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. 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 great Apostle of the Gentiles:—Φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ 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. 204. _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 cannot recognise the assumption of the spiritual body until 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 to be quite possible, if otherwise likely, that the soul may remain veiled or in abeyance until the resurrection. We maintain only that we are logically constrained to admit the existence of some frame or organ which is not of this earth, and which survives dissolution—if we regard the principle of Continuity and the doctrine of a future state as both true. Besides, the analogy of Paul, in which the body of the believer 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. Again the same apostle tells us (2 Corinthians v. 1), ‘That if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we _have_ a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.’ 205. _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.