The unseen universe; or, Physical speculations on a future state

Front matter

\ X

\ N AN Co OOo

CANA

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. ie

Asa preface to our Second Edition, we cannot do better than record the experience derived from our first. It is indeed gratifying to find a wonderful want of unanimity among the critics who assail us, and it is probably owing to this cause that we have been able to preserve a kind of kinetic stability, just as a man does in consequence of being equally belaboured on all sides by the myriad petty impacts of little particles of air.

Some call us infidels, while others represent us as very much too orthodoxly credulous; some call us pantheists, some materialists, others spiritualists. As we cannot belong at once to all these varied categories, the presumption is that we belong tonone of them. This, by the way, is Our OWN opinion.

Venturing to classify our critics, we would divide them into three groups :—

(1.) There are those who have doubtless faith in revelation; but more especially, sometimes solely, in their own method of interpreting it ; none, however, in the method according to which really scientific men with a wonderful unanimity have been led to interpret the works of nature. ‘These critics call us, some infidels, some pantheists, some dangerously subtle materialists, etc. ~

(2.) There are those who have faith in the methods according to which men of science interpret the é

-- TT a iv PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

laws of nature, but none whatever in revelation or theology. These consider us as orthodoxly credulous and superstitious, or as writers of “ the most hardened and impenitent nonsense that ever called itself original speculation.”

(3.) There are those who havea profound belief that the

true principles of science will be found in accordance with revelation, and who welcome any work whose object is to endeavour to reconcile these two fields of thought. Such men believe that the Author of revelation is likewise the Author

of nature, and that these works of His will ultimately be found to be in perfect accord. Such — of this school as have yet spoken have approved of our work.

Our readers may judge for themselves which of these three classes of belief represents most nearly the true Catholic Faith.

Many of our critics seem to fancy that we presume to attempt such an absurdity as a demonstration of Christian truth from a mere physical basis! We simply confute those who (in the outraged name of science) have asserted that science is incompatible with religion. Surely it is not we who are dogmatists, but those who assert that the principles and well-ascertained conclusions of science are antagonistic to Christianity and immortality. If in the course of our discussion we are to some extent constructors, and find analogies in nature which seem to us to throw light upon the doctrines of Christianity, yet in the main our object is rather to break down unfounded objections than to construct apologetic arguments. These we leave to the Theologian. The Bishop of Manchester has very clearly described our position by stating that [from

Y . . 5 te lll it : : : Do lid ppc ae ge ONE Be ee ee SAO NEy

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. Vv a purely physical point of view, § 204] we “contend for the possibility of immortality and of a personal God.”

To vary the metaphor, we have merely stripped off the hideous mask with which materialism has covered the face of nature to find underneath (what every one with faith in anything at all must expect to find) something of surpassing beauty, but yet of inscrutable depth. For indeed we are entire believers in the infinite depth of nature, and hold that just as we must imagine space and duration to be infinite, so must we imagine the structural complexity of the universe to be infinite also. To our mind it appears no less false to pronounce eternal that aggregation we call the atom, than it would be to pronounce eternal that aggregation we call the Sun. All this follows from the principle of Continuity, in virtue of which we make scientific progress in the knowledge of things, and which leads us, whatever state of things we contemplate, to look for its antecedent in some previous state of things also in the Universe. This principle represents the path from the known to the unknown, or to speak more precisely, our conviction that there is a path. Nevertheless it does not authorise us to dogmatise regarding the properties of the unknown lying beyond or at the boundary of our little “clearing”? We must go up to it and examine it often, with long-continued labour, under great difficulties, before we can at all say what its properties are.

Among those who recognise us as orthodox, and for that reason attack us, there is one of deservedly high authority. Our “ brother,” Professor W. K. Clifford, has published a lively attack on our speculations in a recent number of the Fortnightly Review. Weare bound respectfully to consider the arguments of'an adversary of his calibre.

- He appears to be unable to conceive the possibility of a vi PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

spiritual body which shall not die with the natural body. Or rather, he conceives that he is in a position to assert, from his knowledge of the universe, that such a thing cannot be. We join issue with him at once, for the depth of our ignorance with regard to the unseen universe forbids us to come to any such conclusion with regard to a possible spiritual body.

Our critic begins his article by summoning up or constructing a most grotesque and Indicrous figure, which he calls owr argument, and forthwith proceeds to demolish ; and he ends by summoning up a horrible and awful phantom, against which he feelingly warns us. This phantom has already, it seems, destroyed two civilisations, and is capable of even worse things, though it is merely the “sifted sediment of a residuum.” He does not tell us whether he means Religion in general, or only that particularly objectionable form of it called Christianity.

Our critic shows that he has not. read our work,—has, in fact, merely glanced into it here and there. This is proved by what he says of Struve’s notions, on which we lay no stress whatever, while he puts them forward as the mainstay of our argument. We are also made out to be the assertors of a peculiar molecular constitution of the unseen universe, although with reference to this we say in our work, page 170, “for the sake of bringing our ideas in a concrete form before the reader, and for this purpose only, we will now adopt a different hypothesis.” Of course it is too much to expect a critic nowadays to read every word of a book which he is content to demolish, but we did hope he might have noticed the ttalics.

Our critic too commits several singular mistakes due to imperfections of memory. Why speak of the negative as universal, which appears in such words as ¢mmortality, end-

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. vii less existence, ete., when the most common of all expressions connected with the subject are the phrases, “ eternal life,’ “everlasting life,’ ete., none of which involve the negative ? .

How the sun could go down upon “ Gideon” is not obvious. [Had it done so it would certainly have occasioned | personal inconvenience (to say the least) to that hero. But what’s ina name? Onur critic was evidently thinking of Joshua and ‘ Gibeon,” and why shoulda critic care about the difference between Amorites and Amalekites? It isa mere matter of spelling,—a trifle. Similar mistakes in a previous article are apologised for in a foot-note appended to that on the “ Unseen Universe.” Probably the author designed the apology to extend to it also, but forgot to say so; again a trifle. Butit is of straws, some even weaker than these, that the imposing article is built ; so that when we come forth to battle we find nothing to reply to.

To reduce matters to order, we may confidently assert that the only reasonable and defensive alternative to our hypothesis (or, at least, something similar to it) is, the stupendous pair of assumptions that visible matter is efernal, and that rris ative. (See $235.) If any one can be found to uphold notions like these (from a scientific point of view), we shall be most happy to enter the lists with him.

Preface To The First Edition

Forerrrut of the splendid example shown by intellectual giants like Newton and Faraday, and aghast at the materialistic statements nowadays freely made (often professedly in the name of science), the orthodox in religion are in somewhat evil case. |

As a natural consequence of their too hastily-reached conclusion, that modern science is incompatible with Christian doctrine, not a few of them have raised an out” ery against science itself. This result is doubly to be deplored; for there cannot be a doubt that it is calculated to do mischief, not merely to science but to religion.

Our object, in the present work, is to endeavor to show that the presumed incompatibility of Science and Religion does not exist. This, indeed, ought to be self-evident to all who believe that the Creator of the universe is himself the Author of Revelation. But it is strangely impressive to note how very little often suffices to alarm even the firmest of human faith.

Of course we cannot, in this small volume, enter upon the whole of so vast a subject, and we have therefore contented ourselves with a brief, though, we hope, sufficiently

= | PREFACE.

developed, discussion of one very important—even fundamental—point. We endeavor to show, in fact, that immortality is strictly in accordance with the principle of Continuity (rightly viewed); that principle which has — been the guide of all modern scientific advance. As one result of this inquiry we are led, by strict reasoning on purely scientific grounds, to the probable conclusion that “a life for the unseen, through the unseen, is to be regarded as the only perfect life.” (See Chapter VII.) We need not point out here the bearing of this on religion. Incidentally, the reader will find many remarks and trains of reasoning which (by the alteration of a word or two) can be made to apply to other points of almost equal importance. 3

We may state that the ideas here developed—very imperfectly, of course, as must always be the case in matters of the kind—are not the result of hasty guessing, but have been pressed on us by the reflections and discussions of several years. ;

We have to thank many of our friends, theological as well as scientific, for ready and valuable assistance. The matter of our work has certainly gained by this, though it is likely that the manner may have suffered by the introduction, here and there, of peculiarities of style which . could not easily be removed without damage to the sense.

CO Nebo NES:

Chapter I. Introduotory Sketoh

ARTICLE PAGE

Object of the Book . : : : . 1 1 Two classes of speculators. : ; 2 2 Why doubters of immortality have Ree merened : : 3 3

Belief of the Ancient Egyptians—

Separation between priests and people 4 4 The abode of the dead 5 5 Transmigration of souls 6 5 Embalming of the body 7 6 Belief of the Ancient Hebrews— Position of Moses F ; ‘ : : 8, 9 7 His task : : : ; 10 8 Belief of the Jews in an unseen world ‘ : ; 11 8 Their belief in a future state .. : ‘ , 12 9 Their belief in a resurrection. : . F 13 10 Belief of the Ancient Greeks and Romans— Unsubstantial nature of Elysium } p : 14 11 Transmigration introduced 15 12 Rise of the Epicurean school : : A 16 13 Uncertainty of philosophic opinion ; 2 ; Li 14 Belef of the Hastern Aryans— The Rig-Veda 18 14 It inculeates immortality 19 15 Double source of corruption 20 16 Zoroastrian reformation and tenets 21, 22 17 Reformation of Buddha 23 18 _ Meaning of Nirvana 24 18 25-29 Eo

Observations on ancient beliefs

L.

Contents

xii

Belief of the Disciples of Christ— The resurrection of Christ Future state taught by Christ Perishable nature of that which is seen The Christian Heaven and Hell General opinion regarding the person of Christ General opinion regarding the position of Christ Spread of the Christian religion Rise of Mohammed Materialistic conceptions of the dark ae Extreme scientific school Points of similarity between this school and Cheats Varieties of opinions among Christians Believers in a new revelation Swedenborg and his doctrines Remarks on Swedenborg Modern spiritualists

Chapter II. Article

30 31, 32 33 34 85 36 37

POSITION TAKEN BY THE AUTHORS—PHYSIOAL AXIOMS.

Class of readers to whom the Authors appeal

Position assumed by the Authors— Laws of the universe defined Embodiment of some sort essential Materialistic position described .

Unjustifiable assumptions of materialists Intimacy of connection between mind and matter

Essential requisites for continued existence— An organ of memory : Possibility of action in the present

Principle of Continuity— Illustrated by reference to astronomy

Breach of the principle illustrated Extension to other faculties of man

Application of this principle to Christian miracles— _ Erroneous position of old divines ‘ : Such opposed to the genius of Christianity New method of explanation

50-53

PAGE

23 24

CONTENTS.

Application of this principle to the doctrines of the extreme scientific school— The visible universe must come to an end in transformable energy It must have been developed out of the camtsibls

THE UNIVERSE Similar errors patted by the ae aehOAIE of theology and science

_ Application of this principle to Sani Three conceivable suppositions These reduced to two

. Future course of our argument The problem may be profitably discussed

Chapter III. The Present Physioal Universe

Definition of the term “ Physical Universe ”

It contains something else besides matter or stuff

Grounds of our belief in an external universe

These in accordance with our definition of the laws of ae universe (Art, 54)

Meaning of conservation

Conservation of Momentum

Conservation of Moment of Momentum

Conservation of Vis Viva

Definition of energy

Newton’s second interpretation of his Third Law

Friction changes work into heat

Historical sketch of the theory of energy

Transformability of energy constitutes its use

Case where energy is useless

Historical Sketch of Second Law of Fann ee

Carnot’s perfect heat-engine Sir W. Thomson’s definition of abeolite Bannerer Melting-point of ice lowered by pressure

_ Sir W. Thomson’s rectification of Carnot’s reasoning Prof. J. Clerk-Maxwell’s demons Degradation of energy ; Future of the physical universe Past of the physical universe -

ARTIOLE

83, 84 85

88 89 90 91

92 93 94

106 107 108

- 109, 110

X1ll

PAGE

59 60 61

62 62 63 63

76 76 av CONTENTS.

Chapter IV. Matter And Ether

Inquiry regarding structure and material of the universe,

Various hypotheses regarding matter— (1.) Greek notion of the Atom Speculations of Lucretius (2.) Theory of Boscovitch (centres of goreny) (3.) Theory of infinite divisibility (4.) Vortex-atom theory Remarks on these theories Relative quantity of matter associated ss energy

Universal gravitation— Is a weak force Two ways of accounting for it Le Sage’s hypothesis

The Ethereal medium— Its principal properties apparently incongruous Analogy of Prof. Stokes ‘ Distortion and displacement of ether . Inferior limit of its density Its supposed imperfect transparency .

Remarks on ether Remarks on the speculations of this anton Modification of the vortex-ring hypothesis Possible disappearance of the visible universe

Chapter V. Development

Nature of inquiry stated

Chemical development— Changes in lists of elementary substances

Prout’s speculations .

Experiments of + 5 Family groups

Mr. Lockyer’s anéodlafions

ARTICLE

118 119-1380 131 132

133, 134

135, 136 137, 188

189 140 141, 142

156 156 157 158, 159

PAGE

87 89 94

' 95 95 97 98

99 100 101

_ dip o SY

: CONTENTS. Se

ARTICLE PAGE

Globe development—

Hypothesis of Kant and Laplace A ; é 160 115 Tendency to aggregation of mass : : . 161, 162 116 Process cannot have been going on forever. : 163 117 Peculiarity of products developed inorganically . ; 164 118 Life development— Morphological and physiological species : ‘ 165 119 Species regarded physiologically : : ‘ 166 120 Position of a certain class of theologians ; : 167 121 Tendency to minor variations : : , 168 122 Artificial selection . z : : ‘ 169 124 Natural selection é : ck 170 125 Unproved point in the Danie athass nie ta om Wy 125 Remarks of Mr. Darwin ; , : 172 126 Development of the Darwinian Frpothesia : : 173 127 Mr. Wallace’s views . . ; 174 127 _ Prof. Huxley’s remarks : : : ‘ 175 128 Position assumed by the authors : : ‘ 176 128 CHAPTER VI.

SPECULATIONS AS TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCES IN THE VISIBLE UNIVERSE.

Position of life in the present physical universe. : 177 130 Two kinds of equilibrium . ries ua a? 178 131 Two kinds of machines or inatorial systems : ; 179 132 Two respects in which a living being resembles a machine 180 133 A living being resembles a delicately constructed machine 181 134 The delicacy is due to chemical instability : , 182 135 Delicacy of construction derived from the sun’s rays ; 183 136 Delicacy of construction in atmospheric changes . 5 184 136 Worships of powers of Nature—medieval superstitions . 185 138 Theory which attributes a soul to the universe. : 186 139 Real point at issue stated . : : 187 139 Man presents the highest order of the nieent visible uni-

verse oe : 188 140 The same idea ee the Old Testaments Ee 189 141

And it likewise pervades the New Testament Ai ey » 190,191 141 oe CONTENTS.

Chapter VII. The Unseen Universe

ARTICLE Decadence of the visible universe . : ; . 192,198 Its arrangements apparently wasteful : : 5 194 Explanation of this ; : : : ; 195 Memory of the universe. ; ; ; . 196,197 Connection between seen and unseen ‘ ; . 197, 298 Physical explanation of a future state ; . . 199-201 Dr. Thomas Young’s conception of the unseen. . 202, 208 Objections to the proposed theory of a future state replied to— Religious ; ; , 204 Theological . : : : : . 205, 206 Scientific ; : ' ; , . 207-210 Miracles and the Resurrection of Christ— Objections of extreme school stated. : i” 211 Development has produced the visible universe : 212 Its atoms resemble manufactured articles ‘ : 213 Development through intelligence .. ; . 214, 215 Idea clothed in concrete form : : 216 Christian theory of the development of the universe . 217-228 Life-development—Biogenesis d : . 224, 225 Life comes from the unseen universe é ; 226 Christian theory of life-development . ; : 227 Position of life in the universe discussed ; . 228-233 Meteoric hypothesis implies Discontinuity . . 234, 235 Position reviewed . : : 236 Miracles possible without breach of Continuity ‘ 237 Peculiar communication with the unseen in the case of Christ . 238 Apparent breaks are smear avenues Tending to the unseen. ; ‘ 239 Probable nature of Raa connection pete S seen and unseen. ; : . : i 240 Angelic betidinn oes J ‘ 241 Remarks on God’s providential wivertcneet ; . 248, 244 Our argument may be very much detached from all conceptions of the Divine essence . . ; 245

Christian conceptions of heaven. . . F 246

CONTENTS. ~ sath

ARTICLE PAGEH

Two ideas in all Christian hymns . : 2447 187 Possible glimpse into the conditions of te future life . 248, 249 188 Darker side of the future. : ‘ ; : 250 189 Plato on the markings of the soul , s ; 251 190 Christian Gehenna ‘ : : : ‘ 252 191 Medizeval idea of hell j : 253 192 The process in the Gehenna of ae New Testament apparently an enduring one. : : 254 198 Personality of the Evil One monerted by Seeinturs : E 255 194 Brief statement of the results of this discussion . ‘ 256 195 _ The scientific conclusion is directly against the opponents of Christianity . 257 196

Criticism invited from Revue of weet ihouant or of religious inquiry ~ : on oa : : 258 196

THE UNSEEN UNIVERSE.

Chapter I. Introductory Sketch

‘Por he should persevere until he has obtained one of two things; either he should discover or learn the truth about them, or, if this is impossible, I would have him take the best and most irrefragable of human notions, and let this be the raft upon which he sails through life—not without risk, as I admit, if he cannot find some word of God which will more surely and safely carry him,”—Pxato’s “ Phedo;” translated by Jowert.

1. Tux great mass of mankind have always believed in some fashion in the immortality of the soul; but it is certain that we may find disbelievers in this doctrine who yet retain the nobler attributes of humanity. It may, however, be questioned if it be possible even to imagine the great bulk of our race to have lost their belief in the soul’s immortality, and yet to have retained the virtues of civilized and well-ordered communities.

We have said that the. disbelievers in this doctrine form a minority of the race; but at the same time it must be acknowledged that the strength of this minority has of -

1 : )

2 THE UNSEEN UN VERSE.

° s late years greatly increased, until at the present moment it numbers in its ranks not a few of the most intelligent, the - most earnest, and the most virtuous of men.

It is, however, possible that, could we examine these, we should find them to be Wee ahe disbelievers, compelled by the working of their eelione to abandon the desire of their hearts, only after many struggles, and much bitterness of spirit.

Others, again, without absolutely abandoning all hope of the soul’s immortality, are yet full of doubt regarding it, and have settled down into the belief that we cannot come to any reasonable conclusion upon the subject. Now, these men can have had nothing to gain, but much to lose, in arriving at this result. It has been reached with reluctance, math misgivings, not without a certain kind of persecution, nor without the loss of friends and the stirring up of aon. they have fearlessly looked things in the face, and have followed whithersoever they imagined they were led by facts, even to the brink of an abyss.

It is the object of the present volume to examine the intellectual process that has brought about: these results, and we hope to show that the conclusion at which these men have arrived is not only not justified by what we know of the physical universe, but that on the other hand there are many lines of thought which point very strongly toward an opposite conclusion.

2. A division as old as Aristotle separates ’ speculators into two great classes—those who study the How of the universe, and those who study the Why. All men of _ science are embraced in the former of these, all men of religion in the latter. The former regard the universe as a huge machine, and their object is to study the laws which regulate its scoleeuae ; the latter again speculate about t abies of the machine, and what sort of work it is inten

' See “ Westminster Sermons,” by the Rev. Charles Kingsley.

to produce. The disciples of rae are accused by their adversaries of being willing to sacrifice the individual to the system ; while the disciples of Why are accused by their adversaries of being willing to sacrifice the system to the individual.

We may compare the universe to a great ship plying between two well-known ports, and carrying with her two sets of passengers. The one set keep on deck and try to make out, as well as they can, the mind of the steersman regarding the future of their voyage after they have reached that port to which they know they are all fast hastening, while the other set keep down below and examine the engines. Occasionally there is much wrangling at the top of the ladder where the two sets meet, some of those who have examined the engines and the ship asserting that the passengers will all be inevitably wrecked at the next port, it being morally impossible that the good ship can carry them farther. To whom those on deck reply that they have perfect confidence in the steersman, who has informed some of those nearest him that the passengers will not be wrecked, but will be carried in safety past the port. And so the altercation_goes on; some who have been on deck being unwilling or unable to examine the engines, and some who have examined the engines preferring to remain below.

3. Our readers will perceive from what we have said, that difficulties regarding the soul’s immortality are most likely to arise amid the disciples of How or those who study the machinery of the universe, and inasmuch as this class has greatly increased of late, it follows that the disbelievers in or doubters of the soul’s immortality have increased likewise. The disciples of Why have, on the other hand, existed from time immemorial, and in the plenitude of their power have frequently carried themselves with much violence toward the disciples of How, who are of

3 “a comparatively modern origin. It must not, however, be — inferred that this old and venerable family have always — been at peace among themselves, for there have been numerous contentions between their various branches, not the less acrimonious because the contending members have been to some extent supporters of a common cause, be- — lieving in some fashion in the immortality of the soul and the reality of the world to come. We shall therefore begin by giving our readers a sketch, necessarily a very meagre one, of the various beliefs on these subjects held by the different branches of this great family. | 4. Let us begin with the Egyptians, who are perhaps the most ancient people of whom we have historical records. The manners and customs of this nation have been very minutely described by Sir Gardner Wilkinson, to whose work we are chiefly indebted for the following account. In the first place it appears that we must separate between what the priests believed and what was held by the great body of the people. The bulk of the nation were left by the priests to believe in a multiplicity of deities, and even to reverence animals as divine, while on the other hand the higher orders of the priesthood, who were initiated into the greater mysteries of their religion, appear to have acknowledged the unity of God. These believed in one Eternal God, from whom all other deities were produced, and whom they did not permit themselves even to name, far less to represent under any visible form. The Egyptians likewise believed in the existence of demons or genii, who were present unseen among mankind—a belief apparently shared by Plato, who seems to have adopted many of the Egyptian notions, and who supposed that the Deity delegated the creative power to — beings inferior to himself, denominated demons. It may, however, be questioned whether the demons of Plato are e equivalent to the genii of the Egyptians.

5. The earliest Egyptian records attest the belief of this nation in the immortality of the soul: “ Dissolution, according to them, is only the cause of reproduction— nothing perishes which has once existed, and things which appear to be destroyed only change their natures and pass

into another form.” ’

Anubis held in Egypt an office similar to that of Mercury among the Greeks, being the usher of souls in their passage to the future state. Amenti was the region to which the souls of men were supposed to go after death, and Sir Gardner Wilkinson notices the resemblance between this name and that of Ement, “the West”—the west, where the sun was seen to sink, being looked upon as the end of the world. The guardian of the lower regions was, called Ouom-n-Amenti, or the Devourer of Amenti. It had frequently the appearance of a hippopotamus, but was drawn sometimes with the head of a fanciful creature something between the hippopotamus and the crocodile.

“The judgment of the soul was conducted by Osiris, aided by forty-two assessors, supposed to represent the forty-two crimes from which a virtuous man was expected to be free when judged in a future state, or rather the accusing spirits, each of whom examined if the deceased was guilty of the peculiar crime which it was his province to avenge’. ”

6. As regards the fate of the soul when once the judgment had been passed upon it—the Egyptians considered the souls of men to be emanations of the divine soul, and! each was supposed to return to its divine origin when suf-t ficiently pure to unite with the Deity. On the other hand, ‘those who had been guilty of sin were doomed to pass through the bodies of different animals in order that they might at last become sufficiently purified. It was probably imagined that the disgusting nature of sin would be

1 Wilkinson. 2 Ibid.

mt aay are te ag best realized by a lengthened sojourn in the bodies of unclean animals like the pig.

This doctrine of transmigration appears to have become changed, at least among some of its disciples, into the form described by Herodotus and Plato. The latter, referring no doubt to the doctrine of the preéxistence of souls, and to the view that it is a punishment to become corporeal at all, tells us: “If any one’s life has been virtuous he shall obtain a better fate hereafter; if wicked, a worse. But no soul will return to its pristine condition till the expiration of ten thousand years, since it will not recover the use of its wings until that period, except it be the soul of one who has philosophized sincerely or together with philosophy has loved beautiful forms. These indeed in the third period of a thousand years, if they have thrice chosen this mode of life in succession, . . . shall in the three thousandth year fly away to their pristine abode, but other souls, being arrived at the end of their first life, shall be judged. And of those who are judged, some, proceeding to a subterraneous place of judgment, shall there sustain the punishments they have deserved; but others, in consequence of a fayorable judgment, being elevated into a certain celestial place, shall pass their time in a manner becoming the life they have lived in a human shape. And in the thousandth year both the kinds of those who have been judged, returning to the lot and election of a second life, shall each of them receive a life agreeable to his desire. Here also the human soul shall pass into the life of a beast, and from that of a beast again into a manif it has first been the soul of a man. For the soul which has never perceived ‘the truth cannot pass into the human form.” ?