say a smoke wreath, is a phenomenon in this visible universe, even so is that stupendous whole but a phenomenon in the yet older and greater unseen universe. And the idea is thrown out that this unseen universe, with which our material universe is immediately connected, may be again only a product of another universe still further removed from us, and so on ad infinitum. But a natural connection between these universes is supposed. None of these states of things is a creation in the common sense of that word. Energy, it is thought, may be transferred to our material universe from the unseen universe with which it is immediately connected, or vice versâ. The supernatural events alleged in connection with the origin of Christianity are accounted for by the coming in of the powers of this invisible universe. The hope of immortality is held out from the possibility of our personally obtaining a place in that unseen system, but this, it is allowed, cannot be thought of as indicated by science, apart from the resurrection of Christ. The entire stock of energy, whose transformations make up the development of the successive universes, is supposed to be infinite. The intelligent power which directs all these transformations is identified with the Second Person of the Christian Trinity; the source of life with the Third Person.

The fundamental idea of upholding the doctrine of continuity would, I suppose, be approved by many

men of science. As I have said, it is not my wish here to attempt a decision as to its truth. It seems to me, indeed, one of those fundamental principles which are not proper subjects for argument, but must be intuitively accepted or modified by every individual mind. But if we accept this principle, there is still a good deal in the scheme which I have briefly and imperfectly sketched that is open to question. To begin with what is said as to God, it may be true that our minds do instinctively think of some mysterious infinite being, as the ground of this visible universe. But the idea to which we are thus led is not that definite conception of God which religious men cherish; it is not that of a being perfect in wisdom and goodness, as well as self-existent or allpowerful. The existence of a being corresponding to this last idea I cannot allow to be 'absolutely selfevident.' And next, to come to the characteristic idea of the book, it may be the most reasonable view to think of this present visible universe as evolved out of one unseen. If, as I have pointed out before, we consider the nature of human knowledge and the general drift of modern discovery, we may conclude that this idea of eternal development is to be preferred to that of absolute creation. But when we consider next the allegation that the present visible universe, as known to us, cannot have existed from eternity, or exist to eternity, by reason of the dissipa

tion of energy, we see the objections which I have pointed out when considering that physical truth in connection with the arguments for a God. The conclusion does not follow without assumptions as to the limits in the diffusion of matter in past times, its finite amount, the unreasonableness of looking forward to a final state of coldness, darkness, and death. And if all these assumptions be made, they only lead us to the idea of some universe or state of the universe antecedent to that which now is, and differing as to its laws from it, and also of something so differing hereafter. They do not establish that this unseen universe is still in existence. On the contrary, the idea of causation, which makes it consist in the transformation of energy, clearly implies that the parent universe must have given place to the present. At least we have no evidence of the existence of any surviving part. Nor, indeed, do I see that we can have such evidence, unless we admit the accounts of the Spiritualists, or some other accounts of what are thought to be supernatural events, say the Christian miracles. For my own part, I am quite ready to believe in such an unseen universe, to look upon it as it is here put forward as the probable ground of what is seen, and to welcome it as the possible explanation of much which we wish to believe, but feel to be open to the objection of being supernatural. But I cannot say that I think that the

authors of The Unseen Universe' have shown a scientific foundation for this faith. They bring forward a supposed absorption of light, as it is being transmitted through the luminiferous ether. Their evidence for this supposition is a speculation of Struve, in which such an absorption is inferred from the observed brightness of the fixed stars, as compared with their supposed distribution in space. But this speculation rests, as our authors themselves tell us, upon much that is doubtful. They mention that it was not accepted by Sir John Herschel. And even if it be true, it would not follow that the energy which thus disappeared in the absorption of light must pass into some other unseen universe. It might be diffused over the ether in some other form than light. Nor yet is it clearly made out that the universe out of which our visible universe has proceeded contains life and intelligence. As to the first point, the only real reason given is the impossibility of abiogenesis; that is to say, life must have sprung from life. Therefore, it must have come into our universe from its predecessor. I have already explained the reservations under which I think that we should admit this allegation. As to the second point, reliance is placed upon the uniformity of atoms, of which also I have spoken already.

1 'The Unseen Universe,' Arts. 147 and 208.

PART V.

I will now speak of a fresh class of arguments, founded on a basis altogether distinct.

No one can doubt that our moral feelings have done much to suggest, to define, and to strengthen our ideas of God. Further, many thinkers have believed that they could find in those feelings an independent proof of the existence of God. Thus Kant argued that the existence of God was needed to harmonise the authority of the moral law with our instinctive desire of happiness. Conscience often dictates a course which, so far as we can see, is at variance with our natural care for self. A God is needed to bear the good man out in his course, to make the way of right ultimately the way of happiness as well. If there be no such power our nature is divided into contradictory and hostile principles. This argument has been disallowed by writers as widely apart as Dean Mansel and Dr. Strauss. It has been condemned as inconsistent with the Christian doctrine of man's unworthiness in the sight of God, and again as opposed to enlightened views of human happiness, views which make virtue by itself apart from any outward reward the greatest source of happiness. I do not think much of these objections. God's government does make a dif