66 EEV. CHANCELLOR LIAS^ M.A., ON 



human spirit. How can I tell what the nature of God is unless I 

 have an idea of my own nature ? If you have a low opinion of 

 the natui^e of man you will have a low idea of God. 



If we could get to know more of — I will not say psychology, but 

 — pneumatology, we could discover what we mean by spirituality, 

 and a great deal of good would be done not only in connection with 

 this subject, but also with regard to various other discussions. But 

 I think you will find that spiritual in the Bible always includes 

 moral, and also the thought that there is a Being higher than 

 ourselves that works within us. So that it is far more than a 

 matter of feeling or sentiment, but rather a question of force and 

 righteous attraction, and that force cannot 'be dissociated from the 

 idea of personality. Thus you have in the Old Testament and the 

 New Testament the thought of personality, plus thought, plus 

 feeling. While you have the two analogies of the wind and 

 breath, you feel that they are not more than illustrations and 

 you must look beyond the illustration for the grand truth, and 

 when we get that truth with regard to man, I think it is possible 

 to build up our thoughts with regard to the Divine Being 

 also (see Old Testament Synonyms, s.v. Spirit). 



Rev. John Tuckwell, M.R.A.S. — Like the last speaker I do not 

 wish any remarks that I make should be regarded as wholly depre- 

 ciatory of the paper, but it seems to me that perhaps there is a little 

 too much conceded to the idea of evolution in the paper in connec- 

 tion with Christianity. Evolution, as applied to nature, may be 

 regarded as a useful theory up to a point, but I think it must be 

 admitted that a great deal more information is required on the 

 subject before we can finally accept it. If we go back, as far as 

 we know, to the origin of things — take, for instance, the nebular 

 hypothesis from which all creation is supposed to have started. 

 Supposing you grant that there was a mass of nebulous matter 

 somewhei'e in space, that nebulous matter somehow got started 

 with motion of a particular kind, and according to the law of the 

 correlation of forces, the amount of force that starts the whole 

 process must be equivalent to all subsequent results. Then comes 

 the question, "Whence did that force originate which started the 

 whole nebulous mass in such a way as to produce the results of 

 sidereal motion ? Did that force originate in the nebulous mass 

 itself ? I think it must be admitted that no such hypothesis is 

 proved, but that the force must have originated from something 



