goes further, and says that our reasonings and conclusions in the most necessary matters do not amount to certainties, but are merely probabilities, and that the conclusion of a proposition in Euclid is after all a mere verisimilitude. Now, I hold, that Dr. Newman has confounded between two senses of the word "conditioned." I readily admit that the conclusion of a proposition in Euclid is conditioned on the premises from which it flows; i.e., that—a fact which is expressed by the word "therefore "-the conclusion is contained in the premises. But as these are in necessary matter, the conclusion viewed in itself is not conditioned but absolute; or, in other words, is as necessary as the premises. It is simply conditional quá the word "therefore"; but this is quite another thing from saying that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles,—a proposition to which I in any sense yield a conditional assent. But Dr. Newman says, that all conclusions are conditional quá conclusions; and then he invents a new process of the mind by which we give an absolute assent to them. I need scarcely point out that this is done to supply a standing-point for his theological leanings. Thus by a kind of legerdemain, an unconditional assent may be given to propositions for which the evidence is worthless, or nearly so. I regret to say, that it seems to me to be the great object of this treatise to invent something which will constitute an apparent stand-point for this most sophistical conclusion. Now, I hold that our certitudes are in some degree relative also ; and that all I am certain of is relative to all the other powers of my mind, and to the evidence on which it rests, and although I may forget that evidence, yet I can remember the nature of it. Now, Mr. Titcomb seemed to think that a certainty can rise higher than the evidence on which it is based, and he took several instances of the works of design as proving the being of a God. Now, in my paper, I have insisted on the value of what I should call the convergence of evidence into one common focus. Such evidence is not a mere balance of probabilities. The nature of it is this, that we have a number of separate lines of absolutely distinct evidence which converge in a common centre; and when that is the case, there is some principle in the mind-I do not know what it is-which accepts that proof as absolutely valid, and the evidence is quite as suited to produce belief as what we call demonstration. Now, as to my admission that there are certain powers of mind possessed by individual persons which may be said to be intuitions. When I wrote that, I intended to express no opinion of my own, I merely took what Dr. Newman said upon it, and my point was that even if that were true, it did not in the least prove his argument. I am far from being satisfied as to what is the correct view of the matter. He has alluded to Napoleon's special power of looking at an army through a glass, and at once forming a correct judgment as to their numbers and positions. Cases like that, at any rate, strike us ordinary people as strange, and whether they be the result of intuitions, or of very rapid judgments, I do not know ; but in using the phrase "intuitive," I did not mean to imply an absolute intuition, but simply the wider sense of the word as it is used by Dr. Newman, and as it is often applied. I have no doubt I have simply fallen into the use of the word because I found it in that part of Dr. Newman's essay to which I was referring. It seems to me, however, to be one of the characteristics of great men, that they are able to form judgments on data which would suggest little or nothing to ordinary minds. Of this there are many recorded instances. How this is done is a mystery which we cannot penetrate. We know, however, that absolute mastery of a subject enables us in some degree to approximate towards it. If we call it a power of profound insight, it explains little. Probably mental processes take place which leave no trace in the memory. There is no doubt that great conversance with a subject enables one to pass through a succession of judgments and to draw conclusions which to others seem incomprehensible. Rev. G. HENSLOW.-Amongst the writers who have dealt with that point are Robertson, of Brighton, and the author of Ecce Homo. Mr. REDDIE.-I hardly think such authorities can carry great weight with us. They are both sceptics. Robertson gave several hints for the Essays and Reviews, and the character of Ecce Homo is well known. Mr. HENSLOW. It is only a question of fact. Mr. Row. But these are mere subordinate matters, about which I did not care one. way or the other. With regard to those points, upon which I may say our religious and philosophical certainties rest, if Dr. Newman is right in his main principles, we have little to do but to turn sceptics. I am very sorry to be obliged to come to that conclusion. There is one remark of Mr. Reddie's with which I wholly disagree as to the judgment of style. In the case I mentioned I should be positively sure that Lord Macaulay did not write the Rambler; but perhaps Mr. Reddie has not studied critically the evidence which style furnishes to diversity or identity of authorship. It is a difficult question to know how we form that judgment ; but there are diversities of style which make you feel sure that one book could not have been written by a certain author. What do you think on the point, Dr. Thornton ? The CHAIRMAN.-No doubt there are certain differences of style which are easily detected. For instance, one would not think that the Facetic of Hierocles was written by Thucydides. Mr. Row.-No; of course not. The Rambler is full of Latinisms, whereas Macaulay's writings contain a great amount of Saxon, and there are few styles which are more widely different. Mr. Reddie seemed to argue that there were no metaphysical difficulties in the summation of an infinite series. When I wrote that, I had in my eye many other mathematical operations, and I maintain that the square root of a minus quantity does include certain metaphysical difficulties. I do not say that all mathematical questions involve this difficulty, but some do. Take the differential and the integral calculus; there are metaphysical difficulties there, as also in many other cases. But I will not further occupy your time. Dr. RIGG.-If Mr. Reddie would favour us with a paper upon Dr. Newman's work, but deprived of such mathematical matters, I think he would do good service. The Meeting was then adjourned. INTERMEDIATE MEETING,* JANUARY 30, 1871. JAMES REDDIE,† Esq., HONORARY SECRETARY, IN THE CHAIR. The Minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed. The CHAIRMAN explained the object of the intermediate meetings, of which this was the first. The Rev. J. H. TITCOMв then delivered a lecture "On Archæology, with some of its Parallels and Contrasts," illustrated with diagrams. A discussion ensued, in which the Rev. C. A. Row, the Rev. J. B. Heard, Captain F. Petrie, Mr. A. V. Newton, Mr. R. W. Dibdin, the Rev. C. P. Sheppard, and the Chairman took part, after which The meeting was adjourned. * See Mr. Reddie's statement, page 44. VOL. VI. I + The late. ORDINARY MEETING, FEBRUARY 6TH, 1871. THE REV. C. A. Row, M.A., IN THE CHAIR. The Minutes of the last, intermediate, Meeting were read and confirmed. MEMBERS:-Rev. William Cadman, M.A., Rector of Holy Trinity, Mary- ASSOCIATES,* 1ST CLASS :-Joseph Hiles, Esq., Irene, Clifton Road, West ASSOCIATE, 2ND CLASS :-John Allen, Esq., Long Acre, London. Also, the presentation of the following works for the Library :"Proceedings of the Smithsonian Institution of Washington, 1868." From the Institution. "Commerce and Navigation Reports of the Government of the United States, for 1868-69." "Proceedings of the Amsterdam Conference." Ditto. "Black Diamonds." By the Rev. H. H. Bourn. "Christ in the Pentateuch." By the same. Prayer Meeting Addresses." From Rear-Admiral E. G. Fishbourne. From Neil Smith, Esq., Jun. "Thoughts on Religious Subjects." "Truths of the Bible." By the Rev. B. W. Savile, M.A. From the Author. The Author being absent on account of illness, Dr. J. A. Fraser then read the following Paper :— At a Special General Meeting, held December 4, 1871, it was resolved that the list of 1st Class Associates should be amalgamated with the Members. 1 ON THE EVIDENCE OF THE EGYPTIAN MONUMENTS 1. TO THE SOJOURN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT. By the REV. B. W. SAVILE, M.A., A.V.I. T HE value of Egyptology, like that of Archæology in general, as seen in the Himyaritic, Cuneiform, and Semitic inscriptions which have come to light, is proved by the confirmation which it affords to the truth and integrity of Scripture, and especially to the earlier portions of it, relating to the history of the Israelites in Egypt. Bishop Colenso has gone so far in his criticism on the Pentateuch as to declare that : "All the details of the story of the Exodus, as recorded in the Pentateuch, again and again assent to propositions as monstrous and absurd as the statement in arithmetic would be, that two and two make five. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that the first writer of the story in the Pentateuch ever professed to be recording infallible truth, or even actual historical truth. He wrote certainly a narrative. But what indications are there that he published it at large, even to the people of his own time, as a record of matter-of-fact, veracious history?" (The Pentateuch Critically Examined, etc. Part II., pp. 370, 5.) 2. Hence Bishop Colenso denies the assertion of his brother critic, Dr. Ewald, who affirms, in his Geschichte des Volkes Israel, that "the historical existence of Moses is indubitably proved," and refuses to acquiesce in the sober conclusion of the late Dean Milman, that "all attempts to assign a later period for the authorship (of the Pentateuch) or even for the compilation, though made by scholars of the highest ability, are so irreconcilable with facts, so selfdestructive, and so mutually destructive, that I acquiesce without hesitation in their general antiquity." 3. Believing that the history of Israel has received valuable aid in confirmation of its veracity from the recent interpretation of the Egyptian monuments, I propose to turn to such an unexceptionable source of authority in order to show the harmony between the two. It is not necessary to discuss at any length the mode by which the hieroglyphic inscriptions |