Christian truth from a mere physical basis. We simply confute those who 
(in the outraged name of science) have asserted that science is incompatible 
with religion.” Their work, as stated in sec. 51, is addressed to those who 
feel the force of the objections urged by some men of science against the 
immortality of man, and the existence of an invisible world, and do not see 
how to surmount them. Its object is to remove these objections, not to 
place religious belief on a new foundation. Thus, in sec. 245, the authors, 
after referring to the principle of continuity, say, “This leads us at once to 
the conception of an invisible universe, and to see that immortality is pos- 
sible without a break of continuity. We have, however, no physical proof 
of it, unless we allow that Christ rose from the dead.” Can there be a clearer 
proof than this that the authors never thought of placing Christian doctrines 
on any other than their old foundations ? 
The above misconception has naturally led the reviewer to place himself 
in an attitude of hostility to the work, as if the intention of the authors had 
been to abandon the old fortifications and erect new ones, whereas their aim 
is simply to silence a hostile battery. 
It is difficult to examine satisfactorily many of the strictures contained 
in the paper, as the reviewer seldom gives a distinct reference to the 
passages which he considers to contain the propositions he impugns. Many 
of them are propositions which I cannot find in the work, and which, it 
appears to me, the authors would disavow. It requires to be shown in 
each instance that the proposition is either contained in the work or neces- 
sarily deducible from something contained in it. 
Thus it should be shown that the work contains something to support the 
statement (paper, sec. 39) that the authors make “ will, which acts from the 
unseen, a ‘stuff’ entirely subject to mechanical laws.” The authors say, 
par. 93, “ that there is something besides matter or stuff in the physical 
universe which has at least as much claim as matter to recognition as an 
objective reality ” ; and I have been unable to find anything in the work 
from which it can be deduced that “ there is no power of alternative action 
in any conscious agent or cause.” 
Again— the views of immortality attributed to the authors are such as I 
apprehend they would emphatically repudiate. On what ground is it said 
(paper, sec. 48) that “Heaven is to them what the Emperor Hadrian’s 
verses represent ” ? Does the statement (ib. sec. 39), “ that after the present 
life we, and all other existences, necessarily pass into another and differently- 
conditioned universe, and when that also is ended, as it will end, then pass 
into another, a thinner and remoter universe, still differently conditioned 
and so on and on, and ad infinitum " in any degree represent their views ! 
I have been unable to find, in the only edition of the work which I have 
been able to examine, anything in favour of this infinite series. As regards 
the kind of happiness to bo expected hereafter, it is true that the authors 
do not in terms state what is their own personal belief, and their work, 
being a scientific and not a religious one, such a confession of faith was 
