hout law there
is no sin. The Goodness, then, brought into the world by Christ, did
not create sin but made it manifest, and gave it the appearance of
reality under our present conditions of life and thought. How well the
Mystic Paul understood that the Invisible is the Real, and that the
Visible--namely, the phenomena of nature--is only dependent upon Time
for its manifestation. His words are: "For the things which are seen
are temporal, but the things which are not seen are Eternal."

I have tried in these Views to use only simple everyday language, and
am fully aware how inadequate are the words I have employed; but my
readers will have, I hope, recognised how difficult, and in many cases
impossible, it is, in treating these metaphysical subjects, to find
words to express the exact meaning; we have to describe the Infinite
in terms of the finite, and by use of imperfect finite analogies to
get a glimpse of the otherwise unthinkable, and even then it requires
a mystical sense, or what St. Paul called spiritual discernment, to
see beyond the physical mists. If the whole of the phenomena of Nature
must be looked upon as the manifestation of the Divine Noumenon, it
follows that Matter is as divine as the Spiritual, though not as real;
it is His shadow, or the outline of His very image, thrown upon the
material plane of our sensations; and the principle of sympathetic
action, upon which, as we have seen, the whole power to influence
depends throughout the Universe, becomes surely the best symbol we can
use for understanding the efficacy of prayer and the connection
between our Transcendental Self and the All-loving. Realise that the
Transcendental Ego is a Spirit, and therefore akin to the Great
Spirit, not only in essence, but in "loving and knowing communion,"
then look at my last experiment, where we saw two material bodies
(remember they are shadow manifestations of the Reality) which could
influence each other from the fact that they were akin, not only in
substance, but in perfect sympathetic communion.

If now we watch the shadows of two human beings thrown upon a wall,
and see those shadows shaking hands and embracing each other, are we
not justified in concluding that those images give us a true
explanation of what is really taking place? and is not that exactly
what I have done? have I not shown, as I proposed to do, that it is
possible by examining the phenomena of Nature (the shadows of the
Reality) to reach