Here again, we have evidence of thought-transference. Whether Mr. Duguid, by some occult power, caused the direct painting to be done--his own spirit doing it while his body was in the trance state--or the painting was produced by one of his controls, I am not prepared to state. I am willing to state my belief that the painting was not done by Duguid, the medium, or any other person present in the room. One of the controls of the medium claimed to have painted the little sketch, and, truth to tell, it is not more difficult to accept this hypothesis than “the spirit of the medium did it.” In our ordinary experience of human nature, we do not find it usual for men to give credit to others--men or spirits--for what they are capable of doing and saying themselves. REFLECTIONS. It is quite possible, seeing that out of this life into the next, through the portals of death, pass all sorts and conditions of human beings, that in the next stage of existence--most closely allied to that in which we now live--mankind are not essentially different in character from what we find now. It is not, therefore, necessary to call in the agency of demons, as distinct from human spirits, to account for the phenomena of Spiritualism. If in artificial somnambulism and the phenomena of the psychic state the operating agent is an embodied human spirit, it is possible the same human spirit, albeit disembodied, may still retain power to control or influence other human beings. There is another and more serious matter for consideration, concerning which our investigations of Spiritualism have thrown little or no light--Spirit Identity. Not only do our friends depart and never return, and many have promised to do so. How far are we certain when spirits have returned? We may have been deceived by our own impulsiveness, anxiety, and desire to feel and to know that “they are not lost but gone before.” Again, admitting the genuineness of physical phenomena, and conceding that all the communications are really made by disembodied spirits or intelligent beings like unto ourselves, what proof do we possess that they are really what they represent themselves to be, or what they appear to be in spirit circles? “A bad or mischievous spirit,” says Dr. Nichols, “may, for aught we know, personate our friends, _penetrate our secrets_, and deceive us with false representations.” This is certainly worth thinking about. My object in writing is not to turn my readers against Spiritualism, but to get them to bring into the investigation judgment, not only to analyse evidence, but the capacity to “judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” It is no part of my purpose to deal with the history, ethics, or even the phenomena of Spiritualism. That has been well done by others. I merely write to show that Spiritualism “has something in it,” and is of such importance that it is neither to be lightly rejected on the one hand, nor are