172 REV. CANON E. B. GIRDLESTONE, M.A._, ON 



and even fasts to some extent, in order that the spirit may be 

 keener and le.?s belaboured by the body, so that more of the 

 spirit of the subject is seen in the picture. When Carlyle and 

 Tennyson "had a fine time together," though in silence, was this not 

 spiritual 1 Folk are wanting more help for seeking advice for their 

 spirits rather than their bodies. The increased leadings of evil 

 spirits is seen in more lunacy, the greater power of good spirits in 

 arbitration vice war. Do not these considerations make the 

 promise of accord instead of discord in " a spiritual body " (i Cor. xv, 

 44) less incomprehensible. 



Professor Orchard said : I am sure we shall all very heartily 

 second the thanks which the Chairman of Council has proposed to 

 our learned and able reader of the paper to which we have listened. 

 A paper thoughtfully suggestive and suggestively thoughtful which 

 had one great demerit, which was that the quantity did not corre- 

 spond with the quality. It was far too short. The philosophic 

 author has quite proved his point, and shown that there are 

 ndications of a scheme in the universe, that indeed the processes 

 of nature are letters of a definite message, and it is our business to 

 decipher that message. Undoubtedly that is so. 



On page 164, 1 think, reference is made to the evolutionist doctrine, 

 that every embryo, to whatever species it may belong, passes in a 

 few days or ^\■eeks through stages corresponding with the whole 

 presumed course of ancestral evolution. Darwin himself admits 

 ':hat the picture of the supposed progenitor is more or less obscure. 

 In point of fact it is more obscure than less. Several of the more 

 important works are absent. Von Baer and Huxley both say that 

 embryos are similar to one another, but do not say that they are 

 identical in character. At the International Congress"^ held at 

 Cambridge a few years ago mention was made of discoveries, by 

 Professors Hill and Hubrecht, of differences in these embryos. 

 There must be differences, because, if they are placed in one and 

 the same environment, a different result occurs. A duck's embryo 

 produces a duck, a hen's embryo produces a hen, though both 

 embryos are hatched by the same bird. The one plausible 

 argument for the evolution theory (besides structural resemblance) 

 is thus destroyed. 



On the third paragraph of page 164 we read of " the failure of God's 



* At which the evolutionist, Haeckel, was present, and spoke. 



