written "may be theology after all." It may be. It is not my place
either to allay or to confirm the author's suspicion of his own work. But
I will state its main thesis: "That science regarded in the gross
dictates the spirituality of man and strongly implies a spiritual destiny
for individual human beings." This means: Existence after Death--that
is, Immortality.

To find out its value you must go to the book. But I will observe here
that an Immortality liable at any moment to betray itself fatuously by
the forcible incantations of Mr. Stead or Professor Crookes is scarcely
worth having. Can you imagine anything more squalid than an Immortality
at the beck and call of Eusapia Palladino? That woman lives on the top
floor of a Neapolitan house, and gets our poor, pitiful, august dead,
flesh of our flesh, bone of our bone, spirit of our spirit, who have
loved, suffered and died, as we must love, suffer, and die--she gets them
to beat tambourines in a corner and protrude shadowy limbs through a
curtain. This is particularly horrible, because, if one had to put one's
faith in these things one could not even die safely from disgust, as one
would long to do.

And to believe that these manifestations, which the author evidently
takes for modern miracles, will stay our tottering faith; to believe that
the new psychology has, only the other day, discovered man to be a
"spiritual mystery," is really carrying humility towards that universal
provider, Science, too far.

* * * * *

We moderns have complicated our old perplexities to the point of
absurdity; our perplexities older than religion itself. It is not for