Here we find several propositions with regard to Spectres in general, which demand credit only for one short story, the truth of which might be as consistently disputed by the apparitionists, as by the Encyclopedia. It does not appear that this apparition was seen or heard by any one except Tavernor. What evidence then have we that Tavernor was not the dupe of one who personated Haddock out of pity to the orphan son? Could our authors imagine that Mr. Addison, Doctor Johnson, or even Mr. Glanville himself, built the faith of Spectres, only on such feeble evidence as this story affords? Will that mode of conduct adopted by Tavernor’s Spectre, teach us what is the conduct of Spectres in general, till we, who believe the reality of Spectres, can be satisfied whether Tavernor ever saw a Spectre or not? Circumstances unknown to us, however, might be so attached to that affair, as to render it credible to Davis and his wife, if not to others. Therefore, admitting the supposition of our believing it a reality, how have our authors proved that this very Spectre conducted imprudently, proposed no end to himself, or used no proper means to accomplish that end? “Because, say they, he did not first appear to Eleanor Welsh and her husband, and frighten them into compliance at once.” But how does it appear that this summary method, all things considered, would have been the most eligible. Doubtless some infidels are bold enough to say that the angel, who sent Moses to Pharaoh from Horeb, would have conducted much more prudently and rationally, if he had first appeared to Pharaoh, and frightened him into compliance at once, than to have kept Moses in such disquietude, who had less concern in the matter than any man in Egypt, for he was now married and peaceably settled in another land. The end proposed by the ghost appearing to Tavernor was, that the son of Haddock should enjoy the lease, and this end was subordinate and absolutely necessary to other ends of far greater magnitude, for any thing which the Cyclopedia has shewn to the contrary. We find in the Scriptures such a connection of means and ends as the wisdom of some moderns would never dictate: as that of Ezek. 4: 15, and the marriage of Hosea transacted, either in reality or in vision. These means, doubtless, would not have appeared the most decent and eligible to some of those who seem capable of dictating for apparitions, the proper mode of their procedure. But suppose Tavernor’s ghost had first appeared to Eleanor Welsh and her husband, and frighted them into compliance at once, would the existence of Spectres be any more believed than it is at present? Would not the objection have been that Eleanor Welsh had the maternal affection for her son? Had never really consented to the crime--that her own fear was feigned, and that the ghost was some friend employed by her to frighten and deceive her husband?