He had work to do. He was aware of the Fall of
Dongola, but had not been present in spirit at the
banquet at Cairo afterwards. He knew more than he did
in life. He remembered our conversation in Cairo.
Duration of life in the next sphere was shorter than on
earth. He had not seen General Gordon, nor any other
famous spirit. Spirits lived in families and in
communities. Married people did not necessarily meet
again, but those who loved each other did meet again.

I have given this synopsis of a communication to
show the kind of thing we got--though this was a very
favourable specimen, both for length and for coherence.
It shows that it is not just to say, as many critics
say, that nothing but folly comes through. There was
no folly here unless we call everything folly which
does not agree with preconceived ideas. On the other
hand, what proof was there that these statements were
true? I could see no such proof, and they simply left
me bewildered. Now, with a larger experience, in which
I find that the same sort of information has come to
very, many people independently in many lands, I think
that the agreement of the witnesses does, as in all
cases of evidence, constitute some argument for their
truth. At the time I could not fit such a conception
of the future world into my own scheme of philosophy,
and I merely noted it and passed on.

I continued to read many books upon the subject and
to appreciate more and more what a cloud of witnesses