198 
thus “ created,” or called into apparent existence, by the Word of God, 
without the intervention of imaginary atoms. For this theory is quite 
inadequate to account for all the varieties and beauties of visible nature. 
The beautiful colours of the rainbow, for instance, are as real things as this 
table. We cannot feel them, certainly, but in the dark we cannot see the 
table ; but we must all admit that the colours of the spectrum are as much a 
part of visible existence as that material hardness which resists the action 
of our material bodies. Mr. Laming states that these things exist not in 
themselves, or as they seem, but in relation to something else, and that on 
that showing created matter is still immaterial to immaterial things ; and in 
my opinion we have certain analogies which enable us to understand this. 
In the New Testament, for instance, we are told that when Christ appeared 
to His disciples after the Crucifixion the doors were shut, but we consider 
that appearance to be supernatural. But we do not suppose that a spirit 
would be deterred in its passage by doors. Take glass, again, which is a very 
solid material, — much more solid and compact in its body than a sheet of 
paper or many other opaque bodies, — yet light will penetrate through thick 
glass. If you admit that there is anything at all in light — any material thing, 
that is to say — you have it passing unmistakably through a solid body like 
glass. You cannot pass your hand through this table, certainly, but I have 
given you an analogy to show that spirit may pass through anything and every- 
thing. Every one who knows anything at all about light cannot fail to be 
struck with the fact that it does pass through such a perfectly solid body as 
glass ; which is not at all a porous material, but remarkably continuous in its 
composition, and a great deal more solid than many opaque substances which 
would not permit the passage of light. It is not, after all, then, a question of 
solidity or its absence. Analogies in the same way may be found in heat 
and cold, which will pass through almost anything, and in electricity, which 
passes with the greatest facility through solid conductors, annihilating both 
time and space in doing so, but which is thoroughly baulked when it comes 
in contact with some non-conductor, which it fails to penetrate at all. Mind, 
I am only partially defending the views of the author of this paper. I think 
it is legitimate and fair in argument to endeavour (even if baffled) to arrive 
at sorfie understanding how and in what sense a material thing could come 
from an immaterial spirit. The author has also boldly attacked the doctrine 
of the “ conservation of force.” It is not perhaps very well known, and may 
be new to some of my hearers, that Professor Faraday, who may be said to 
be the author of the doctrine that force is always conserved and never lost, 
objected to the dogma of Newton that gravitation is a force which 
varies inversely as the square of the distance, precisely because that is 
inconsistent with the doctrine of conservation. If the force of attraction 
gradually fades away, as bodies recede from the centre of attraction, it is 
quite clear that that force is not “ conserved,” since it lessens. If the force 
is lessened to any extent at all, you cannot any longer maintain the 
“ conservation of force.” Professor Faraday did not, however, give up the 
idea of conserved force ; but he logically wanted to give up this dictum with 
