164 
between what is essential to the authors’ view and what is merely accessory. 
The leading position of the authors I take to be this— that, proceeding solely 
on scientific grounds, we have reason to think that there is an unseen 
universe related to and acting upon that which is visible, and that there is 
no objection to supposing, but rather reason for believing, this unseen universe 
and its connection with the visible to be such as would remove the objections 
which have been urged on scientific grounds against the leading doctrines of 
revelation. Whether the writers have correct theological ideas as to the 
Trinity, whether the spiritual bodies with which we are to be clothed at the 
lesurrection are now in course of formation or are to be created then, whether 
evil is eternal, are questions to which the principles of the authors give no 
certain answer, and their discussions on these points do not seem to affect 
the main object of the work. Probably the authors would admit that the 
remark which they have indorsed as to the world of spirits applies here, 
that of these subjects “ we cannot possibly know anything save by direct 
revelation.” 
Though I belong to one of those classes for which, as the authors tell us, 
their book was not written, I still, however unworthy the reviewer (sec. 2) 
may consider such a feeling, profess myself grateful for it, not on my own 
account, but for the sake of the cause of truth. That so able an attempt 
to remove objections urged in the name of science against the resurrection 
of the dead, miracles, and the objective efficacy of prayer, should be met by 
believers in revelation with such strong censure and faint praise as are 
found in this paper, does not tend to lessen the distance between the two 
opposing schools of thought. 
DR. IRONS’ REPLY TO MR. H. CADMAN JONES’S REMARKS. 
I am much obliged by Mr. Cadman Jones’s courtesy in sending me a copy 
of his “ remarks.” The difference of view between us is very great. I have 
tried to distinguish between the “ theological conclusions ” and the “ scien- 
tific views ” of these able writers. To the former I have tried to do justice, 
to the latter I have really done it. At least the reputed writers have not 
questioned it. If I had mistaken them in the least degree, I was ready, as 
they were informed, even to the last moment, to correct what I said If mv 
inferences are not the same as Mr. Cadman Jones’s, it must be assigned to 
the difference of our logical ideas, and must be left to the general judgment 
of those who read my analysis, and compare it carefully with the work The 
real service which “The Unseen Universe” has done I have amply ac- 
knowledged (secs. G3 and 64, &c.). I have taken pains to be fair, and I can, 
