Nor was he particularly invisible, if there can be said to be any degrees in invisibility.
Mr.Wells's Invisible God was really like Mr.Wells's Invisible Man.
You almost felt he might appear at any moment, at any rate to his one devoted worshipper; and that, as if in old Greece, a glad cry might ring through the woods of Essex, the voice of Mr.Wells crying, "We have seen, he hath seen us, a visible God." I do not mean this disrespectfully, but on the contrary very sympathetically; I think it worthy of so great a man to appreciate and answer the general sense of a richer and more adventurous spiritual world around us.
It is a great emancipation from the leaden materialism which weighed on men of imagination forty years ago.

But my point for the moment is that the mode of the emancipation was pagan or even polytheistic, in the real philosophical sense that it was the selection of a single spirit, out of many there might be in the spiritual world.
The point is that while Mr.Wells worships his god (who is not his creator or even necessarily his overlord) there is nothing to prevent Mr.William Archer, also emancipated, from adoring another god in another temple; or Mr.Arnold Bennett, should he similarly liberate his mind, from bowing down to a third god in a third temple.
My imagination rather fails me, I confess, in evoking the image and symbolism of Mr.Bennett's or Mr.Archer's idolatries; and if I had to choose between the three, I should probably be found as an acolyte in the shrine of Mr.Wells.

But, anyhow, the trend of all this is to polytheism, rather as it existed in the old civilisation of paganism.
There is the same modern mark in Spiritualism.

Spiritualism also has the trend of polytheism, if it be in a form more akin to ancestor-worship.

But whether it be the invocation of ghosts or of gods, the mark of it is that it invokes something less than the divine; nor am I at all quarrelling with it on that account.