seems therefore natural to believe that the analogy may be continued still further, until it rises into existences absolutely immaterial and spiritual. We know not but that thousands of spiritual worlds may exist unseen for ever by human eyes; nor have we any reason to suppose that even the presence of matter, in a given spot, necessarily excludes these existences from it. Those who maintain that nature always teems with life, wherever living beings can be placed, may therefore speculate with freedom on the possibility of independent worlds; some existing in different parts of space, others pervading each other unseen and unknown, in the same space, and others again to which space may not be a necessary mode of existence." 203. The only remark that we would make upon this most beautiful and comprehensive passage, with the spirit of which we entirely agree, is, that the author does not use the words material and immaterial precisely in our sense of these terms. He is inclined to imagine the possibility of an immaterial existence being yet trammelled with regard to space; whereas to our mind such trammels (Art. 54) necessarily constitute matter. If we substitute for matter the words gross matter, and for immaterial the words not grossly material, we shall be very nearly at one. 204. It may now be desirable to reply by anticipation to certain objections which are likely to be made to the theory we have proposed. Let us divide these into three categories-religious, theological, and scientific. Objection First (Religious).—It may be said to us, "Who are you who are wise beyond what is written? Are ye of them to whom it was said of old, Eritis sicut Deus scientes bonum et malum'? Beware of the words of the L great Apostle of the Gentiles:—Φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοί, ἐμωράνθησαν.” Reply. As we have already said (Art. 50), we do not write for those who are so assured of the truth of their religion that they are unable to entertain the smallest objection to it. We write for honest inquirers-for honest doubters, it may be, who desire to know what science, when allowed perfect liberty of thought and loyally followed, has to say upon those points which so much concern us all. We are content in this work to view the universe from the physical standpoint; you may therefore perchance esteem us of the earth earthy; nevertheless we think that our strength lies in keeping up a communication with those verities which we all acknowledge. 205. Objection Second (Theological).-Your idea of the spiritual universe is analogous to that of Swedenborg, and we must therefore dismiss it as untrue, inasmuch as we can only recognise the assumption of the spiritual body after the resurrection. Reply.-All that we have done is to remove the scientific objection to a future state, supposed to be furnished by the principle of Continuity. We know nothing about the laws of this state, and conceive it quite possible, if otherwise likely, that the spiritual body may remain veiled or in abeyance until the resurrection. We only maintain that we are logically constrained to admit the existence of some frame or organ not of this earth, which survives dissolution -if we regard the principle of Continuity and the doctrine of immortality as both true. Besides, the analogy of Paul, in which the body at death is compared to a seed put into the ground, not only implies some sort of continuity, but also expresses his belief in a present spiritual body. There is, says the apostle (observe, not there shall be), a spiritual body. 206. Objection Third (Theological).-Your argument will apply to the brute creation as well as to man; now we cannot recognise the immortality of the brutes. Reply. As before stated, we know nothing about the laws of the invisible universe, except that it is related by bonds of some kind, possibly of energy, to the present. All we have attempted has been to remove an objection to the doctrine of immortality which has been wrongly put forth as scientific, or at least as consistent with scientific knowledge. 207. Objection Fourth (Scientific).-If there be, as you say, this duality in the present human frame, how can the spiritual part remain latent so long as it does? Even if trammelled by the grosser substance, we might expect that at least on rare occasions it should somehow manifest itself. Reply.-As a matter of fact we know that ordinary consciousness can remain latent or inactive for hours, if not for days, and then return to us again. There would be force in this objection if it were not true that consciousness is capable of entering into the dormant or quiescent state. Again, it is possible that there have been and that there are occasional manifestations of this spiritual nature. For, in the Christian records visible manifestations of the spiritual element, even in this life, are asserted to have taken place on rare occasions. But if you have dismissed these manifestations as inconceivable, you cannot now bring their absence forward as an objection. 208. Objection Fifth (Scientific).-Your doctrine of immortality does violence to that great principle, the conservation of energy. For it is manifest that if energy is transferred from the visible into the invisible universe, its constancy in the present universe can no longer be maintained. Reply. In reply to this objection we may state that when we assert the conservation of energy it is as a principle applicable to the whole universe, and not to one portion of it, except under special limitations. For instance, it is only by assuming the continual passage through ether of a large portion of the energy of the visible universe that the doctrine as at present held can be maintained. Now the only addition that our theory suggests is the gradual carriage into the invisible universe of some part at least of the energy of gross matter which is associated with thought. But is even this necessary? for this supposes thought to originate through the matter of the visible universe, and then to affect the invisible. But the reverse order of occurrences is quite as tenable, especially if we suppose with Le Sage that the forces which set in motion the molecules of visible matter are derived from the unseen universe. It may safely be said that our hypothesis is not upset, and never can be upset, by any experimental conclusion with regard to energy. 209. Objection Sixth (Scientific).—We cannot understand how individuality is to be preserved in the spiritual world. Reply. This is no new difficulty. We are as much puzzled by what takes place in our present body as we can be with respect to the spiritual. Thus, let us allow that impressions are stored up in our brains, which thus form an organ connecting us with the past of the visible universe. Now thousands, perhaps even millions, of such impressions pass into the same organ, and yet, by the operation of our will, we can concentrate our recollection upon a certain event, and rummage out its details, along with all its collateral circumstances, to the exclusion of everything else. But if the brain or something else plays such a wonderful part in the present economy, is it impossible to imagine that the universe of the future may have even greater individualising powers? Is it not very hazardous to assert this or that mode of existence to be impossible in such a wonderful whole as we feel sure the universe must be ? 210. Objection Seventh (Scientific).-Even if it be allowed that the invisible universe receives energy from the present, so that the conservation of energy holds true as a principle, yet the dissipation of energy must hold true also, and although the process of decay may be delayed by the storing up of energy in the invisible universe, it cannot be permanently arrested. Ultimately we must believe that every part of the whole universe will be equally supplied with energy, and in consequence all abrupt living motion will come to an end. Reply.-Perhaps the best reply to this objection is to say that the laws of energy are rather generalisations derived from our experience than scientific principles, like that which we call the Principle of Continuity. There would be no permanent confusion of thought introduced if these laws should be found not to hold, or to hold in a different way in the unseen universe. Nor can we regard the law of the dissipation as absolutely fundamental with that of the Conservation of Energy. What is to prove it in the unseen? We have been shown (Art. 112) how Clerk-Maxwell's demons (though essentially finite intelligences) could be made to restore energy in the present universe without spending work. Much more may be expected in a universe free from gross matter. 211. Having replied to these objections, let us now endeavour to realise our present position. It is briefly as follows:-What we have done is to show that immortality |