already doing so. The effects so confidently regarded as indubitable proof of double exposure, it has been shown appear on plates where certainly only a single exposure has taken place, and on plates where recognised portraits of departed friends and relatives clearly appear: Facts are also coming into view which explain the resemblance which the spirit-portrait sometimes bears to the medium. Some facts of this kind were given in our last number, and in the same number of the Spiritualist in which the editor flings about charges with so free a hand, there is an article, apparently also by the editor, on "The Systematic Appearance of Spirits;" giving an account of manifestations through the mediumship of Miss Florence Cook. Speaking of the spirit-faces seen, he says, "The first face which appeared, and which called itself Katie King, was much like her own, to her great annoyance.

The spirit Katie said she could not help being like her medium." Now, if this face had been photographed at Mr. Hudson's studio, would not its resemblance to the medium at once have been set down as conclusive evidence that it was the medium who had here personated the spirit, and had acted in fraudulent collusion with the photographer to palm off upon credulous Spiritualists a sham spirit-photograph; or what our contemporary calls an "artificial ghost picture made by double exposure of the plate, the said plate being first exposed on the person dressed as a ghost, then preserved in a wet state, and afterwards exposed again on persons who come for spirit-photographs."

A little further in the same article we read, "The spirits say they manufacture the faces more or less perfectly, and that the life in them is derived from the medium, who is usually in a deep trance all the time. The sides, tops, and backs of the heads are covered with white bandages. The heads have been felt, but only in total darkness at present; in some cases they have been hollow at the back, just like a wax doll with the back of its head pushed in. They are all living faces, with sparkling eyes and mobile features. When the power is weak the eyes are more fixed than at other times, and the spirits say they cannot see out of them." Again we ask, if this spirit-head like that of a wax doll had been photographed by Mr. Hudson, would it not at once have been denounced as "a dummy ghost picture,' or "make up?" up?" Is it not strange that our contemporary does not apparently perceive even the force and bearing of its own

It is greatly to be regretted that our generally intelligent and careful contemporary has not in this matter acted with its usual discretion; that, instead of following those who looked at these photographs with only a "professional eye," the editor

did not possess his soul in patience, wait for more light, and take counsel with Spiritualists whose longer experience might have made him more cautious and been a safer guidance. He would not then have so hastily occupied the seat of judgment, and, deceived by fallacious appearances and facts he did not properly understand, have defamed the character of men on whom no breath of suspicion had blown, and whose good faith and extraordinary mediumship he had himself attested. He has made certain serious charges; it is his duty either to substantiate or withdraw them. At present, he has done neither. His plain duty in this respect is not to be evaded by reference to other persons who, he alleges, are in possession of evidence. It is his duty to produce that evidence, not ours to go hunting after what we believe to be mare's nests. The testimony on the other side, which has come to us unsought, has been neither "anonymous," nor that of "letters dropped into the office from anybody;" but of experienced Spiritualists, well known and respected as such long before our contemporary was heard of. To this mass of evidence we have much pleasure in adding the clear and decided testimony of Mr. William Howitt, which will be found on another page.

It was our simple duty to point out, as we have done, the inconclusive nature of the evidence on which accusations of imposture and fraud had been based, and to publish rebutting evidence on the other side. We hope the able editor of the Spiritualist will yet see reason to abandon the untenable position hastily taken up by him. When he does so, we are sure that Spiritualists will readily condone the wrong he has unwittingly done, in consideration of his good intentions and past services, and that if he learns the salutary lesson which this experience should have brought him, he will furnish no occasion for a "double exposure.

Since the foregoing was in type we have received the following:

To the Editor of the "Spiritual Magazine."

Sir, In consequence of having seen statements in the issue of the Spiritualist of the 15th instant, I beg to inform you that I called on Mr. Benjamin Pycock, of Brooke's Hotel, 33, Surrey Street, Strand, yesterday, the 20th September, and showed him the statements referred to in the Spiritualist. He expressed to me the greatest astonishment, and denied the matter in toto, saying that he had never made any such communication to Mr. Harrison, neither had I made any such confession to him. I simply give this as it comes from him, and I think it needs little more denial of Mr. Harrison's insinuations

against me; one false statement proved throws doubt on others. I shall answer the matter more fully elsewhere, as I do not wish to occupy too much of your space. Mr. Pycock has expressed his willingness to corroborate what I now say. The other statements made with reference to me are equally unfounded. I remain, sir, yours faithfully,

C. E. WILLIAMS, Medium.

RESURRECTION OF THE BODY, NOT PHYSICAL BUT SPIRITUAL.

From a Discourse by the Rev. JOHN PAGE HOPPS.

WHY has it been thought necessary to advocate the resurrection of the body? If we can only understand this, we shall be far on the road towards understanding the error itself and the remedy for it. First, it is said that the body must be raised because it is necessary that the body in which man has sinned shall suffer. But this notion grows out of the gross and earthly view of life which goes not beyond our present physical sensations and our present knowledge of material things. But how poor and unworthy this idea appears when we once come to understand that the body is only the instrument of the spirit,the medium which it uses to put itself into communication with outward things, and that the body is only what it is, as a sensitive organization, simply because it is connected with the spirit by mysterious and subtile laws, which are, nevertheless, not necessary to the spirit's being, but which are temporary as necessary only to our existence here. He who can once master the thought that the spirit is the centre of all life and the real recipient even of our present sensations, will be at no loss to understand this great truth, that under new conditions of being, the spirit, without such a body as we now have, may receive sensations which, whether of bliss or pain, are not to be compared with those which it now duly receives through the present body, that really hinders sensation and deprives us of more than it bestows. Besides, the absurdity of the notion that the body is raised in order that its sins may be punished in itself appears, when we consider that during a life-time a man changes his entire body many times. Thus John Locke puts it as against the Bishop of Worcester," A sinner has acted here in his body (say) a hundred years: he is raised at the last day, but with what body? The same, your lordship says, that he acted

in, because St. Paul says he must receive the things done in his body. What, therefore, must his body at the resurrection consist of? Must it consist of all the particles of matter that have ever been vitally united to his soul? If so, then it follows that many bodies must arise or be united to the soul, since in many bodies sin, in a long life, has been committed.”

Second, it is also said, that the body must be raised that personal identity may be preserved. But this again grows out of the same gross and earthly idea as the last, that the body and not the soul is the real man. Let any one see that personal identity is something which depends upon the spirit, and that, however the body may identify us to the outward eye, it is no more necessary to our individuality than the clothing we wear, and the truth will shine out as clear as a sunbeam, that when we bid farewell to this husk of the body and blossom out into the new life, we shall not only not need the earthly body to preserve our personal identity, but we shall find that the body hid us more than it manifested us, and did more to keep us from the knowledge of ourselves than to help us to possess ourselves. But that our personal identity does not depend upon the body, must be plain to any one who will consider what we have just said,— that the body is in process of change from year to year; and yet that personal identity remains. I feel and know that I rule behind this body,-that it is only my servant, and that out of it, I should probably know myself better and be better known. The body necessary to personality! Why, what is personality? Is it a collection of features and limbs? Or is it not rather the vitality that moulds the features and uses the limbs? I spurn the animalism of finding my personality in my flesh! My loves and hatreds, my aspirations and discontents, my thoughts and affections, these are more to my personality than the eyes through which I look, or the hands with which I work. Why, if we could all escape from the body this moment we should probably know ourselves and each other in a way that would startle us. Do not fear you will not need the earthly body in that beautiful new world; you will know yourselves and be known well enough. Thus it is only our want of light that leads us to cling to this rudimentary form of life, to cling to this body as though our personality depended upon it. Let it go! this mortal must put on immortality; and when we are so clothed we shall never need to take up the cast-off dress of time again.

Third, it is further said by those who affirm the necessity of the resurrection of the body, that without the body our future existence would be an unreal or imperfect one. But this, again, grows out of the same poor, gross idea, that the body as we know it now, is the living reality: hence it is that we fancy we

should be spectres without a home, if we were without the body. That only comes of our earthliness, of our poor grovelling ideas of life of our low and imperfect knowledge, nay! of our dense, dark ignorance respecting the reality and the true substance of the spiritual world. But reflect upon it. They say the body is necessary in order that life in the other world may be real. Are other substances there, then, physical and sensuous also? They ought to be: for if the physical body is raised, it surely must be to tenant a world adapted thereto. Is Heaven, then, a material world like this? But that is what they make it who say that this body is to inhabit it.

If, moreover, the body must be raised hereafter that life may be real, then those who are gone before us are still unblest, lingering in a desolate, houseless, impersonal condition,―mere spectres, hapless beings bereft of something they need to give them personality and a real existence,-beings who have not progressed but retrograded, and who, before they can be real existences again, must come back to some old forgotten grave to take up the cast-off garments of the flesh. Do you believe it? Is it not time that this hideous, grotesque nightmare of the Churches ceased? Can you believe it? If you do, you must think it a wretched thing to bid good-bye to the body, you must conceive of the other world, not as a better, but as a far worse one than this, you must give up the great and beautiful law of progress, you must shiver to think of those who have crossed the river, not to enter into life but to leave behind that which gave them personality, you must dwell beside the sepulchre and make your Heaven in the tomb. Nay! but turn from such old-world dreams to the divine idea that the history of a life is the history of a beautiful progress, that we are in a material body now only for the temporary purpose of putting the soul into communication with a material world, that change of worlds is change of conditions of life, and change, therefore, of the body; the new life being not such a life as needs the old body of a past imperfect state, but something altogether different, yet as real,-nay! more real. Grasp the glorious idea that when we have done with the body here we have got beyond it, never to need it more; and that when we leave this world as to the flesh we shall never have need to return to it, to linger for ages beside some dreary grave till, on some far distant day, the poor lost body shall return to give us 66 a local habitation and a name!"

But then they tell us that the Bible teaches us the resurrection of the body, and that St. Paul has a long argument in an Epistle to the Corinthians to prove it. I think this is a mistake. St. Paul clearly enough argues for the resurrection of the dead, but he nowhere seeks to establish the resurrection of the body.