in a book. We shall only understand the whole problem of evil when we can cease looking at it objectively and can use the infinite spiritual outlook. The organic law of Reincarnation formulated by the Brahmans and the theory of Evolution as expounded by Darwin are both plausible and helpful attempts to enable our finite minds under the limitations of time, to explain physical and spiritual growth in this world of "becoming," but to the spiritual outlook which is not limited by time, such explanations can have no value because to the Infinite there can be no such thing as succession of events. The same contributor makes the statement that 'in the future world there will be much that is material and visible.' I think I have shown clearly that matter is only our limited and therefore ignorant aspect of spiritual activity; does he imagine that we shall have our imperfect physical sense organs to see and hear with when we wake up from our present state of dreaming? Doesn't he know that the rills in the æther are absolutely dark and the waves in the air are silent? It is only when they fall on our sense organs that they become light and sound. Surely everything that is objective to us here will be subjective, when time and space have ceased to limit our outlook and our consciousness is opened to spiritual discernment. Matter, the limited aspect which we call the visible, will then have disappeared for us, and only the spiritual, which we call the invisible, will be known to be real. We now come to the phrase : The Holy Son of God growing up within us.' May I suggest to Dr. Schofield and the other protestors that the quotations given from the Old and New Testament hardly seem to be applicable. Why are not Christ's own words quoted? He was the Son of God and He is therefore surely the best authority for what constitutes a Son of God. We unfortunately have not the exact words spoken by Christ, and in some cases, perhaps, not even the exact meaning (He spoke in Aramaic, which was translated into Greek and thence into English), but He was very emphatic in His teaching that God was not only our Father, but that the Kingdom in which that God dwelt was actually within each one of us. He urged us to realise that Kingdom within us. and likened it to a grain of mustard seed which would ever grow and increase. I might well, therefore, have stated that God Himself was growing up within each one of us. Christ taught us to pray Our Father,' and the last words He said to Mary in the garden after His resurrection were: 'Go unto my brethren and say to them that I ascend to my Father and their Father, to my God and their God.' St. John also narrates that when the Jews came out to stone Christ for blasphemy He pointed out to them that it was written in their own law that 'Ye are Gods,' and asked them how therefore He blasphemed when He called himself the Son of God. We are surely an internal, not an external creation of the All-loving. The knowledge of God, the realisation of the Christ, 6 the Son of God growing up within, is what constitutes our true spiritual life. Heaven and Hell are not localities but are states of consciousness within us. Heaven the real is when we loving and knowing communion with the All loving; Hell the unreal when that consciousness is absent. are in 'It is difficult to treat seriously Mr. Leslie's statement that I have used the words Introspection, Intuition and looking inwards as though they were potent, magical formulæ. True introspection can only be employed when self has been eliminated from selfconsciousness and God consciousness has been attained. Mr. Weller thinks my paper non-Christian, a mixture of Buddhism and Christian Science, does not bring us into touch with the latest advances, does not combat the unbelief now prevalent, shows that God cheats us by illusions, and last of all, plays on our disordered nerves with the obviously absurd demand that God requireth that which is past! I am quite contented to leave it to others to say whether there is a single sentence of truth in such statements. My paper was not written to prove Christianity or any other religion; there is something to be learnt from every form of serious religion, but in this paper and the others I have given to the Institute, my object has always been not so much to teach as to help others to think to their advantage. It is not God who cheats us, but it is we who by not opening our consciousness to that which is real, cheat ourselves into some very foolish beliefs. 6 "If Mr. Hoste will refer again to page 54 he will see that I specially limited my remarks to those who have not investigated or looked beyond the horizon of everyday life,' and on page 55 I again state that I am only referring to those who are dominated by the world of appearances in everyday life.' There are, thank God, many others who, as Mr. Hoste points out, are convinced of the reality of the invisible, but there is, alas, plenty of room for improvement in all of us in that direction. I have also travelled over many deserts and seen many extraordinary mirages, and I had these in mind when writing my paper. Mr. Hoste had only to investigate by either approaching or looking through a field-glass, and he would at once have seen that the appearance was an illusion and could not have been taken in by any would-be teacher, however dogmatically he might lay down the law. I have not stated or suggested that as the Universe increases in visibility it decreases in reality,' though that may be the conclusion of those who cannot free themselves from the narrow limitations of material perspective and thus become able to use the unlimited horizon of spiritual discernment. Col. Mackinlay cannot see that the human race is still in its infancy, and I am afraid I cannot convince him if the examples I have given do not show him that we have hardly yet mastered even our A.B.C., and are only just beginning to get into touch I can with the outside fringe of true knowledge of the Reality. only tell him that I have never yet met any true investigator who has not freely acknowledged that he who knows most, knows most how little he knows. Col. Mackinlay says I ought to have started by defining what I mean by The Spiritual!' but I did this in the very first line of my paper; I defined it there as the Real. It is the only Reality, it is what most people understand as God; everything else is only our finite aspect of that Spiritual activity. If he wishes for a fuller definition I will try to give what I have learnt to look upon as its significance and our connection therewith: ·-- "It is the Infinite, Eternal, Reality of Being of the All-loving. That Reality of Being is Absolute Love, of which the highest form of what we call love is the feeblest echo. It comprises Infinite Wisdom, Power and Purpose, and as we realise our oneness with that Divine Love, we find the Kingdom of Heaven within, become God conscious, and enter into the Bliss of God; we at last become, as it were, a drop in the ocean of Infinite Love, and are endowed with Wisdom and Power to help to carry out His purpose on the physical plane as that Will is being done in Heaven." 638th ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING. HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM B, THE CENTRAL HALL, WESTMINSTER, S.W., on Monday, February 6th, 1922, at 4.30 p.m. The Rev. J. J. B. COLES, M.A., in the Chair. The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read, confirmed and signed and the HON. SECRETARY announced the Election of the following as Associates-Charles Frederick Juritz, Esq., D.Sc., F.I.C., F.R.S., S. Africa, The Rev. W. Magee Douglas, B.A., and Miss Gladys Geary. The Chairman then introduced Dr. A. T. Schofield and invited him to read his paper on Some Difficulties of Evolution." SOME DIFFICULTIES OF EVOLUTION. My only claim to speak on a subject of which I know nothing professionally, is that, having studied it a little exoterically for the last 60 years, it may be of some interest to note what difficulties are obvious from the outside of the structure; and I think these can now be stated, apart from the intense heat and bias so common sixty years ago, when Christians were more nervous about the stability of the Scriptures than they are to-day. 1. The first difficulty that strikes one is that the meaning and the right use of the word Evolution are alike almost impossible to discover. I see, for instance, that ten years ago Professor Henslow apologised for assuming all the members of the Victoria Institute were evolutionists, while in the very paper he had just read he had radically altered the correct meaning of the word itself. 66 We are, however, accustomed in science to metaphorical and allegorical terms or figures of speech that are often puzzling. Take the word Nature,' for instance, a venerable goddess known to science, who, as we all know, has no existence whatever; but, nevertheless, is credited with most wonderful and unique powers. She can seal up the wound, repair the damage, construct and vary all the forms of life and do so many things at her own sweet will that sometimes we think "Nature may mean God, sometimes our own unconscious mind, and sometimes nothing at all. To some extent it seems to me evolution has now replaced this mythical goddess, and is credited with at least as great powers, in equally illusory and incorrect statements. Evolution also, apparently, does what she (?) will with the germ-plasm, from which she fashions every form of life by chance. She indeed does far more, and appears to assume most of the functions of a Creator, but in this paper we have only time to touch on organic evolution amongst plants, animals, and men. So far, then, we can arrive at no definition whatever of the word. To help us in this we must first settle the greatest of all questions: "Is this ubiquitous evolution' merely a process or a directing force, or both? As a process that may possibly be used in some parts of the creation, few would object to it: although" progression " is far and away a better word, and one wholly free from ambiguities as well as from any suggestions of being a force. But to those who regard evolution as a force, we would suggest that nothing can be evolved which is not in some way involved;* that "every house builded by some man "; that is, that evolution postulates an evolver, and that "natural selection" in no way covers the ground, or in animals is adequate to its task. Generally speaking, Darwin, Lamarck, Spencer, Hæckel, A. R. Wallace, and the majority of scientists regard evolution as having some inherent force; although Darwin and Wallace do not push this to the denial of a Creator as Hæckel does. This last professor seems almost to have been in Lord Halsbury's mind in 1915, when he said, speaking, as President of the Institute, on Evolution: "In court we are expected to give full proof in support of every assertion. A professor, on the other hand, appears to consider himself relieved from any such anxiety. He seems to think that all that he has to do is to say that such and such is the This ex cathedra style is cultivated to perfection by Hæckel, who calmly makes a statement without proof, and then argues from it as if it were a demonstrated fact. In his old age, however, Hæckel said that he stood almost alone among scientists in his evolutionary belief. "Most modern investigators have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution . . error. This initial difficulty in evolution is so important that it must be settled before proceeding further. is an Evolution is the law in all human work, and its products are always imperfect; and all these imperfect products require an evolver-man; and we are surrounded everywhere by products, of which the successive steps are not missing as in geology. But if *Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary says Evolution is "the act of unrolling or unfolding.' This evidently postulates a previous unfolding. F |