He appears to be unable to conceive the possibility of a 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 ludicrous figure, which he calls _our 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 217, ‘_for the sake of bringing our ideas in a concrete form before the reader, and for this purpose only_, we will now adopt a definite hypothesis.’ Of course it is too much to expect a critic now-a-days to read every word of a book which he is content to demolish, _but we did hope he might have noticed the italics_. 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 _im_mortality, end_less_ existence, etc., when the most common of all expressions connected with the subject are the phrases, ‘_eternal_ life,’ ‘_everlasting_ life,’ etc., 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 in a name? Our critic was evidently thinking of Joshua and ‘Gibeon,’ and why should a critic care about the difference between Amorites and Amalekites? It is a mere matter of spelling,—a trifle. Similar mistakes in a previous article are apologised for in a footnote 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. But it 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.