that the seed does not do any one thing of itself as the animal does. We call the changes through which it passes life, because they resemble the changes of the truly living creature more nearly than those of inorganic matter, but there is nothing in any or all of these changes of the nature of that selfmoving or self-acting which is observed in the animal. It is, I humbly think, in this self-acting, and not in intelligence, that we discover the essential quality of true mind. If there is a substance which may be called force, and which is neither matter nor mind, it must be something essentially distinct from all that is merely moved, and also from all that wills, or originates motion, in living entities having the power of volition. It must not be like the seed, which is only moved in the streams of agitations by which it is surrounded when placed where these agitations prevail; and it must not be like the force of will, which is the essential characteristic of the true mind, whether intelligent or non-intelligent. Can we form a conception of this substance for which so many philosophers contend, and of which a particular school make such an extravagant use?

Mr. Mitchell says truly, that "the purely physical reasoner has a distinct conception of force and matter as two very different existences." But may I not ask whether his conception of " force" is not in very many cases merely a conception of "motion," which he mistakes for force? Was it not this mistake which misled Boscovich and Faraday, and which misleads a host of such men as Professor Tyndall, who follow in the wake of original thinkers more readily in error than in truth? What Mr. Mitchell says of light may help us here. He asks whether it is "a force or a substance." It is neither the one nor the other, but simply motion. Were you to adopt the now abandoned idea of a luminiferous ether, it is the "shiver" of that ether which constitutes light. A shiver is not a force but a motion produced by a force.

As Mr. Mitchell rightly says, "Something must cause it (that is the ether) to vibrate, which is not matter and which is force. Is this something," he asks, "necessarily mind?" Let us see. We must leave out the " necessarily," as I am not trying to show what must be but only what is. Is the true cause of the agitation in a luminous substance actually mind? We shall have help here from Grove's "Correlation of Forces." I hold in my hand, we shall say, an ordinary match, and I stand amid perfect darkness; I bring the match into contact with a suitable surface. Here is motion, but not sufficient motion to issue in light. I draw the end of the match quickly over the surface with which I had brought it into contact, and this motion passes into heat, and that into all those other motions which issue almost instantly in that which illuminates. Now we have matter and motion in that instance-one mode of motion passing into another mode-and we have force causing this train of motions-but that force is nothing more or less than the force of mind. The conception of the physicist who confounds this force with the motion which it produces may be clear, but it is not correct; and we see the consequences of its incorrectness in the sad conclusions to which it leads those who follow it logically out.

It is held, I think, by all sound thinkers as well as by many that are unsound,

to be inconsistent with true philosophy, when we imagine a cause that is not required to explain all the phenomena in any particular case or class of cases in Nature. But if we imagine a force, in such a case as this of lighting the match, which is neither matter nor mind, we do imagine an unnecessary cause. Motion originated in volition by mind, passes on its course, changing from one mode into another till light appears. There is mind and matter-force of mind and motion of matter-but nothing more. If we rise from the lighting of a match to the kindling of the great sun itself, what reason can we have for interpolating a "force" in that case which is totally wanting in the other? If it is argued that though God kindles the sun, there must be a force or cause then, in the sun itself, such as makes the agitation in that orb go out into space, I reply that this agitation passes to all surrounding objects, as ordinary motion passes from one portion say of water to another, and it passes through all objects that are susceptible of such agitations; but this is essentially unlike that which is, I think, properly called "force," as that exists in mind, originating motion, and accounting for its existence. We have mind and matter-the force of mind and the motion of matter-there; and true philosophy not only asks no more, but refuses to admit any more.

I am glad to see that all who have spoken on the subject see the importance of the metaphysics, or, as I should call it, the philosophy of this great question, and perceive that it is in this region that the difficulties of inquiring minds chiefly lie. It is consequently this same region which we must enter, to deal with those difficulties. In this work I have offered my humble share of effort in the essay in hand.

But I seem to have said enough, and will only add my very warmest acknowledgments of the kind manner in which I have been dealt with by all concerned.

ORDINARY MEETING, DECEMBER 16, 1867.

THE REV. WALTER MITCHELL, M.A., VICE-PRESIDENT, IN THE CHAIR.

The minutes of the last meeting of the previous session having been read and confirmed, the names of the following new members and associates of the Institute were announced :

MEMBERS for 1867 :-Charles Brooke, Esq., M.A., M.B., F.R.S., 16, Fitzroy Square; William Brooke, Esq., A.B., Master in Chancery, Taney Hill, Dundrum, Dublin; Horatio Darby, Esq., Hereford; Charles Hammond, Esq., M.D., Bentley, Farnham, Hants; William Hooley, Esq., Stockport ; John J. Jackson, Esq., Fern Cliff, St. John's Park, Blackheath; The Honourable Sir Robert Lush, Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench, 60, Avenue Road, Regent's Park; J. Pattison, Esq., M.D., 10, Cavendish Road, St. John's Wood; Rev. J. H. Titcomb, M.A., Wingfield House, South Lambeth Road.

ASSOCIATE 2ND CLASS : Rev. David Greig, M.A., 45, Grove Place, Brompton.

MEMBERS for 1868-Henry W. Bleby, Esq., 88, Chancery Lane; John T. Mould, Esq., F.R.C.S., Onslow Crescent, Brompton; Rev. C. A. Row, M.A., 55, Gloucester Terrace, Regent's Park.

ASSOCIATE 2ND CLASS : Rev. Nicholas C. Martin, A.K.A.B., The Rectory, Carndonagh, Ireland.

The CHAIRMAN stated that Mr. Charles Brooke had been elected a VicePresident of the Institute, and it was expected that he would have occupied the chair, but had been prevented doing so by illness. He also announced, with a regret and sympathy which he was sure would be shared by the audience, that Mr. Reddie, who had written the paper for that evening, was also unable to be present, on account of the serious illness of his wife. Under those circumstances, the Rev. Dr. Thornton had kindly undertaken to read the paper for Mr. Reddie.

The Rev. Dr. THORNTON then read the following paper :

ON GEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY, AND THE COGENCY OF THE ARGUMENTS BY WHICH SOME SCIENTIFIC DOCTRINES ARE SUPPORTED. (In reply to Professor Huxley's Discourse delivered at Sion College, on Nov. 21st, 1867.) By JAMES REDDIE, ESQ., HON. SEC., VICT. INST.

A

S this Paper comes before the Institute under somewhat peculiar circumstances, I beg leave to occupy your attention with a few words of explanation.

So lately as a month ago it was utterly improbable that I should have written the first Paper of the present Session. It had even been settled not to commence our meetings till after Christmas; and I myself suggested to the Council the desirableness of putting forward a programme of Papers entirely by new authors. I was therefore looking forward to a little rest, or the pleasure of only listening to Essays written by others. I shall only further premise that when I found it necessary unexpectedly to intrude this paper upon your notice, I begged for an extra night, so as to disturb our preceding arrangements as little as possible. I also asked for an early evening, because the matter that has forced me to write was one that did not brook delay. And I submit that if this Institute is to be of use with reference to those grave questions where science and Holy Scripture are alleged to be at issue-if, in short, the founding of the VICTORIA INSTITUTE was not a mistake-it is unquestionably our bounden duty to deal with the subject I am now about to bring before you.

PROFESSOR HUXLEY AT SION COLLEGE.

On 21st November Professor Huxley delivered an extempore Discourse in the hall of Sion College, the subject of which was announced in the following terms, in a printed circular issued

by the Rev. William Rogers, the President of the College:"In opening the discussion on Thursday next, Professor Huxley will draw attention to the difference supposed to exist between scientific and clerical opinion, and inquire into the cogency of the arguments by which some scientific doctrines are supported."

The specific subject of the distinguished Professor's remarks was the evidence which he considered to be adducible,-from the civilization of Egypt at the time when the Hebrew Joseph was made Governor by Pharaoh,-from the Pyramids, and the mud-deposits of the Nile-valley,-from the nummulitic rocks and some other strata, and from the chalk formations,-against the chronology of Genesis. In other words, it was intended to be a brief summary, though certainly a new version, of "the testimony of the rocks," against what is popularly supposed to be the teaching of the Bible regarding the age of this world.

The greater part, however, of the Professor's address was occupied with an admonitory and apologetic exordium, followed by frequent subsequent remarks of the same kind, relating to the utter divergence he said there had grown up, and which he considered to be increasing, between what he called scientific and clerical opinion, or the habits of thought of the philosophers and the clergy of this country. This classification was questioned by several speakers and humorously criticised by some as "a rather strange division of the human race;" but as the learned Professor appears only to have adopted it pro re nata, as a tribute to the genius loci and while addressing "his hosts, the clergy," in Sion College, its propriety need not further be canvassed. From the discussion that followed, it was chiefly evident that the greater part of the Professor's address might have been spared, as it appeared to be founded upon a misapprehension of what really is the attitude of the clergy towards science; and so, we may give our attention rather to what he thought proper to say on behalf of himself, as representing the "men of science" or "philosophers." His professions of earnestness and honesty may be succinctly summed up in a noble sentence for which the meeting was indebted to Professor Tyndall, who afterwards spoke, and who told us, if I understood him aright, that it was a sentiment of Professor Huxley's own-namely, that he would rather die than lie. This is, I repeat, a noble sentiment, and it is one not more solemn than became the theme, when the issue, as it was then put forward, involves nothing less than the truth or falsehood of the Holy Scriptures.

As a layman, however, myself, I feel bound to say, on behalf of the Christian clergy, that this is surely a sentiment