No. 1.—“On the Identity of the Vital and Cosmical Principle.” By R. LEWINS, M.D., Staff Surgeon-Major to Her Majesty’s Forces. No. 2.—“The Physical Theory of Animal Life.” A Review by JULIAN. No. 3.—“The Nature of Man Identical with that of other Animals.” By JULIAN. No. 4.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY; or “Christ and the Christian Idea, viewed from a Biological standpoint.” By JULIAN. No. 5.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY; or “The Mosaic and Christian Ideas wholly without Originality.” By JULIAN. No. 6.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY; or “Life on the Basis of Hylozoism.” By JULIAN. No. 7.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY; or “Identity of the Vital and Cosmical Principle, according to DR. LEWINS.” By JULIAN. No. 8.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY—“The Mission of Moses,” from the German of Schiller. Annotated by JULIAN. No. 9.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY—“Christ not divine nor his death vicarious.” By JULIAN. No. 10.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY—“The Curé Meslier and his Will,” from the German of Strauss, with Preliminary Remarks by JULIAN. No. 11.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY—“The Bible irreconcilable with science, experience, and even its own statements.” By JULIAN. No. 12.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY.—“The Dinner of the Count de Boulainvilliers from Voltaire,” with an Introduction by JULIAN (_in the press_). FOOTNOTES. {3} _Lay Sermons and Reviews_. This paper, “On the Origin of Species,” was originally published in the “Westminster Review,” of April, 1860. {14a} Job xxxviii., 8. {14b} “On the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God as manifested in the creation of animals, and in their history, habits, and instincts,” by the Rev. William Kirby, M.A., F.R.S., rector of Barham. {15} The common Hebrew cubit was about 22 inches. The “royal cubit” was three inches longer. The Roman cubit was 18 inches. {19} See Dr. Davidson’s _Introduction to the New Testament_. Baur, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, &c., take the same view. See also “Biology _versus_ Theology,” No. I. {20a} It is obvious that the Book of the Kings, whether of Judah or Israel, is not the record called the first and second Book of Kings in our Bible, for it is not unfrequently referred to in the Chronicles, for “the rest of the acts” of certain kings, but the account in our Books of Kings, in some cases at any rate, is far more meagre than that of the Chronicles. To give one example: 2 Chron. xxvii., 7, refers us for a more detailed account to the book of the “Kings of Israel and Judah,” but the record given in 2 Kings, xv., 36–38, is far less ample than that of the Chronicler. It is no less certain that the book called “The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel” cannot be our books of Chronicles, inasmuch as they wholly omit the Kings of Israel, and speak only of the Kings of Judah. {20b} Perhaps this expression may mean “the general scope of his preaching,” and not a book. It may go for what it is worth, and can in no wise affect the question at issue.