region of things unknowable, which cannot be thought of. But is the fact 
that a thing is invisible, impalpable, and unknowable by the external senses, 
any reasonable argument that it does not exist ? Surely this paper disproves 
that view. This luminiferous ether itself is invisible and impalpable, if it 
exists. Again, it is an acknowledged fact in modern science that there are 
no breaks in nature, but that there is a law of continuity running throughout 
creation. Start from the very simplest and lowest form of sponge, and see 
how the gradation is traceable, even up to the highest form of life, — namely, 
man. But man becomes dissolved by death, and if his spirit be immaterial 
— that spirit goes into another portion of the universe, to find a great 
break between itself and the Deity ; but surely, by the laws of analogy, 
we may expect to find that break filled up in the unseen ethereal world 
above ; and if that be so, there is the very thing. which is asked for in regard 
to the existence of angels — other spirits linking themselves between the 
lower forms of man’s spirit and the highest form of all — God’s uncreated 
spirit. There would be a great destruction of that law of continuity, if we 
did not suppose that there was in the unseen world something created to fill 
up the interval between the throne of the Deity and the disembodied soul of 
man. I should now like to say one word upon the latter part of Mr. 
Howard’s paper, to which I must take some friendly exception. I refer 
more particularly^ what is said in section 59. I may have misunderstood 
Mr. Howard, but gather from him that, as Christian believers, we have very 
little, if any room at all for criticism of Scripture. Now, in the interests of 
the human mind and of freedom of thought, subject of course to true faith 
and humble reverence for God’s word, I take liberty to dispute that position ; 
and I venture to do it upon one or two grounds. When the message of God 
is ascertained, I fully concur with the author of this paper, as all of us 
would, that it is authoritative, and then, that submission, and not criticism, 
is called for on the part of those who hear, or rather who believe : let us 
remember the Bereans, who were accounted more noble than those in 
Thessalonica, because they searched the Scriptures to see “ whether those 
things were so.” In other words, they criticised to see if the evidence was 
conformable to their judgment and reason. The lesson was only received as 
authoritative, because they had previously criticised, and found it was right. 
When laying down this thought then, that when the message has been 
distinctly substantiated to our consciences as God’s message, we should 
receive it with all reverence ; there is an antecedent position which this 
paper does not do justice to, — the- criticism of the testimony ; but possibly 
this is on account of the largeness of the subject, and the limited space at 
Mr. Howard’s command. These are some of the thoughts which suggest 
themselves to my mind, and I think they should in some measure be taken 
into consideration. If Mr. Howard had modified some of the expressions 
contained in the latter part of his paper so as to have admitted this line 
of thought, or rather, if he had not excluded some points which I venture to 
say are of importance, I should not have said so much. 
Bev. C. A. Bow. — There is a great deal of philosophical interest attaching 
