experience of evil as well as good (Gen. ii, 17; iii, 6). Matter was not, therefore, the source of contamination to the human race, but is eternally pure and unpolluted, as the handiwork of God. Man cannot shift on God the origin of the Fall, but to his own misuse of what God had given him. To suppose that this important doctrine was tacked on at the last moment to a religion which has subsisted for countless generations, by an unknown writer, in days of depression and even despondency, can hardly be regarded as either philosophical or probable.

Mr. MAUNDER said: I should like to join with Chancellor Lias in expressing the great pleasure with which I have listened to Mr. Tuckwell's address. It has always seemed to me that if we but read the books of Moses through, as we have them at the present time, they bear upon their face the evident marks of unity of purpose. Take for instance the book of Genesis, and look at it as you would at any other piece of literature. It does not matter what sources were used in the composition of the book, but its writer from the beginning to the end works upon one clear, definite plan; and that plan finds its completion in the closing chapters of Deuteronomy. There again in that book, if we simply read the book as it stands, as Professor Moulton has shown us in his Modern Reader's Bible, we find that book an essential unity; four noble orations, the one arising out of the other, lead up to the great Song of Moses; and orations, more eloquent, more masterly, do not exist in any literature whatsoever. Looking at the question from the point of view of literature alone, the books of Moses are evidently the work of a single master mind.

There is one trifling matter on which I differ from Mr. Tuckwell. I do not think that the well-known Babylonian seal to which he refers, "irresistibly points to the conclusion that the engraver was familiar with some such story as that in Genesis iii." It is possible that the engraver was trying to show some such incident, but the evidence is very slight. In all the many references to the seal which I have come across, not one points out that the seal was engraved on a cylinder, which necessarily has in itself no beginning nor end. The serpent on the cylinder is not more behind the one figure than the other. I have made a very rough little representation of the cylinder, which I will hand round, and it is sufficient to show that we might begin the seal on either side of the supposed snake. It is

not quite clear to me indeed that the snake is a snake, or anything more than a dividing line to show how the cylinder was to be placed when an impression was to be taken. Nor is it certain that either of the two figures is intended to be a woman. Moreover, they are both clothed, an important difference from the narrative in Genesis, and neither has taken the fruit from the tree, nor is giving it to the other; both are in exactly the same attitude. I therefore think it very doubtful whether we have the right to assume that there is any reference to the story of the Fall.

Mr. JOHN SCHWARTZ, Jun., described the paper as "able special pleading," and said the real conclusions of archæology were against the Lecturer, that evolution of morality and the spiritual was proved all along the lines, that the degradation theory of savages was exploded, and that the Jews, like others, had developed in the same way as other early peoples, and that the prophets alone could be said to be inspired.

After a few remarks from Professor LANGHORNE ORCHARD

Rev. W. R. WHATELY said: There are two points raised by a previous speaker on which I should like to say a few words. He referred to the degeneration of savages as an exploded theory. I should rather describe it as (in some instances) a demonstrated fact. I believe that the Australian aborigines speak a language which must have been developed by ancestors in a higher state of civilization than the present race.

Secondly he spoke of the evolution of an ethical monotheistic religion in Israel as an instance of the general law of religions. The "general law!" Where is there another instance, apart from the Bible, of an ethical monotheistic religion? There is absolutely none. So far from being an instance of a general law, the appearance of such a religion in Israel is absolutely unique. Nor does the supposition of a gradual evolution from lower forms of religion render it any less unique.

Rev. JOHN TUCKWELL in reply said: Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen, I beg to thank you very cordially for the appreciation with which you have received my paper. The little criticism it has received will not need any lengthy reply. With regard to our Chairman's remarks, the use of the word "modern" in the title shows the limitation of the professed scholarship with which it deals. The existence of other Biblical scholarships I have clearly recognized on

p. 221. And with regard to the New Testament branch of the subject that will be dealt with in the forthcoming Gunning prize essay.

To the Rev. Chancellor Lias my thanks are due for a very suggestive and helpful supplement to the contents of my paper.

As to Mr. Maunder's remarks concerning the Babylonian seal, if the supposed serpent be only a dividing line then that disposes of his suggestion that because it is in the form of a cylinder the engraver intended his design to be "without beginning or end." Moreover, viewed in this position the two figures are back to back— a relationship which was certainly not an integral part of the design. It is quite true that the Babylonians of the same period made profuse use of dividing lines in their inscriptions, separating sentences and even words by them, but they invariably ruled them straight. I do not remember ever to have seen a wavy dividing line like this one. I do not know whether Mr. Maunder can give us another instance. Moreover, the formation at one end of the line differs from that at the other and might quite easily have been meant to represent the head of the serpent. Then as to the difference of sex in the two figures that is indicated by the head-dresses. One is adorned with horns, the emblems of authority, which may be taken to represent the authority given by the Genesis narrative to man over woman at "The Fall." The other figure has no doubt what was intended to be a female's head-dress. The deviation in other particulars from the Genesis narrative is quite in accordance with the analogy of the Creation and Deluge stories as Professor Orchard has pointed out. I am afraid, therefore, I must still retain my own opinion on this subject.

Mr. Schwartz's somewhat digressive criticism was sufficiently and very aptly answered by Rev. W. R. Whately, so that I need not occupy your time by any further remarks on the matters referred to by him.

In reply to Mr. Oke's enquiry I may say that by the kind permission of the Council I hope to have this paper published in pamphlet form. Again let me thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the patient and sympathetic hearing you have given me.

531ST ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.

MONDAY, APRIL 15TH, 1912, at 4.30 P.M.

PROFESSOR EDWARD HULL, LL.D., F.R.S., VICE-PRESIDENT, TOOK THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed, and the following elections were announced :—

ASSOCIATES: The Rev. D. A. Stewart, M.A.; G. W. Maunder, Esq.

The CHAIRMAN: I have the pleasure to introduce to the Members of the Institute the Rev. Professor Henslow, who through a long and useful life has been investigating the structure and origin of plants and animals, and will expound to you his views on one of the most mysterious of physical problems, the development of species as far as human investigation is capable of carrying us under the term of "Directivity," which for good reasons he prefers to that of Darwin under the term of "Natural Selection." If the problem is incapable of solution at the lecturer's hands, it is only because it baffles the ken of human investigation.

ADAPTATIONS IN PLANTS AND ANIMALS TO THEIR CONDITIONS OF LIFE ARE THE RESULT OF THE DIRECTIVITY OF LIFE. By the Rev. Professor G. HENSLOW, M.A., F.L.S., etc.

IN

N studying nature one must clearly understand what we mean by Natural Science, and what are the methods of proof at our command to establish any theory or interpretation of nature's methods of procedure. Apart from Psychology, natural science embraces: (1) the accumulation and classification of facts appreciable by the senses; (2) the investigation

into their correlations and causes; (3) the generalizations from them and the consequent discovery of natural laws; (4) the search for proofs of all inferences, deductions, hypotheses, etc. These must be based, first on Induction, i.e., the accumulation of coincidences, all conspiring individually and collectively to establish the same probability as a fact. Secondly, whenever possible, induction must be corroborated by Experimental Verification.

The objects of natural science also include an investigation into all the phenomena of physical forces. But the nature of them, as well as the ultimate origin or Final Cause of both Matter and Force are unknowable to science.

Scientists are perfectly satisfied with inductions, or the accumulations of probabilities, in all the physical sciences, and it is my object to show that we depend largely and legitimately upon them in Biology. Thus the conviction of the truth of the doctrine of Evolution of all living beings, including man, is based both on induction and experiment. By means of these it has been incontestably and permanently established. I assume that everyone here present is a believer in Evolution, though, like myself, he may not accept Darwinism, i.e., Darwin's theory of the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, the title of his well-known work, to account for evolution.

Without transgressing the bounds within which a student of nature has wisely confined himself, namely, all that can appeal to his senses as far as observation and experiment can carry him, as well as just and logical inferences from them-my object, I say, is to show that the nearest approach to a Final Cause possible to the scientist is that we must look to Life alone as being endowed with the capacity of directing the lifeless physical forces of nature, so that they act upon the also lifeless matter, in order to compel them to form what we are justified in calling purposeful structures, i.e., each of them is of some definite use to the plant or animal.

Botany and Zoology have acquired a new name, that of "Ecology." In former days the structure of plants and animals was only studied for the sake of their classification. Anatomy and Physiology were matters of independent laboratory work. Ecology brings every kind of study to bear upon the organism as it lives wild in nature. The word means "Study "at " Home," i.e., the natural surroundings of the organism; just as "Economy means the "Ordering of the House."

This new method of pursuit in Biology leads to the recognition of " Associations," all the species of which live under the same