real working and the efficacy of such ideal views and tendencies. I am happy in feeling persuaded that the essayist, in honestly pursuing his way, is sure to emancipate his mind from the fetters of empyrical science; but his still being bound by these fetters is apparent not only by the inadmissible vagueness of his reference to something ideal, which has neither form nor distinct shape, nor applicability, but may be arbitrarily interpreted, and in the most contradictory way be asserted to be the very principle in whatever extravagant system or spurious doctrine; but, if selfevident spiritual truth with its divine everlasting glory had found that embodiment in the essayist's mind, for which it ought to be the inviolable receptacle, he never could have spoken of the Gospel as being "a doubtful message in humanly transmitted dogmas," (p. 63.) or of "the possible fallibility of the Revelator," confounding spiritual messages with the Divine Word. How could he make" the continuance of Christian religion due alone to the acknowledged perfection of its ethical teachings,” (p. 47.) or "deride verbal inspiration as absurd," (p. 46.) though he knows that a spiritual ideal never could substantiate itself in external nature without an external letter as its basis. His prediction "of a rapid ultimate extinction of Christianity," (p. 45.) shews that his natural intelligence still is far from conceiving the essentials of spiritual truth. He declares " a revelation of God's will to man to be an impossibility, because it would be incomprehensible ;" (p. 60.) and he neither perceives that, by conveying such incomprehensible truth through a humanly speaking external letter, at which he scoffs, spiritual truth is, through increasing vitality, providentially made attainable and accessible, nor that the main practical and essential point, the Will of God, in the Gospel is made so easily discernible even in its letter, that he himself who rejects that letter, is aware of its showing that Divine Will! Without entering into further discussions about the real scope and gist of the essayist's vague views, and their conflict with spiritual truth, I only mention the ambiguity of his pronouncing "our ideal of happiness to be the basis of all morality," which ambiguity is not to be got rid of, unless the different kinds and notions of happiness are compared, distinguished and elucidated. I believe satisfactorily to have justified my critique of this essay, and my opinion about its being an unsatisfactory answer to the proposed questions. Its affirming the immortality of man has some value for naturalistic spheres, but the consequences of such restored belief are too feebly traced to be of real value for Spiritualists. Its merit consists in not giving way to such deplorable errors as those which are rewarded with a first prize. We are inclined to autumate that it is the deficiency as to spiritual principles, and

the rejection of their Divine source, or the negative sceptical character in the essay, which has met a remunerating appreciation. Such award is a sign of the still blindly muddling Times, the spirit of which ought to be defeated and repelled by Spiritualism.

DIRCKINCK HOLMFELD.

"THE COMING MILLENNIUM."*

DEMOCRITUS RISU PULMONEM AGITARE SOLEBAT was our involuntary mental ejaculation, on reading the title of the above pamphlet. And no wonder! Not only is the word Millennium used to denote the thousand years mentioned in "Revelation," attributed to the spiritually-minded son of Zebedee, when released from Domitian's cauldron of boiling oil, and banished to the Grecian Archipelago, but it is associated rather unpleasantly with all kinds of gratuitous, if not insane, doctrines of would-be Millenarians themselves. It is simply monstrous to suppose, for an instant, that the coming reign of Christ, on the planet earth, has aught to do with such an incongruous heap of disordered cerebral action, false prophecies, subjective notions, illusions, delusions— in a word, dreams. In common justice to Mr. Frank Starr, however who kindly favoured us with a copy of the work in question, several months since we affirm, with much pleasure, that, notwithstanding our unqualified dissent from some of the eccentric author's views and conclusions, especially his alleged interview with the "Lord God Almighty," on the fifth morning of his confinement in a lunatic asylum (p. 39), the mysterious figure of a Jew, singularly habited in a turbaned cap, closely folded garment, peculiar girdle fastened round the waist, with explanatory spirit-voice, &c.-independently of all these sad blemishes, we repeat, that truth and justice demand from each lover of Humanity, as well as Spiritualism, a fair and impartial examination of many statements with which they cannot but cordially sympathise. For example, what happened to Mr. Starrwho is clearly a developed medium, or instrument of truthful and lying spirits" (as Scripture says)—may happen, any moment, in certain districts of England, now abounding in rabid antiSpiritualists, ready to believe in the actual, not alleged unsoundness of mind, of every luckless wight in the whole neighbourhood, that was ever known to credit the fact of Angel

*The Coming Millennium; a Special Revelation to Frank Starr, author of Twenty Years of a Traveller's Life, &c. SMART & ALLEN, Paternoster Row, E. C.

Communion, or, to use their own favourite phraseology, the "religion of ghosts!" Such extraordinary illusions are of special psychological interest to the enlightened readers of the Spiritual Magazine, since, we opine, they are often associated with soundness of brain, and therefore quite compatible with perfect sanity, mentally and morally. Many world-renowned men have been subject to the same genus of false impressions as we think befel Mr. Starr, when temporarily suffering from exhanstion of nervous power, without obvious watching, fasting, privation, excitement, or even religious enthusiasm. Transference of profound thought to some organ of sense is, in these cases, involuntary, and beauteous or hideous spectres frequently result. Silvio Pellico is one of many remarkable men that might swell the list of those sons of genius, which already includes the names of Cromwell, Goethe, Cellini, Pascal, Scott, Byron, Shelley, and a host of others, and afford prototypes of those pictures on the retina, which dazzle and delude not a few pseudo Spiritualists, or Millenarians, A.D. 1876. At the same time every medical psychologist is fully aware that innumerable specimens of (so-called) natural magic, demonology, witchcraft, Spiritualism, or those spectral illusions due to a MORBID group of nervous symptoms, known to physicians as mimosis inquieta, are really illusions of eye and ear, and the fact is often demonstrated by successful medical treatment, which eventually reveals their true nature to sufferers themselves. Of course, persistent human imagination has the most overwhelming influence upon emotions and passions, or even the faculties of sensation, perception, comparison, reasoning, and other intellectual operations, affecting body, mind, and spirit, collectively, when morbid sensibibility becomes intensified, the propensities and sentiments peculiar to such organic individuality, being inadequately controlled by that soundness of philosophic judgment, which belongs to the exercise of scientific logic and mathematics. We had marked several important passages of Mr. Starr's Coming Millennium for special quotation on this occasion, but as space presses, we content ourselves with one further remark only, in conclusion, and it is this, viz.: to the youngest beginner, as well as to the experienced student in psychology or Spiritualism, the "Special Revelation" to which we have drawn the observer's attention is, with all its defects, both noteworthy and fascinating. W. HITCHMAN.

OCCASIONAL LEAVES FROM MY NOTE BOOK.

THERE is so little public lecturing done in the hot weather of summer, that during the past two months I have had hardly anything to chronicle in these "Notes." At the end of June I spent a few days with my friend, Mr. Young of Swindon, with a view to get a little relaxation from the arduous labours in which I am generally engaged. On the Sunday that I was there (June 25th) I preached for him in the evening on the subject of "Religion essential to Humanity," the outline of which sermon appeared in our July issue. The congregation was good, and a very long report of the sermon appeared in the Swindon Express. During July I have no public work to

chronicle.

On Monday and Tuesday, August 28 and 29, I gave two lectures on Spiritualism, at Leigh, in Lancashire, my subjects being the "Claims of Spiritualism upon Public Attention," and "Objections to Spritualism Stated and Examined." These lectures were brought about in consequence of a discussion which had been held in the town between Mr. Mahoney of Birmingham, and Mr. Lees the "ex-medium." Mr. Lees in fact, had been making himself extremely active in Leigh for some time before I went. He had been giving lectures and sham séances, and on the whole seemingly driving a rather flourishing trade, although as his séances had been mostly failures, a good deal of dissatisfaction was felt by those who at first had taken him warmly by the hand and energetically supported his claims. When I got in the railway at the Victoria Station, Manchester, on the Monday evening, to make my way to Leigh, whom should I see standing on the platform close to the train, but this same celebrated "ex-medium." "Aha!" thought I, "so you are going down with a view to offer opposition at the close of my lecture I suppose. Well, we shall see.' Sure enough my anticipations were realised, for when I emerged from the carriage at Leigh, there was also the redoubtable Mr. Lees. Some friends met me at the station, took me to the house of one of them where I had some tea, after which I made my way to the Hall. On mounting the platform I saw the "ex-medium," note book in hand, preparing for an attack as soon as the opportunity should offer. The chair was taken by Samuel Henshall, Esq., of Cheetwood, a gentleman connected with the New Church Society in Peter Street, Manchester.

Before the commencement of the lecture a paper was handed to me containing a preposterous challenge from Lees, setting forth that "Mr. Mahoney having recently failed in a three

T.S.-II.

2 F

66

nights' debate to prove that Spiritualism is what it is represented by its advocates," I was challenged to discuss the question in the same place where it had suffered defeat, signed of course "Robt. Jas. Lees." Taking no notice of this for the time being I delivered my lecture, which was admirably received by a moderately good, and very intelligent audience. There had been no announcement made that anything like discussion would be allowed, but as soon as the applause had subsided, after I had sat down, up jumped Mr. Lees begging to be allowed to put a question. As I agreed to this, the "ex-medium," with a good deal of swagger said, "Dr. Sexton denies unconscious thinking. I should like to know whether a man doesn't think unconsciously when he dreams, and whether there is not unconscious thinking in the case of the medium in a state of trance?" I replied, “ It is quite clear that Mr. Lees has not been thinking, either consciously or unconsciously about the questions that he has put, or he would not have put them. To say that a man is unconscious when he dreams is to say that he is not conscious of his dream; and how, in that case, could he know anything about it? As to the persons in a trance, Mr. Lees knows perfectly well that according to the Spiritualist's theory, they do not think either consciously or unconsciously, their own minds being in a state of abeyance for the time being, and that the thinking that is done through them is effected by another spiritual agent." Mr. Lees then proceeded to announce that he should give a lecture in reply to me during the following week. I remarked that it was hardly gentlemanly for Mr. Lees to come to my lectures and advertise his own. As he had done so, however, I might just refer to the ridiculous challenge which I bad received from him— a challenge which commenced with a grand flourish of trumpets about the challenger having defeated Mr. Mahoney. "Now," said I, "I am not quite sure that Mr. Mahoney was defeated. Ín any case, if he was, I don't think it becomes Mr. Lees to say so; he should leave that to be judged of by the people who heard the debate." I told the audience that I was perfectly ready to meet any representative man, to discuss the truth of my opinions on this or other subjects; but that before I would agree to debate with Mr. Lees, I would put to him a straightforward question, the answer to which I thought would show them that a discussion with him was unnecessary or undesirable. Addressing Mr. Lees, I said, "I find you call yourself an 'ex-medium.' ex-medium.' Please tell me in a straightforward way, were you ever a medium or not? Because if you were, Spiritualism is true, and there is no need for us to discuss it; and if you were not, then when you pretended to be one you were an impostor, and therefore, certainly not a man to enter into a discussion with." He got