156 
e simply confute those who (in the outraged name of science) have 
asserted that science is incompatible with religion. Surely it is not we who 
are dogmatists, but those who assert that the principles and well-ascertained 
conclusions of science are antagonistic to Christianity and immortality. If 
in the course of our discussion we are to some extent constructors, and find 
analogies in nature which seem to us to throw light upon the doctrines of 
Christianity ; yet in the main our object has rather been to break down 
unfounded objections than to construct apologetic arguments. These we 
leave to the theologian. The Bishop of Manchester has very clearly 
described our position by stating that ( from a ‘purely physical point of view) 
we I * * 4 contend for the possibility of immortality and of a personal God.’ ” 
The authors compose a book, not as Mr. Oxenham urged, to prove by 
physical argument the immortality of the soul ; they do not attempt anything 
so absurd ; but a great many people do argue that the soul does not exist 
after death, and the book is written to convince them that it may. A 
number of persons, Professor Clifford among them, argue that the notion 
of immortality is absurd. Those men say, 44 We are physical science 
philosophers, we take up your point and we demonstrate that there is no 
absurdity. We do not undertake to demonstrate that Christianity is true, 
but that the attacks on it are false.” This is the way to look at the book. 
I will now read what I object to, if I may use the expression, in Dr. Irons’ 
criticism. He says in sec. 42 : — 
‘‘ 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 1 "inverse that eternally holds on from 4 thin matter’ into 4 gross matter,’ 
and at length 4 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, 4 Eternal.’ ” 
I do not think that the authors’ views of mechanical continuity are applied 
to the unseen universe ; they are used with regard to this universe. 
Dr. Irons.— They say there is the same stuff— a thinner material, but the 
same physical material. 
Mr. MacColl. — But they do not use the word mechanical as applied to 
the unseen universe. 
Dr. Irons. — I do not say that they did. 
Mr. MacColl. — With respect to the authors’ view with regard to eternity, 
the authors assert, as strongly as they can, their belief in an eternal God — 
the eternity of three persons, three living persons of one substance. 
And as to God the Father being unconditioned, there is St. Paul's saying, 
“Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can 
approach unto ; whom no man hath seen, nor can see.” These are the 
words of inspiration in the Scriptures ; the words of the authors do not go 
beyond this. We all believe that God dwells in eternal light, as St. Paul tells 
us. We must all admit some light, some luminiferous ether as existing co- 
