ring was carefully examined and privately marked. The result was the same: after a few minutes, the boy walked into the room with the ring around his neck, and remained among the assembled guests for some twenty minutes to enable them all to make careful scrutiny of the astounding fact, that a solid iron ring, seven inches smaller in circumference than the boy's head, had, by some means, been placed around and taken off his neck in a few minutes. Mr. Danskin appends to his narrative a certificate, signed by thirty-one gentlemen, who attest the fact, and who say, "there was no possibility of fraud or deception."* Mr. Horace Greely, editor of the Tribune, in his "Recollections of a Busy Life," gives a chapter upon his spiritual experiences, in which he admits that "the jugglery hypothesis utterly fails to account for occurrences which I have personally witnessed," and that "certain developments strongly indicate that they do proceed from departed spirits." But he complains that nothing of any value is obtained by the investigations-that "they did not help to fish up the Atlantic cable nor find Sir John Frankin," that Spiritualism has not made the body of believers better men and women. He thinks that "those who discharge promptly and faithfully all their duties to those who still live in the flesh, can have little time for poking and peering into the life beyond the grave. Better attend to each world in its proper order;" and, he adds, "All that we have learned of them (the spirits) has added little or nothing to our knowledge, unless it be enabling us to answer with more confidence that old momentous question-If a man die shall he live again?" The Banner comments in just terms of severity upon this strange chapter in a busy man's life. It is enough for me to record it as AN EXTRAORDINARY SPIRITUAL MANIFESTATION from America, so that our excellent journalists may be instructed by one of themselves. Be it known, then, that Mr. Horace Greely, the great Public Moralist, complains that Spiritualism does not make "better men and women-better husbands, wives, and children;" and though it certainly answers "that momentous question-If a man die shall he live again?" he thinks that is nothing compared with the importance of telling us how to fish up the Atlantic cable. 66 We have on record innumerable instances of remarkable dreams, and a goodly number of well-attested apparitional The law, whatever it may be, by which this ring phenomenon is accomplished, is, no doubt, the same as that by which the coat is removed and replaced in an instant with the Davenports, and by which solid substances are apparently brought through closed doors and taken away again. appearances, both of the living and the dead, but I know of no instance of a dream and, so to speak, its embodiment in a tangible apparitional form, such as the following extraordinary case presents. Strange stories are of no value unless they are thoroughly well attested, and many therefore are not regarded with much attention which come to us upon the authority of chroniclers and witnesses who have long passed away.* The following case, however, I have received from a gentleman who cannot be reasonably discredited. The occurrence is of comparatively recent date, the actors are living in England, and I have their names and places of residence. The Rev. George Blank lives at B, in Yorkshire, and upon the authority of my informant, to whom he is known, he is described as "a perfectly credible, sensible, matter-of-fact man, not likely to be deceived." His brother John resides at the town of A-, in Northumberland, where the brothers have some house property. Early one morning the clergyman awoke his wife and said, "I have had a very singular dream, and all the incidents are so strongly impressed upon my mind that I am disturbed and puzzled by them. I have dreamt that I found myself standing at my brother's house in A; that I rang the bell, knocked at the door, and made a frightful noise; and that at length arousing John, he appeared at his bed-room window in his night dress, and demanded to know who was creating such disturbance. I then began a long harangue, calling him all Mr. Charles Partridge, of New York, a gentleman well known among Spiritualists, with whom I am personally acquainted, related some years ago an incident that occurred to himself, which goes to prove that the spirit of the man, whilst the man himself is sleeping, may perform acts of which he in his normal condition is wholly unconscious. Mr. Partridge had written a note to the gentleman at whose house the celebrated "miracle circle" held their sittings, to ask the favour of joining the party at their next séance, which was granted. When Mr. Partridge came to the circle he was surprised to hear that the gentleman of the house had received a second note from him, couched in very offensive terms, which he, Mr. Partridge, denied having written. It was then shown to him, and he was obliged to admit that it was indeed his handwriting and his usual signature, but he protested that he had no knowledge whatever of its existence, and could in no way explain the fact. He then appealed to the spirits present, and the following colloquy ensued, the answers being written rapidly through the medium's hand ::-"Who wrote the letter in question bearing my signature ?" "You wrote it." "If I really did write the letter, under what circumstances was it done?" Perhaps I make too general an assertion when I say you, as you now are, wrote it." "Explain, if you please." "When you แ enter that state of unconsciousness known to you mortals as sleep, your soul is not always in your body. You wrote it when your body was asleep, and your soul was absent from it! It is not necessary a body should be dead that a soul should be absent from it. Life, soul, and mind are three entirely different things, each independent of the other. Your soul was absent although your mind and life were in your dormant body." Mr. Partridge was then told the time and place when and where it occurred, which tended to satisfy him of the possible fact, but he had, as he avers, no recollection or knowledge of writing the note. manner of names, and abusing him coarsely for having mismanaged some property of ours. I never used such language in my life, and the whole affair has a reality about it that I never experienced before after any dream." Mrs. Blank naturally suggested that it was only a dream, and nothing more was thought of it until the second morning, when they were greatly astonished at receiving a letter from John, in which he informed them "that on the previous night he was roused from his bed by a tremendous knocking at his door, and upon going to the window, he beheld to his amazement his brother George, who used the most abominable language, abusing him about the house property. John descended and let his brother in, and the high words which ensued brought down John's wife, who feared that the brothers would come to blows. The interview, however, was brought to a close by George suddenly jumping up and rushing out of the house to catch the mail which would bring him home. I have said that I know of no story like the foregoing; but its publication may bring out others of a similar character, which, upon equally good testimony, I shall be glad to receive and to record in this Magazine. A FEW MORE WORDS ON SPECIAL PROVIDENCE AND PRAYER. OBJECTIONS have been taken, on various grounds, to my article in the April number on "Special Providence and Prayer," which seem to me to call for a few words by way of explanation, and in further elucidation of the subject. Exception has been taken to the instances given as "not proven" by sufficient evidence; and also, as being if true, insufficient to establish the view they were quoted to support. This objection, I may say, is founded on an entire misconception of the purpose for which these instances were adduced, which was not demonstration, but "illustration,"-to set forth by "example" what is "ordinarily understood" by the "doctrines" on which discussion was invited. Were instances ever so badly chosen this would not affect the argument they were designed to illustrate, which rests upon its own proper merits. I had premised that I was "writing chiefly for Spiritualists," and had assumed, as I think I was justified in doing, that "about the facts which constitute the premiss of the argument we apprehend there is no difference among well-informed Spiritualists;" for whatever may be thought of the particular narratives cited, Spiritualists are too familiar with facts of this order to call in question the general truth of such occurrences; the point immediately at issue was not as to the truth of this class of facts, which on both sides is admitted, but as to their bearing on the subject in controversy For further facts in evidence I referred to a previous article. Again, the correspondent who had invited the discussion of the subject intimates that "as regards the efficacy of prayer, the enunciated doctrine appears at variance with recorded experience;" and he especially refers to cases of instantaneous cure of long-standing diseases "by prayer alone, after all natural means had failed." But I entirely fail to see any "variance" between these facts and my statements; they might more appropriately be quoted in illustration of them, though the averment that "these cures have been wrought by prayer alone," if intended to be understood in its strict literal sense is, I think, unwarranted either by philosophy or religion; as a moment's reflection will suffice to shew. Our supplication to the Almighty that the sufferer may be restored to health is itself an acknowledgment that the power of cure rests not in the prayer, but in Him. Whether that power operates by direct communication, or by ministering spirits, through the will and magnetic force of an interceding friend, or through the faith of the suppliant sufferer, and the quickening of the nervous and vital powers, matters not: prayer is simply the condition, or, one of the conditions of cure, not its efficient cause. It does not even follow because prayer is the only visible means of cure, that therefore it is the only means actually put in operation to that end. In attempting to give to the subject of prayer a more broad and comprehensive signification than that under which it is often conventionally regarded, I by no means derogate from its value or its sanctity. Praise and prayer ascends from every creature, but from each according to its kind. "All Thy works praise Thee, O God, and Thy saints they bless Thee." That which in the animal is instinctive, in man is rational, spiritual, and can alone, as a conscious, voluntary, intelligent state and act, be fitly characterised as worship in its highest sense; for in him alone is it communion with a kindred, though an infinitely higher, nature. Hence, true prayer (for we speak not of perfunctor gabble, or of prayers worked off by machinery and set in moti by the wind), the earnest aspiration of the soul for God-tl it may be lifted nearer to Him-that its springs of action m be quickened by its nearer communion with Him, and that may be filled with His infinite purity and peace cannot f to elevate the worshipper; to purify the fountains of his life to strengthen him for all needful and noble work. Nay, mor N.S.-III. Ꮓ by rendering him through higher states more open to influx from the spirit-world, by inducing more receptive conditions, and through the intimate relations existing between soul and body, it is eminently conducive to the communication of health, the restoration of the bodily powers, and other temporal blessings. Prayer is, however, eminently a spiritual act, and though it may conduce to even our physical welfare, its blessings must be looked for in the spiritual rather than in the temporal sphere. It is true, as our correspondent avers, that many a want is in earth-life unsupplied; many a petition spoken and unspoken is not granted. The sense of want-the desire-must exist as a necessary antecedent condition of supply, but it is not a compelling power, and though the want may be real, and the desire sincere, there may be many reasons we know not of, but present to a higher wisdom, why the boon should be withheld. Some reasons, however, why this may be, are sufficiently obvious. In the first place, it is a wise ordination of Providence that the material is subordinate to the spiritual. Our present life must be regarded not as if it were isolated, and had no further issues, or as if it were given us as to the inferior creatures, for itself alone; but chiefly in relation to its influence in preparing us for the higher spheres of action-the true eternal life beyond the visible fleeting shows of time. In this view, a temporal good, such as health, may be withheld, notwithstanding our prayers, that thereby a spiritual good may be outwrought. If, then, the main purpose of human life on earth is the education of character, pain and suffering in some form or other may be part of the necessary discipline to that end. How often do we see the dross purged from the fine gold of character by thus passing through the fires of suffering! Nor are its uses limited to the sufferer. How many a blessed and much-needed lesson of humility, patience, resignation, of pious trust, of kindly feeling and sympathy with others is learned upon the sick bed! How often has it been the means of drawing out the affection and tender care, and helpful solicitude, and many another noble quality in the family and household! How often has the example of suffering borne with meekness and fortitude been as it were a daily sermon, more eloquent than speech! Sweet, too, are the uses of adversity! Lear, as king, in the plentitude of absolute authority, is self-willed, proud, passionate, pitiless, resentful of honest advisers, but drinking in base flatteries with greedy ear; duped by large speeches and hollow protestations, and blind to that true deep affection which cannot heave the heart into the mouth, but can only "love, and be silent." But Lear, stript of power, destitute and friendless, |