Introduction.

The present pamphlet is published as an appendix to that published by the Rev. J. A. Dowie a few weeks ago, and entitled "Spiritualism Unmasked." His pamphlet contains our correspondence prior to the letter which now appears in this present form. This letter is simply a reply to the last letter of the rev. gentleman, and, as such, ought to have appeared in the pamphlet containing the previous correspondence. The reason why it did not do so is made clear on page 17, where it will be seen that it was the unfair decision of the Rev. John Alexander Dowie and his friends that any further reply of mine should be excluded from the correspondence. As it is seldom that a wrong is done without the doers of it being able to invent and believe some kind of justification for it, in this case it was attempted to justify the wrong by the assumption that my rev. opponent had the right to have the last word. To this must be added the fear of too great cost of publication, and the dread of the correspondence becoming interminable. As to the cost of publication, I may mention that 1 pointed out to the Rev. Mr. Dowie and his friend, Dr. Singleton, that that need not deter them from doing me justice, since I would bear the entire cost of publication myself rather than allow the correspondence to appear incomplete, or his letter to appear without its refutation. The argument as to the correspondence becoming interminable, and therefore that I have no right to reply to his attacks upon me and others, is too absurd upon the face of it to require serious refutation. His only plea of justification for his conduct, therefore, resolves itself into page iv his assumed right of reply. The answer to this is to be found in the pamphlet which he himself has published. It is only necessary for the reader to make a comparison of the letters therein to perceive that the right of reply—to have the last say—is indisputably mine. His pamphlet contains about 50 pages of correspondence and 22 pages of introduction, and the space allotted to me in all the pamphlet does not amount to a total of 18 pages. This, on the face of it, has a show of unfairness; but it is necessary to analyze the letters themselves to make the unfairness fully self-evident. Observe then:—

I.	The letters of his and mine up to 11th February simply discuss the merits and demerits of my challenge to him.
II.	His letter of 13th February was the first essentially controversial letter. In this he makes an attack upon me and others.
III.	My letter of 20th February was a reply to this attack.
IV.	His letter of 18th March was a renewal of the attack. It not only repeats his old charges, and consequently re-opens the correspondence, but it introduces a number of fresh topics for discussion, and notably among these, the question of the causes of the French Revolution and the general views and character of A. J. Davis.
V.	According to him, I must not—nay, I have no right to—reply to this renewed attack with so many reinforcements, but I must submit like a martyr and bear it in silence!

What a splendid general the Rev. J. A. Dowie would make if he could only get his enemies to believe him. He would burn the cities of his foes, ruin their homes and hopes, and then insist that they had no right whatever to say a word or take up arms against him.

It may be asked why this letter appears alone, and why I do not republish the whole of the correspondence? Chiefly because of the expense that such a course would inevitably incur; and since 1 endorse the general accuracy of the previous correspondence as published by the Rev. J. A. Dowie, I thought it unnecessary to republish it have. That correspondence is now in the hands o the public, and, so far as it goes, I endorse it; but it requires this letter to make it complete. Hence I publish this brochure as an appendix to it.

The former of these it was intended he should affirm, whilst I should affirm the latter.

The Rev. J. A. Dowie, instead of answering the questions of Mr. Strachan, chose very naturally to inquire first from whom the challenge to discuss these subjects came. Then Mr. Strachan referred the rev. gentleman to me for an answer. This inaugurated the correspondence. The preliminary letters were simply upon the point as to whether a discussion should be held or not, and if so, what would be the best subject for discussion. The attack or defence of our particular views was not introduced, since the proper place for such, in the event of a discussion being brought about, would be the public platform. It soon became evident, however, that my clerical opponent had no desire to meet me publicly, and leaving the point at issue—the advisability of a discussion—he commenced in his letter of the 13th of February an attack, not upon my views, not upon the views I had declared myself ready to defend, in fact not upon the views of anyone, but upon views which he himself had manufactured by perverting the statements and misrepresenting the opinions of others.

Although I was anxious to avoid entering upon any subject not involved in the wording of the propositions of my challenge to him, I felt it incumbent upon me, in the simple interests of page vi justice, to reply to his calumnious charges, to correct his many misstatements, and to state the truth upon the points he had mooted. These things T did in my letter of 20th February, and at this stage I was perfectly willing to have the correspondence published.

I say I was perfectly willing to have the correspondence published; for, before my opponent had received that letter, he had already entered into some arrangements for having the preceding letters published. He had not said a word to me about it, nor acquainted me, directly ov indirectly, in the slightest degree, with his intentions. After receiving my letter, however, of 20th February, he was silent for some weeks; so, bearing in mind the fact that he had intended publishing before he had received it, I wrote a note to him on 13th March, informing him that I intended publishing the correspondence, unless he replied further. Of course, had he objected to the publication of his letters, I should not have carried out my intention to publish them at that stage. And it must be remembered, too, that my first step, after forming the intention, was to acquaint him with it—not, as he did, to make partial preparations for its being carried out. It is evident, however, that he did not wish the correspondence published at that stage; for, after informing me of his intention, he re-opened the correspondence in the letter to which this now published is a reply.

When the Rev. J. A. Dowie called upon me to gain my consent to the publication of the correspondence in its uncompleted stage, I strongly protested against such a proceeding being carried into effect. He informed me, however, that his mind and the minds of his friends were made up upon the point, and that they were fully determined to publish the correspondence as it then stood, whether I gave my consent or not. It was only left to me, therefore, to inform the rev. gentleman that if he did so I should be obliged to denounce the publication as soon as it appeared, both from my Sunday evening platform at the Opera House, and through the columns of the daily press. When his version of the correspondence appeared therefore, I was obliged to characterize the pamphlet as it deserved, and as I had informed my opponent that I would.

In the columns of the Age and Telegraph for Saturday, 22nd April, I placed an advertisement which I wrote and published for the express purpose of guarding the public from his statements and his version of the correspondence; and in the faith, mistaken or otherwise, that desperate diseases require stringent remedies, I, as I am firmly convinced, and as I can adduce abundance of evidence to show, designated his production in language perfectly truthful, though admittedly strong. Strong as the words were, however, I felt that I could not protect the public by any milder terms at my command.

Early in the following week appeared a letter from his pen, published in the above two papers. In that letter, after attempting to justify his conduct, and making several serious misstatements, he called upon me to publicly apologize for the publication of my advertisement. A day or so after he sent me the worded form of an apology which he demanded I should sign, since anything "short of that [he] would not accept." Legal proceedings for a criminal libel were threatened if I refused to do this, and to accompany it with several acts of ignominious humiliation. 1 positively refused to do anything of the kind, since I was, and am, perfectly convinced that my advertisement was not only necessary, but perfectly just, under existing circumstances.

On his receipt of my refusal to apologize, he at once took legal proceedings, though, instead of taking the matter into the Supreme Court, as he threatened that he probably would, he contented himself with a claim for damages to the extent of £250, as the equivalent—is it fair to suppose?—of his alleged loss of reputation, in consequence of the publication of my advertisement.

It was my original intention to go through his introduction to his pamphlet as I have gone through his last letter, and, after dissecting it thoroughly, to correct all its perversions, misrepresentations, and matters foreign to the truth; but as such a course would necessarily reveal my points of defence in the forthcoming trial at the County Court to be held in Melbourne on the 7th of June, I must refrain, and simply content myself with designating his introduction as a tissue of perversions. This I am happily able to prove, not only by an appeal to the internal evidence of page vii the introduction itself, but by the testimony of witnesses of unimpeachable veracity.

Knowing that this letter would be published, I have done what I could to make it as generally interesting as my abilities would allow. I have aimed at imparting such information as would be not only valuable to the Rev. J. A. Dowie, but to general readers desirous of gaining knowledge upon the points which have been discussed. If the perusal of this letter, therefore, will supply the working men, who have not time for laborious and extensive reading, with facts and arguments by means of which they maybe enlisted in the army of reform and progress, made free from their superstitions, and rendered more happy and contented with the lot of life, my labour will not have been in vain, even should the Rev. J. A. Dowie remain impervious to common-sense. With the hope, then, that my letter may be fairly read,