
} te My 


i 


a 


RAN 


vt : Hee 


rasa 


neta. 


oe 


oe 


ow 


Seon 


neem 


SS SSS SE a en 


Te SE SES I LE a pe er 


SAS A IS DP eG I 


ree 


oF ee 


ATLL TEEN TEV EEA 


INVER DISD A NIV TAYE ANE OUNAMY 
vy, 


MALT ARNON 


yheretieyy 


VIVENDI E Cea be es 


PAV SAL 


we 


NELADESVISED VEEN OV SECO LOTT LOT IOLEG Ot 


=: 
= 
=: 
= | 
we 
x 
F 

> 
< 
= 
> 


SPLINE EV ETS 


De 


WONKA 


OAT PIN 


VPLS ILM, 


Pe Po 


PMI 4 


ee eee