the Badiet-el-Tih; the scene of the Israelitish encampment during the Forty Years. It was on breaking up their encampment that they desired to ascend on to the Edomite table-land, and asked permission of the King of Edom to pass by "the King's Highway," but were refused (Numbers xx, 16-21). Mr. Sutton supposes (with other writers) that Moses desired to lead the Israelitish host right through the city of Petra up into the table-land beyond. This would have been an impossible task; both owing to the narrow and difficult pathways leading into, and out of the city; and moreover the Israelites in passing through the city would have been exposed to attack from a hostile population. It was through "the border" of Edom, not its centre, that the tribes desired to pass, and this highway was discovered, and in all probability identified by the members of the expedition of 1883-4. The road strikes off from the Wadyel-Arabah towards the mountains at a point a few miles north of Mount Hor. It was partly explored by our party, and the rocks on either side were covered by rude drawings of animals; there can be little doubt, the writer believes, that this was the King's highway by which the Israelites desired to ascend to the table-land of Edom and Moab; and probably Mr. Sutton will admit this view.*

Perhaps this article cannot be better closed than in the words of Dean Burgon's elegy-on witnessing the desolation of Petra which had been foretold by the prophets-and is now plainly revealed to the traveller of the twentieth century:-+

And this is Petra :-This the lofty boast

Of Edom's once unconquerable coast!

These the gay halls through which in days of old
The tide of life so rapturously rolled;

These the proud streets where wealth with lavish hand

Poured the rich spoils of every Orient land;

All that the seaman's timid bark beguiles

From Cush and Ophir, Tarshish and the Isles ;

Afric's red gold, Arabia's spicy store

And pearl and plume from India's farthest shore.
How changed! how fallen! All her glory fled;
A widowed city mourns her many dead.

Like some fond heart which gaunt disease hath left,
Of all it lived for-all it loved bereft;

Mute in its anguish; struck with pangs too deep

For words to utter, or for tears to weep."

* Mr. Sutton has now accepted this view.

Mr. Sutton has given a detailed account of his visit in the Friends' Witness, vol. i, No. 2 (1908).

And of Mount Hor, the tomb of Aaron (Jebel Haroum) Dean Burgon thus speaks; after referring to the rocks and mountains around:

"And one there is which beetling o'er the rest,
Pillows a prophet on its rocky crest;

Uplifted high, where none but stars may keep
Their bright-eyed vigils round his saintly steep."

"Petra," a poem by Dean Burgon, 1845.

ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.*

ARTHUR W. SUTTON, ESQ., F.L.S., IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed, and the following Candidates were elected :

ASSOCIATES:-) Mr. Sim Boon Kwang, Singapore; Miss Caroline Mary Longdon, Derby. Mr. J. Townsend Trench, Walham Green.

LIBRARY ASSOCIATES:-Birmingham Free Library; Nottingham Free Library.

The following paper was then read by the author :

PHILOSOPHY AND "EVOLUTION": AN INQUIRY. By Professor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.Sc.

WHAT is Philosophy?

What is "Evolution"?

"Evolution" a Philosophy?

Is

Let us compare them, and see whether, in logical language, the two terms “agree or "disagree."

Definition of Philosophy.-If Philosophy be defined as the study of first principles, its function is

1. To investigate the Origins of things.

2. To Explain facts.

3. To Unify knowledge in accordance with our intuitions.

Definitions of "Evolution."-What is "Evolution "?† Diverse answers are given. It is a change, say, of form and configuration, as in an army or a fleet. It is development-the growth and passage to maturity and end of the structures and functions belonging to living organisms. Instead of a lifehistory it may be any other kind of history, e.g., of another "evolution," the "evolution" of an "evolution." We may have

*Monday, February 17th, 1908.

+ Dr. Walter Kidd has pointed out (Difficulties of Evolution) that "it is the nebulous character of the doctrine of Evolution which constitutes its strength."

"the evolution" of an invention, say, of a watch, or of a steamengine, or of a telescope (see Nature, September 27th, 1906), and (to quote from the Journal of the Royal Microscopical Society) we may speak of "the evolution of the fine adjustment of the microscope." In these uses of the term the basic idea appears to be that of progression, i.e., continuous change attended by improvement.

*

More serious attempts at a definition tell the bewildered inquirer that Evolution

"is the theory that the condition of things at any moment is the result of the condition of things at the previous moment a series of orderly changes, the condition of things at any moment being the result of the condition at the previous moment" (Wilson).† "We know, of course, that Evolution means the passage from the more general to the more special, and that although as the general result an onward advance has taken place, yet specialization does not always or necessarily mean highness' of organization in the sense in which the term is usually employed" (Traquair). Evolution is "the law of the continuous re-distribution of matter and motion," or, more formally, "Evolution is a change from indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity, through continuous differentiations and integrations" (Spencer). Evolution is an "indefinite and confused movement of the mind of the age" (Wiegand). "A series of orderly changes," a "passage," a "law," a "change," an "indefinite and confused movement."

Modern "Evolution" theories. Of modern Evolution theories the most influential are the monistic and atheistic doctrine of Haeckel, the practically agnostic doctrine of Spencer, and the theistic doctrine of Le Conte. Differing in many and important features, they agree in a common postulate-the transmutation of species, and deny the axiom that like causes produce like results.

Why some people accept the "doctrine."-That so unnatural a theory should have been welcomed by many able men, may at first sight seem surprising. In truth it has been taken on its own profession. It offers an excuse to some for disbelieving the Genesis record of creation, and hence throws the shadow of doubt

*In Nature, August 22nd, 1907, we read of "the evolution of wound treatment during the last forty years."

+ Problems of Religion and Science, p. 51.

"Darwinismus." Some of the disagreements of evolutionists are interestingly set out in "Vertebrate Morphology." (See Nature, April 30th, 1903.)

across the whole Bible. It professes to be a great unifying principle, whereby, apart from Divine revelation, men may solve the "Riddle of the Universe." Thus it appeals to their love of power, and ministers to their pride. Not in infidelity and pride only does the theory find allies. A nebulous indefiniteness attracts minds illogical or wearied, especially when this indefiniteness clothes itself with novelty. Some people, trying to conceive of creation and failing in the attempt, have thoughtlessly adopted the evolution hypothesis as an alternative easy as compared with the "difficulty" of creation. The philosophical imagination is captivated by a principle claiming identity with the great "law of continuity" illustrated in the development of all living organisms-a principle commended to, not to say enforced upon, younger men, by the advocacy, thorough-going, determined, not always scrupulous, of professors and lecturers occupying positions of active influence.

Few, if any, of the leaders of thought are evolutionists.—Whilst the seven arguments enumerated have singly or collectively exercised on many minds powerful influence toward acceptance of "evolution," it is fair to point out that its motley adherents* include few, if any, of the leaders of thought. Tyndall, though partial to "a fiery cloud," was careful to say that he adopted it as a provisional hypothesis" only. Huxley, though enamoured of "some form of the doctrine," refused his adhesion to any of the current theories. Among anti-evolutionists we recognize the great names of Sir George Stokes, Lord Kelvin, Lionel Beale, Carruthers, Agassiz, Cuvier, Lyell, Miller, Sedgwick, Owen, Dana, Sir J. William Dawson, etc., etc.

66

Evolution and Origins.-We shall now investigate (1) whether "Evolution" accounts for the Origins of things; (2) whether" Evolution" Explains facts; (3) whether "Evolution" Unifies knowledge in accordance with our intuitions. We propose to give frequent quotation from Evolutionists.

1. Evolution and Origins.-In many forms of the evolution hypothesis, the aim has been to arrive at one primary basis, which by the Brahmins was held to be spirit, and by others to be matter. The British Museum contains a coloured facsimile

* Professor Packard (of America) considers that "we have evolutionists divided into Lamarkians, and Darwinians, with a further subdivision of them into Neolamarkians and Neodarwinians, while the latter are often denominated Weismannians. Some prefer to rely on the action of the primary factors of evolution, others believe that Natural Selection embraces all the necessary factors, while still others are persuaded of its inadequacy." (See Nature, April 6th, 1899.)