There is one alleged “indication of immortality” which Mr. Greg twice repeats, and to which we will offer a word of reply. His statement is as follows: “I refer to that _spontaneous_, irresistible, and, perhaps, nearly universal, feeling we all experience on watching, just after death, the body of someone we have intimately known; the conviction, I mean a sense, a consciousness, an impression _which you have to fight against if you wish to disbelieve or shake it off_ that the form lying there is not the Ego you have loved. It does not produce the effect of that person’s personality. You miss the Ego though you have the frame. The visible Presence only makes more vivid the sense of actual Absence. Every feature, every substance, every phenomenon is there, and is unchanged. You have seen the eyes as firmly closed, the limbs as motionless, the breath almost as imperceptible, the face as fixed and expressionless before, in sleep or in trance, without the same peculiar sensation. The impression made is indefinable, and is not the result of any conscious process of thought—that that body, quite unchanged to the eye, is not, and never was your friend—the Ego you were conversant with; and that his or her individuality was not the garment before you _plus_ a galvanic current; that, in fact, the Ego you knew once and seek still, _was not that—is not there_. And if not there, it must be _elsewhere or nowhere_, and ‘nowhere,’ I believe, modern science will not suffer us to predicate of either force or substance that once has been.” Undoubtedly the dead body is not the living human being you loved. It has ceased to live. Every phenomenon is not there unchanged, the whole of the vital phenomena are wanting; there is a complete change so far as organic functional activity is concerned. Even the body itself is not quite unchanged to the eye. There is in most cases, and especially to skilled vision, an easily detectible difference between a living man and a corpse. To say that the Ego is not there, and if not there must be elsewhere, is to use an absurd phrase. Take an ordinary drinking-glass and crush it into powder, or shatter it into fragments, the drinking-glass is not there, nor is it elsewhere; the combination which made up drinking-glass no longer exists. Ego does not denote body only, it denotes living body with personal characteristics. Take a bright steel blade, let the surface be oxidised, and the brightness is no longer there, nor is it elsewhere; it is only that the conditions which were resultant in brightness no longer exist.