« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
many particulars they are similar to the Fijians. The first account of the Andaman islanders was that given in "Sinbad the Sailor,' which narrative, though generally regarded only as a fiction, contained many correct statements. The Andaman canoes were similar to those used by the Fijians, especially in the outrigger. Dr. Seemann remarked on the curious legends of the islanders, of which Mr. Pritchard had given an account, especially those relating to their own origin. It was interesting to notice that, in so many legends, the original progenitors of man were placed under or near sacred trees. It was a curious circumstance that, in these legendary cosmogonies, there was always a serpent, in which symbol he considered there was a deep meaning. The supreme god of Fiji (Degei) had the shape of a serpent.
“Mr. REDDIE observed that the traditions of these islanders were very remarkable, and he considered it extraordinary that the people should be able to preserve them and repeat them to travellers. Such a preservation of our Christian legends could not be expected even in London among the common people. As to the frequent occurrence of the serpent in those legends, it was à very curious fact. . . . In the constellations of the heavens, which had been traced to the most ancient peoples on the face of the earth, the serpent was one of the most common emblems, and was to be found in several parts of both hemispheres of the celestial globe. It was interesting to find also the same symbols conspicuous among the legends of the inhabitants of the Fiji islands, and it appeared they had a common ancient origin. Such beautiful traditions could not be inventions of the present Fijians. Even in civilized London, not one out of ten would be capable of inventing such beautiful stories. The question was, whether they were not traditions of a people superior to those who now inhabited those islands, thus showing that the present inhabitants had deteriorated. The invention of such legends, in more ancient times, at all events tended to prove that their inventors must have been greatly superior to improved baboons. It would be interesting to know something of the dresent literary qualifications of the people, and how far such traditions are retained among the inhabitants generally.
“Mr. PRITCHARD in reply said :-As to the date of the traditions, there can be no doubt of their antiquity. Different natives, without the possibility of collusion, narrate the same traditions in almost the same words. The missionaries discountenance the old traditions, and also any new stories. It is not easy to collect these traditions from the inhabitants, for it is necessary to be master of the language to do so, and those who are not thoroughly acquainted with it sometimes are imposed on, especially by runaway sailors, who know the language very imperfectly, and invent strange stories, which they represent to have heard from the natives. To learn their legends and traditions correctly, it is necessary to live amongst the natives, he had done ; and, to gain an influence over the native mind, it is necessary to learn their mode of reasoning when certain data are placed before them."*
* Anthropological Review, vol. III. pp. xii-xiv.
ORDINARY MEETING, Nov. 19, 1866.
THE REV. WALTER MITCHELL, VICE-PRESIDENT, IN THE CHAIR.
The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed ; and the
; names of the following Foundation Members and Associates were announced as having been elected since last Ordinary Meeting :
MEMBERS :—The Right Honourable the Earl of Carnarvon, 66, Lower
Grosvenor Street, W.; Richard Edward Arden, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, J.P., and Dep.-Lieut. for Middlesex, F.G.S., F.R.G.S., Fell. Acclim. and Ornithol. Socs., M.R.I., Sunbury Park, Middlesex ; William Barrington, Esq., C.E., 51, George Street, Limerick, and Ballywilliam Cottage, Rathkeale ; Amos Beardsley, Esq., F.L.S., F.G.S., Surgeon, &c., the Grange, Newton-in-Cartmel ; Henry Beckett, Esq., F.G.S., Mining Engineer, &c. &c., Penover, near Wolverhampton ; Henry Butler, Esq., H. M. Civ. Serv., Bexley House, Blackheath, S.E. ; Rev. Charles Campe, Minister of Christ Chapel, 14, North wick Terrace, Maida Hill, N.W.; T. B. Chester, Esq., B.C.L., Solicitor, 24, The Grove, Hammersmith, W.; Henry G. Heald, Esq., 9, County Terrace, Camberwell, S. ; Elkanah Healey, Esq., Oakfield, Gateacre, Liverpool ; Rev. John Kirk, Professor of Practical Theology in the Evangelical Union Academy at Glasgow, 17, Greenhill Gardens, Edinburgh ; Rev. W. Leask, D.D., Newington Green, N. ; Rev. R. T. Lowe, M.A., Cantab., Member of the Lisbon Academy of Sciences, Corresponding Member Z.S.L., Lea Rectory, Gainsborough ; George Lowe, Esq., C.E., F.R.S., F.G.S., &c. &c., 9, St. John's Wood Park, N.W.; William Macdonald, Esq., M.D., F.R.S.E., F.L.S., F.G.S., Fellow of Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh, Professor of Civil and Natural History, St. Andrews ; Patrick M‘Farlane; Esq., Comrie, Perthshire ; John Patton, junr., Esq., Shipowner, 11, Pembury Road, Clapton, N.E. ; Thos. Prothero, Esq., F.S.A., M.R.I., Barrister-at-Law, 36, Queen's Gardens, Hyde Park, W.; Charles Ratcliff, Esq., Wyddrington, Edgbaston, Birmingham ; Rev. S. D. Waddy, D.D., 3, Chester Place, Kennington Cross, S. ; John Hewitt Wheatley, Esq., Abbey View, Sligo ; Edward Whitwell, Esq., Bank Field, Kendal, Westmoreland ; Thomas Vernon Wollaston, Esq., M.A., F.L.S., &c. &c., 1, Barnepark Terrace, Teignmouth.
ASSOCIATES, 1st Class :- Mr. D. R. Davies, 5, Cardiff Street, Aberdare ;
2nd Class :--A. K. Bickford, Esq., Lieut. R.N., H.M.S. Research,
Channel Squadron ; Thomas Ensor, Esq., Merchant, Milborne Port,
Villas, Brook Green, W.
From Messrs. Wyman & Sons. Modern Geology Er posed. By Patrick M'Farlane, Esq., M.V.I.
From the Author. The First Man, and his place in Creation. By George Moore, Esq., M.D.
From the Author. The Flint Implements from the Drift not Authentic. By Nicholas Whitley, Esq.
From the Author.
The CHAIRMAN.-I must apologize for the extemporary character of the few remarks I am about to make. Until this afternoon, I thought I should only have had to commence our business by calling upon Professor Young to read his paper.
It has, however, been suggested to me that on the present occasion it may be expected that I should give a short introductory address :
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,—At this opening meeting of our second session, I cannot help congratulating the society on the progress it has made since its public inauguration only six months ago. That progress is a proof that there are not a few persons of educated minds and of varied pursuits, who are ready not only to declare that a man can be a believer in Divine Revelation, and at the same time maintain that the Author of that Revelation is the Author of all truth, of all knowledge, and of all that constitutes sound science; but who are also willing to evince the sincerity of their convictions by openly co-operating as members and associates of this Institute, in order that the pretensions of all contrary science may be thoroughly and impartially investigated, and that truth may be elicited and established.
Since we last met, the British Association, called by some the Parliament of Science for Great Britain, has held its annual session. It was opened by an eloquent address by a very distinguished cultivator of science. I cannot but regret the tone of that address-a tone which seems to imply that a calm inquiry after truth can only be undertaken by such as ignore those truths which we believe the Creator has specially revealed to His creature, man ;—which assumes that a belief in the miraculous, if not quite inconsistent with philosophy, is at least to be restricted within the narrowest limits, and that as any special act of creation is a miracle, it is expedient to reduce creation, if possible, to the smallest possible number of acts ;-and which ends by concluding, that what elsewhere has been termed the chain of endless causation, is merely a law of
continuity,” which, if not infinite, has no definite beginning that can be traced even to one special act of creation ! This is a tone of thought, as I conceive, only suited to those who wish to evade all acknowledgment of a final cause, or the design of an intelligent and omnipotent Creator, and not to such as are satisfied that the Creator has revealed to man, that “by His word were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible.” It cannot be palatable to those who believe that there were consecutive acts of creation, in which God said “Let there be," and there was,that plants and animals were created in a perfect state, (so that God could behold His works and pronounce them very good,) and not imperfect works, left to perfect themselves by accidental “laws" of natural selection and emendation, carried on through æons of ages.
To show that I am not misinterpreting the tone of Mr. Grove's address, I will quote from it some few passages :
" To suppose a zoophyte the progenitor of a mammal, or to suppose at some particular period of time a highly developed animal to have come out of nothing, or suddenly grown out of inorganic matter, would appear at first sight equally extravagant hypotheses. As an effort of Almighty creative power, neither of these alternatives presents more difficulty than the other ; but as we have no means of ascertaining how creative power worked, but by an examination and study of the works themselves, we are not likely to get either side proved to ocular demonstration.”
Now, does not this passage ignore the revelation that God has made to us, that He did act in a manner which is here designated as an apparently extravagant hypothesis ? and ailege that in a matter where we cannot have demonstration, the same kind of faith by which we arrive at so many truths, even of science, which do not admit of ocular demonstration, cannot lead us up to a rational, that is not an extravagant, hypothesis ?
I will quote another passage :“ The more the gaps between species are filled up by the discovery of intermediate varieties, the stronger becomes the argument for transmutation, and the weaker that for successive creations, because the former view then becomes more and more consistent with experience, the latter more discordant from it. As undoubted cases of variation, more or less permanent, from given characteristics, are produced by the effects of climate, food, domestication, &c., the more species are increased by intercalation, the more the distinctions slide down towards those which are within the limits of such observed deviations ; while on the other hand, to suppose the more and more. frequent recurrence of fresh creations out of amorphous matter, is a multiplication of miracles or special interventions not in accordance with what we
see of the uniform and gradual progress of nature, either in the organic or inorganic world. If we were entitled to conclude that the progress of discovery would continue in the same course, and that species would become indefinitely multiplied, the distinctions would become infinitely minute, and all lines of demarcation would cease, the polygon would become a circle, the succession of plants a line. Certain it is, the more we observe, the more we increase the subdivision of species, and consequently the number of these supposed creations ; so that new creations become innumerable, and yet of these we have no one well authenticated instance, and in no other observed operation of nature have we seen this want of continuity, these frequent per saltum deviations from uniformity, each of which is a miracle."
There is not a word of this argument which does not apply as much to a number of simultaneous or consecutive creations of vegetable or animal living organisms, out of what Mr. Grove calls amorphous matter (why amorphous I know not), as to the theory of successive creations in periods of time widely apart. Nay, if the argument be taken rigidly and logically, it militates equally against any single act of creation, which must be as miraculous as a thousand, whether simultaneous or successive creations.
In words Mr. Grove professed that he was not "going to put forth any theory of his own, or to argue in support of any special theory ;” but I maintain that making his choice between two at first sight, as he terms them, equally extravagant hypotheses,-whether we are " to suppose à zoophyte the progenitor of a mammal, or to suppose at some particular period of time a highly developed animal to have come out of nothing, or suddenly grown out of inorganic matter,”—he ignored the latter, (which I believe to be a truth revealed by God to man,) and argued with all the art and dialectic skill of a practised advocate in favour of the former.
To test his reasoning and conclusions, I willingly assent to a proposition laid down by Mr. Grove himself, namely :“Does the newly proposed view (hypothesis?) remove more difficulties, require fewer assumptions, and present more consistency with observed facts, than that which it seeks to supersede?"
I am prepared to maintain that the hypothesis Mr. Grove