119 
pertaining to things seen, back into an unknown region of the 
Unseen, if not a physical contradiction, is a logical non-sequitur 
which the human mind refuses. Here is their dilemma. To 
deny the distinct beginning of the Physical Universe is to remove 
the alleged scientific conclusion as to its end. When science 
ascertains that the Physical Universe will really end, it unequi- 
vocally infers its real beginning. But both end and beginning 
must be real. A Universe that etenially holds on from " thin 
matter ” into " gross matter,” and at length " continues ” from 
the gross matter back to the thin, of course had no actual 
beginning, and will have no end ; but is, as they elsewhere are 
obliged to say, " Eternal.” 
43. A powerful and even irresistible argument for the "Unseen 
Universe,” and a Creator, does, however, arise from the principle 
of present Continuity, by way analogy, as between ,,, h[ 
two worlds. It reminds us of Butler’s argument. The merit is one of 
present began, and began out of nothing, but not analosy ' 
from nothing. Some Being, or originating Power, preceding the 
phenomenal, is the only hypothesis possible, and that is in harmony 
with the experience we have of “ Continuity.” But if the present 
be physically linked to the past, there is no argument for an 
analogous " Continuity,” as implied in Causation. Physical 
Continuity, if eternal, denies a beginning, denies Creation. 
Now, the " Principle of Continuity,” (as we actually see it work- 
ing itself out, and never left quite to itself), asks for "Causation” 
always, at every point; it even suggests it, as lying at the begin- 
ning of every movement, while remaining beyond analysis. 
The argument lies deep in human thought, and is there secure. 
We have seen that it is the need of causation, and not the fact of 
sequence, which obliged the faith in Continuity as a principle 
of origination. From being a principle it became as a law, — 
but a phenomenal law within the termini of the phenomena, 
a parte ante and ad partem post. It is a " principle ” before 
the phenomenal, and a law within the phenomenal. That law 
may suggest much, as probable in the realm of thought ; but 
it has no phenomenal holding on the pre-phenomenal. Life’s 
first secret is admitted to be beyond the phenomenal and its 
known laws. 
44. The logical conclusion, then, of our authors’ argument is 
almost the reverse of what they deduce. The Law of Continuity 
does not throw the least light on life, or on " Forces.” It does 
not show that the Unseen Universe is conditioned; nor its 
"Creator” conditioned. These scientific and theological in- 
ferences of our authors, we, therefore, are quite unable to adopt : 
they are illogical. They appear to be Swedenborg’s in the main ; 
