the search of their fathers, for we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow. Shall not they teach thee, and tell thee, and utter words out of their heart?" and so on. How could one inquire of the former age if the records were not written in a book?

Mr. E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S.: Some years ago a friend of mine, who was very much attracted by the Higher Criticism, wrote me several letters on the subject, and in one of these he referred to the account of the Flood, saying that it resolved itself into two narratives, so distinct that the man who ran could detect them. I wrote back and said, Take Genesis, and give me your analysis of the Story of the Flood, without consulting any critic, and see how your analysis agrees with that of the Higher Critics. I added, I can give you a modern instance to work out. My wife and I brought out a book between us. Will you go through and tell us, how much and which chapters, each of us wrote ? He declined to take up either challenge.

A MEMBER: I cannot imagine David offering up sacrifice or Solomon offering sacrifices at the dedication of the Temple if they knew they were absolutely forbidden to touch such things by the Law; and why should Hosea (ch. iii) have said there should be no king and no prince and no sacrifice? Those things are absolutely taboo in the book of Deuteronomy. It certainly helps me to understand the Bible much better if I conceive of the Pentateuch as growing gradually, as the Law grew.

Remarks on the subject were also made by Rev. J. Tuckwell, M.R.A.S.

The vote of thanks, having been seconded by the Rev. Bernard W. Harvey, was carried with acclamation.

LECTURER'S REPLY.

Mr. FINN The time is short, and I must pass some of the points raised. First, with regard to meekness being found in the Old Testament, I was speaking rather of the general things in the Oriental world as to what meekness might mean. References in Joshua supporting the fact that Deuteronomy was written first, I can accept; and I also believe that the earlier part of the Pentateuch must have been derived from earlier documents. With regard to the use of

the word Elohim with the definite article, I only used that to show that this rather remarkable usage is not confined to one book.

As to David and Solomon offering sacrifices, I know of no passage in the Old Testament that asserts that either of those kings offered sacrifices with their own hands. It says that David builded an altar. Did he do that with his own hands? It says that he gave to the assembly a portion of meat and bread. Did David go round and do that himself? It simply means that he commanded or allowed sacrifices to be offered by the appropriate agent. As to the difference between Kings and Chronicles, the one inspired with the spirit of Deuteronomy and the other with the spirit of Leviticus, modern history is written in exactly the same way: there is the secular and the ecclesiastical point of view.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS.

The Rev. Canon R. B. GIRDLESTONE, M.A.: I have read Mr. Finn's paper with great interest, and agree with his view that the Pentateuch is one and ancient; but whilst the FOUR books may be regarded as authorised by Moses, the first was accepted by him as having come down from Patriarchal times. He might be called the inspired Redactor of it, but hardly the author. It was pre-Mosaic, and covers a long period during which we now know that the art of writing was carried on. See the code of Hammurabi (Abraham's contemporary). The whole is a growth, and shows signs of stratification. This is a fascinating subject for the true critic. Why, e.g., do we find the Egyptian name Abib for the Paschal month, and in later days Nisan?

Mr. Finn has noticed several of these points. In my book on the Building up of the Old Testament," I have shown that Genesis consists of contemporary historical materials, and is the fountain of formula which run through the rest of the books. It is Semitic in language, and monotheistic in teaching throughout, and is the Fountain-head of Promise and the Foundation on which the rest of the Bible is built up.

The Rev. CHANCELLOR LIAS, M.A.: I heartily congratulate the Institute on Mr. Finn's excellent paper-the more so as it is the complement rather than the continuation of the work he mentions

at the outset. In that work he shows exhaustively how unsatisfactory German Biblical criticism is, how full it is of unproved assumptions and petitiones principii; and how hopelessly unscientific it is in its axioms, postulates, and definitions. In this paper he gives us the converse of the proposition he has proved in his book, and undertakes to show that the evidence-internal as well as external-points to the conclusion that the Pentateuch is a single work of Mosaic origin.

66

I ask the reader to note Mr. Finn's words (page 33) on external evidence, and especially to ii. On page 34, I have to remark that I could at any time undertake to produce from the works of historians so graphic and picturesque as Macaulay and Froude, passages as prosaic and formal" as Wellhausenism produces from the Pentateuch. On page 35, I ask attention to the paragraph beginning, "If all the passages." Page 37 contains a reference to the similarity of character displayed in Exod. xxiii, 20-33; Lev. xxvi, Deut. xxviii; and also in Exod. xxxii, 11-13, 31 (and following verses), Num. xiv, 13-19, and Deut. ix, 26-29. This argument can as easily be tested by anyone entirely ignorant of Hebrew as by the profoundest Hebrew scholar. I have often said that the Wellhausen theory on such points is about as ridiculous as Aaron's excuse that he put the gifts he received from the people in the fire, and "there came out this calf." Note also the remarks under head v on this page. Also in page 38 note the use of the definite article with the plural word Elohim (lit. gods), showing that the writer was a believer in the Unity of God, whereas Wellhausenism contends that the Israelites were originally worshippers of the gods of Palestine; and in page 39, on the "majestic unity of design " displayed throughout the five books of Moses, and the impossibility of an array of "redactors" contriving to bring so "majestic an unity" about on Wellhausenist assumptions.

As to the word Torah (p. 41), I knew something of the Revisers of the Old and New Testament translations, and I am sure that undue and unnecessary deference was paid by many of them to those who were inclined to pay respect to Wellhausenists. Constantly, in the margin of the Revised Version, appears the word "teaching," as alternatives to Law, in the text. From Exodus to Malachi, the word Torah means Law (see Hos. viii, 12), though not, perhaps,

66

universally. But the verb from which it is derived means to fling, or cast, as a command thrown out by authority. There are very few passages in the Old Testament where it means anything but a law, and it generally means the Law of Moses. It very seldom means custom, and it is not certain whether it ever does mean teaching." On page 42, I could say a good deal about the occurrence of naghar for nagharah in Gen. xxxiv, and generally of the Wellhausen division of that chapter into sources. But I must refrain. I will only remark that it is an example of the resolution of the German critic not to see what he does not want to see. I will only add (see page 46), that the idea of meekness being a "serious difficulty" in the way of the genuineness of the Pentateuch involves a gross anachronism.

596TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING,

HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM B, THE CENTRAL HALL, WESTMINSTER, ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18TH, 1918, AT 4.30 P.M.

E. J. SEWELL, ESQ., IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed.
The lecture was illustrated throughout by lantern slides.

SUNSPOTS AND SOME OF THEIR PECULIARITIES. By E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S., Superintendent of the Solar Department, Royal Observatory, Greenwich.

MY

Y reason for choosing Sunspots for my subject is two-fold. First, the study of the spots upon the sun has been my work for forty-four years; they are the natural objects with which I am best acquainted. Next, though the subject of sunspots occupies but a very small corner of the entire domain of the science of astronomy, and though astronomy is but one out of the large and ever-increasing number of the physical sciences, yet examination of the methods employed in one scientific inquiry may give some rough idea of the principles by which scientific research in general is guided.

It has passed into a proverb that "Science is Measurement in other words, the scientific inquirer tries to throw into numerical form the data which he collects from his observation of the phenomena which he studies. There may be much observation of nature, even useful observation, but it cannot rightly be called "scientific" unless it is arranged on a system, is precise in character, and is more or less directed towards numerical expression.

Thousands of years ago, the Chinese observed and recorded the appearance of spots upon the sun, but for us the history of sunspots practically begins with the invention of the telescope