Professor Silvanus Thompson for the address now delivered, and our thanks to those who have read papers during the session.

up

Of course, an old man of eighty-three, I stand here as one of the children having yet not got beyond childhood, and am still wrapped in some of the old arguments of the early, first, second and third century beliefs. But our resolution is by no means that we are prepared to accept all that Professor Thompson has put before us, but that we still owe our thanks to him for his address.

Rev. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S.-Mr. Chairman, I rise to propose that our very best thanks be given to the Lord Chancellor for kindly promising to come, and remaining with us as long as he could, and to General Halliday for having so kindly and promptly taken the seat which the Lord Chancellor would otherwise have occupied. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two concerning the basis of this Society, and if I refer to what has been said this afternoon I hope it may not be out of place. The Society professes to maintain an open mind, both in the direction of science and in the direction of religion; and I hope it is the endeavour of all to do so. We, I trust, recognise that no religion can be accepted by us as true which is not strictly in accordance with reason; in the same way as we regard no fact of science as being acceptable to the human understanding which is not in accordance with reason. But I may be permitted to say that there is a mistake somewhere. What is science but the systemisation of the facts of nature as known to man? I think that is a correct definition. Taking that as correct there is, of course, ample ground for recognising changes and advances which science may make; but I think it ought to be recognised that the changes and advances are simply in human knowledge. Facts of science do not, and cannot, change until the Almighty Creator shall see fit to introduce some new fact. We know that electricity existed centuries ago before it was discovered. There have been no changes in the facts; what has changed has been the knowledge of man concerning them. On the other hand, what is religion? or what is theology? but a systemisation of the facts concerning the relationship between God and man. These facts are the same to-day as they were thousands of years ago; and there has been no change in the relationship between God and man. Theology has made progress in the same way as science has made progress; and progress in theology can

f

only be a modification of man's knowledge concerning the facts, until the Almighty Creator shall see fit to introduce some new fact, or modify existing facts concerning the relationship between man and Himself. We can know very little concerning this relationship beyond that which He sees fit to make known to us. "Man by searching cannot find out God." Whence are we to look for the revelation of the mind of God on these matters? There is no other source whence we can obtain any information except the Scriptures. I know of none other. I know of no truth that has ever been advanced for the acceptance of man of a general character which cannot be found in the Scriptures. If that be so, then I think it becomes us to search our Bibles, and it may be that in the search for truth there, we shall be able to correct any mistakes into which we may have fallen.

May I be permitted to say concerning archæology that whilst modern criticism has spoken of the different "strata" in the Old Testament Scriptures, and has suggested that something of the same kind may be found in the New Testament, I do not know of a single fact which has been revealed to us by archæological knowledge which supports the modern theories concerning these "strata "; so far as I understand the question, it is purely hypothetical.

Rev. CHANCELLOR LIAS, M.A.-I have been asked to second the Resolution of thanks to General Halliday and those who have taken part in the present meeting, and I am sorry that I do not oftener appear here. It is nearly thirty years since I read a paper, but I have been a member of the Council almost consecutively since then; and so as the question has been raised by Mr. Tuckwell about the basis of the society to which one belongs, perhaps one has a little right to speak for it. I most cordially concur with Professor Thompson that we are bound to keep an open mind. It is a most wicked thing to "close one's eyes to the telescope," but I must ask whether sometimes one is not asked to see something that is not there? About modern science there is one thing I notice, that it deals largely on assumptions. Let us make sure that we shall see the thing, and do not let us assert that it is there, and then call upon people to see it, when the very reverse is the fact.

I think I caught something from Professor Thompson about holding the truth because it is the truth. Everyone I hope wishes to do that. What is the truth? Is the truth contained in the

C

Revelation of God which is handed down, or is it contained in what are said to be the ultimate conclusions of science in the twentieth century? I remember people talking about the nineteenth century, and in a very high-minded way a curate uttered a philippic against this so-called nineteenth century. Well, this is the twentieth, and then there will be the twentyfirst, and the twenty-second, and the twenty-third century, which may negative some of the things which are held at the present time.

I should like to correct a mistake which some people fall into about the Fathers of the Council of Nicæa. It is supposed that the Nicene Fathers took upon themselves to say, "this is the faith which men ought to believe because we say so." They did nothing of the kind. When Constantine brought ecclesiastical authorities from all parts of the Christian world, he said :-Here is a question to be settled. Will you kindly tell us, you who have come from France, from the East, from Egypt, can you tell us what are the doctrines of Christianity you have believed in your various localities? Then they all decided that it had been handed down that Christ was "of one substance with the Father." The answer shows the opinion of Fathers of the Council which has been handed down from time immemorial; and therefore let us understand that the Fathers were not commissioned to dictate to us what we ought to believe.

I think we ought to thrash everything out, and I hope the subject of the address may be discussed at a future meeting of the Society, when all will have an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it.

The meeting closed with a vote of thanks to the Chairman.

ORDINARY MEETING.*

PROF. LIONEL S. BEALE, F.R.C.P., F.R.S., IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed.

The following candidates were put forward by the Council for election :

LIFE MEMBER-Rev. Dr. Cushing, President of the Baptist College, Rangoon.

MEMBERS:-Professor William Galloway, F.G.S.; Alexander Finn, Esq., H.B.M. Consul, Chicago.

ASSOCIATES:-Sir Thomas Wardle, F.G.S.; J. Heald Jenkins, Esq.; Rev. W. H. Frazer, D.D.; Rev. Alexander Irving, D.Sc.

The following paper was read by the Author :

THE RIGHT WAY IN PSYCHOLOGY.
STORRS TURNER, B.A.

By Rev. F.

1. Definitions. What is psychology? Different answers are given. To Hume it meant the "science of Man," "of human nature itself." Some living psychologists think that the subjectmatter of the science is "the phenomena of mind" (Sully); "the phenomena of consciousness (Baldwin); " mental process" (Stout); "psychical events (Bosanquet). These definitions are equivalent, or nearly so. They suggest fundamental questions-such as, a phenomenon of what and to whom? is mind identical with consciousness? is there any known being called mind? Wundt considers that the whole of experience, that is, according to his notion of experience, all being of every kind, is the province of psychology-although immediate experience is its special subject-matter. Külpe takes psychology to be "the adequate description of those properties of the data of experience which are dependent upon experiencing individuals." Herbert Spencer's definition stands apart. His psychology studies "the connexion between two connexions"-these being "the connexion between the internal phenomena and the connexion between the external phenomena." In another place we find it described

* Monday, December 5th, 1904.

as "an inquiry concerning the nature of the human mind, and an inquiry concerning the nature of human knowledge."

2. Our definition. In this essay, psychology is to have only one meaning. Verbally, it is Hume's-with the exception that instead of "science" I prefer the word "study." Practically Hume's psychology is a study of the human mind. In this essay, not mind but man is the subject-matter: man the embodied mind, or the ensouled body-in popular speech, man as body and soul. We are to consider the whole real man, the living unity, as we know him in experience. We desire to understand ourselves- not only each one of us himself; but each one: himself and his fellow-men. It is essential for the subsequent discussion, that this definition shall be held fast in its integrity.

3. The inquiry proposed. Although their definitions vary, I assume that psychologists all have before their minds the same or similar given facts, which they try to understand. We have not time to review the history of psychology and to describe existing psychologies. I propose to begin an independent inquiry. Can we discover by examination of the given facts, indications of the methods which psychology ought to take? If we succeed, the right way will be known: or, at least a right way. Whether there can be more than one right way, may be a subsequent inquiry.

4. The first step. The fact that there are different definitions obliges the psychologist to begin by explaining and defending his own definition. Physical science is not troubled in this way. The astronomer, the chemist, the geologist, and the rest all take their given facts as they find them, and being unanimous, go to work without any preamble. Why cannot we set to work as easily and confidently as they? Because the propriety of our definition may be challenged. This compels us to justify it, before we proceed. To do this we must consider given facts generally, what they are, and how they come to us; and then, whether the given facts of psychology are found among them.

5. The meaning of "the given." Why do we speak of some things as given facts? We mean that the given things, sometimes called "immediate psychical facts," are present to our consciousness, before the exercise of our thinking powers upon them. It is somewhat difficult to draw the line sharply between the before and after; for in the first perception of anything, or any event, the mind has its part. Still there are cases in which this part seems to be passive rather than active,