culties, and I think may do much to reconcile men, and bring them in harmony to the Author of divine revelation. The CHAIRMAN.-In relation to this subject, I cannot avoid offering my strong protest against the tendency of the work lately published by Mr. Darwin on the Descent of Man, and on Natural Selection. That work has been very ably reviewed in the Times lately, and I call attention to it because it appears to me that its obvious tendency is to rob man of that inestimably superior portion of his existence, the veõua, since the gist of that work is to show that man is derived from the lower animals, not by any sudden change, but by a gradual amelioration and adaptation to circumstances. The book also goes on to show that probably all kinds of animals are derived from those of inferior organization. The whole tendency of the work is simply this: It is elsewhere argued that the simplest forms of organic life are capable of being produced by a concurrence of inorganic particles without the influence of any pre-existing germ, and the doctrine is advanced by Mr. Darwin that we can ascend, step by step, from the lower to the higher forms of organic life, and even from apes to man himself. Now what is the effect of this but to show that there is no necessity for a Creator; that man has proceeded by degrees from inorganic matter simply in obedience to the laws of inorganic matter? Mr. Darwin does not say so much, but that is the obvious tendency of the work; as it tends to get rid of the vεõua altogether to annihilate it entirely-I enter on this occasion my intensely strong protest against that tendency. The book throughout is written in the potential mood: such and such things may be, and could be, and might be, if-but he does not supply the "if." If there were no God, no Creator, no truth in the Bible-if the Bible were a series of ideas and notions having no solid foundation-then, perhaps, such things might be. Rev. G. HENSLOW.-There is a passage at the end of Mr. Darwin's book in which he protests against the idea that these things are not the work of a Creator. The CHAIRMAN.-But I am simply stating what is the obvious tendency of the book. It is all very well for the author to say he does not mean it to be so. I am glad that point is disclaimed by Mr. Darwin, but I do not think it interferes with the obvious tendency of the work, and I merely mention this matter in connection with the very important subject of the tripartite nature of man. (Cheers.) Mr. GRAHAM.-I have to thank the various speakers for their agreement with so much of my paper--indeed I think I may say for their agreement with all the essential principles contained in it. You, sir, have touched upon a point which, to me, is profoundly important, the view, I mean, that our ethical and moral nature is not in the ux, but in the veμa, I feel that the moment we admit that our ethical and moral nature is in the ʊx, and then admit the fact that the x may perish, we give up what Mr. Row has properly denominated the dignity of our nature, and I think we give up the one great argument which distinguishes man from the in ferior creatures. As to the observations which fell from Mr. James, I am obliged to him for his commendation of my paper, but with regard to his remark that the title of it should have been the quadrupartite, and not the tripartite nature of man, I submit that he has forgotten the fact that I connect animal life with the body. I regard the oua as embracing the animal life which dies with it; and then I make the ux" distinct-that which stands, as it were, between the veμa and the opa With that remark I leave the paper to speak for itself. I waited to hear some arguments from him as to where he disagreed with me; but I may say, not only with reference to him but with regard to others who have differed from me, that they have not really dealt with my arguments. If I were combating a paper, I should grapple with its arguments and endeavour to overthrow them, and then sustain my own positions upon distinct and independent grounds. Now with regard to the objection that I have confounded the nephesh and the ruach, the yuxǹ and the vɛuμa, I think that that objection is not valid. I have endeavoured to demonstrate two things, and no one has attempted to overthrow my arguments,-unity of essence, and yet distinctness, as Holy Scripture recognizes it; that is to say, that the ethical and moral nature is in the veμa. I fancy Sir Tilson-Marsh has acknowledged the same thing, and that is the principal point which I wished to establish. I take it that when that is established, we do see that there is a clear distinction between the nephesh and the ruach, the vx and the veμa. And yet I hold that they are obviously in Holy Scripture one in essence. I agree with those speakers who have said that the terms are not used in a strictly logical sense in either of the Testaments; in my paper I fully recognize that fact. With regard to Mr. White's observations, I have only to say that it would have been impossible for me to have entered into exegesis in this paper, and I did not do it except in an occasional word, to show the force of my quotations. But the Institute does not recognize exegesis as entering into the elements of its papers, unless it is absolutely necessary to make a passage of Scripture clear; and if I had been as exegetical as I wished to be, my paper would have been of much greater length. As to what has fallen from Mr. Row, I am gratified to find a gentleman of his acumen agreeing with me, and, in the main, defending my paper. As to the nishmath chaiyim I suppose there is a development of the meaning of those lives, afterwards, in the nephesh and ruach of the Old Testament; but I do not lay much stress upon that. On Elohim I would offer a few remarks. When the Blessed God says "Let us make man," you have there a plural pronoun connected with a plural noun; and in the opening of Genesis you have the united action of the Three Persons expressed in a singular verb; but you have also, in one case at least, a plural verb; and I take it that you have the great doctrine of the Trinity laid down there. The spirit of God brooded over them, as Milton correctly expresses the idea of the Hebrew, to make the waters pregnant. Now hear what Job says: "By His spirit he has garnished the heavens"; He has studded the blue dome above us with worlds of light. In the New Testament I find the development of the Trinity still more full and forcible. I find it stated, at the opening of the gospel of St. John, that the Móyos, the Eternal Word, which expressed all that was in the Father, created all things, and that without Him was not anything made which was made; and St. Paul says the same thing: “By Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers." He is the efficient and final cause, for all things were created by Him, and for Him. All that comes out of Elohim. It has been said that "we" is the style of potentates and kings, but in Scripture it is not the style of God. He speaks in the first person singular: "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before Me," not "before Us." You find the great principle of Monotheism maintained in His dealings with Jew and Gentile; and you find the great truth of the Trinity displayed in the Old Testament, as in that passage of Isaiah, where He says, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" I find the Trinity connected with Creation; I find the three persons brought out clearly, just like the white ray of light that gives us the rainbow when it is broken into its original colours. I find the glorious and blessed God presenting Himself in this form of monotheism, and I find Him exhibiting the Trinity in unity in all its glory and majesty, and brought out in creation in connection with the Elohim: "Let us make man in our image.” This is one of the grandest and most forcible arguments which Holy Scripture affords for the doctrine of the Trinity. I have only to thank again those speakers who have commended my paper. I thought there would have been many arrows levelled at me, and was trying to construct a seven-fold shield, such as Ajax bore, but find that I do not need it. The Meeting was then adjourned. INTERMEDIATE MEETING, APRIL 17, 1871. THE REV. G. HENSLOW, M.A., F.L.S., IN THE CHAIR. The Minutes of the last Meeting were read and confirmed; and the following elections were announced: MEMBER--R. C. Shettle, Esq., M.D., 97, London Street, Reading. ASSOCIATE-The Rev. W. S. Seymour, 11, Chapel Terrace, Tredegar Square, Bow Road, E. Also the presentation to the Library of the following works : "The Nature of the Vital Force." By R. C. Shettle, Esq., M.D, "The Pathology of Insanity." By the same. From the Author. It was then announced that the Council had passed the following resolution in regard to the future discussions on papers :— "That twenty minutes be allowed for each speaker; and so soon as any one shall have spoken for fifteen, the Chairman shall signify to him that five minutes remain, wherein his remarks must be brought to a conclusion." Dr. E. Haughton then delivered a lecture "On Evidences of Design in the Constitution of Nature." A discussion ensued, in which the Rev. J. H. Titcomb, Mr. T. W. Masterman, Dr. J. A. Fraser, Rev. C. Graham, Captain F. Petrie, and the Chairman took part. Dr. Haughton having replied, the proceedings terminated, and the Meeting was adjourned. ORDINARY MEETING, MAY 1, 1871. THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, K.G., PRESIDENT, IN THE CHAIR. The Minutes of the last Meeting were read and confirmed; and the following Elections were announced : MEMBERS:-His Grace the Duke of Marlborough, K.G., 10, St. James's Square; The Right Honourable the Earl of Harrowby, K.G., 39, Grosvenor Square; The Right Honourable and Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London, London House; The Right Honourable the Lord Harris, G.C.S.I., 47, Charles Street, Berkeley Square; J. Walter, Esq., M.P., 40, Upper Grosvenor Street; The Reverend Vyvyan H. Moyle, M.A., F.R.G.S., F.R.H.S., Normanby House, Middlesborough; F. I. Warner, Esq., 3, Clifton Terrace, Winchester. ASSOCIATES:-Rev. J. H. Broome, M.A., Houghton Hall, Rougham; Mrs. Zoe Thompson, 4, Albert Terrace, Douglas, Isle of Man; Rev. F. Whitfield, M.A., St. John's Parsonage, Bexley. Also, the presentation to the Library of the following works : Journal of the Royal United Service Institution. Part LXI. Appendix. From the Institution. "The Astral Hebrew Alphabet." By the Rev. J. H. Broome, M.A. From the Author. "The Memoirs of Professor Henslow." By the Rev. L. Jenkyns, M.A. From the Rev. G. Henslow, M.A. "A Missionary Cruise in the South Pacific." By the Rev. S. J. Whitmee. "The Mosaic Theory." By T. Harriot, Esq. From the Author. Ditto. |