ments of the occasion, and contributing in no small degree to the pleasure of all by singing and playing over and over again. At the special request of the members present, Dr. Tafel gave a short address in his usual genial, kindly manner; and all left the room feeling that in meeting to give a warm welcome to the minister of the Camden Road Society, they had all participated in spending as pleasant an evening as they could well remember.-On Sunday the 20th of April, the flag flying from the tower of the Church of St. John clearly indicated that the Snodland Society intended to show every mark of honour and respect to their esteemed guest. The church itself was again very prettily decorated; and in the morning a special floral service was held, opening by the surpliced choristers leading the way up the aisle of the church singing, "Brightly gleams our banner; each of the choristers, as well as some hundred and twenty children, presented at the communion table, in regular order, a bouquet of spring wild-flowers, carefully gathered the previous day from the fields and woods in the neighbourhood. The service, as usual in this church, was choral morning and evening. The sermons on both occasions were preached by the Rev. Dr. Tafel,-that in the morning being specially addressed to the children present, and that in the evening on the subject of regeneration. The church was crowded at both services.

SOUTHPORT.-The anniversary services of this church were held on Easter Day. The pastor, the Rev. J. Ashby, preached on the occasion. The discourse in the morning was upon the "Vision of the Holy Waters, seen by the Prophet Ezekiel." The evening subject was upon the "Book of Life." In his address, the preacher pointed out that the book alluded to in the text was of the same nature as the world in which the judgment would take place, viz. spiritual. Each man had his own book, in which was registered an account of his whole life. And the memory constituted this book; not, however, the memory of the external man, but that of the internal man. Very few persons were acquainted with the fact that they possessed an interior memory; such was nevertheless the case. And in that memory were recorded all a person's motives or ends which were to him in obscurity, all that he had thought, also all that he had spoken and done in accordance with the governing principles of his life-even to the most minute point, from his earliest infancy to extreme old age. This interior memory constituted the book of a man's life, out of which he will be judged. In the afternoon the service of song entitled "Jonah" was effectively rendered by the choir, with the assistance of a few friends. Mr. J. Johnson, of Wigan, gave the connective readings. The congregations were good, and the collections of the day amounted to £39, Is. 7d.

WESTON-SUPER-MARE.-On the 18th April Dr. Wilde gave a lecture on the doctrine of the Trinity, which was made clear to the apprehension of all present, and was well received. On the 25th followed a lecture on the atonement. Naturally, the exposition of this doctrine presented a view so entirely new to many that they took home with them food for much serious reflection. At the close of the lecture about thirty tracts, mostly with a reference to the atonement, were sold, and a copy of Noble's Appeal was lent.

66

YORK. The first annual tea and conversazione in connection with the York New Church Society was given on Tuesday evening, the 22nd inst., in the Temperance Hall, St. Saviourgate, York, the Society's meeting-room. About ninety sat down to tea, a number which was largely increased at the conversazione. Mr. Jubb, the leader of the Society, then took the chair, and was supported on the platform by the Rev. R. Storry, of Heywood, and the Rev. E. Jones, of Embsay. Miss Booth ably presided at the pianoforte. The programme opened with Barnby's quartette, "Sweet and Low," rendered by Mrs. J. Jubb, Mr. Ashwell, Mr. W. H. Bates, and Mr. Holmes. This was followed by Sullivan's "Golden Days,' sung by Miss Storry; pianoforte duet, "La Fille du Régiment," by the Misses Booth and Bridges; reading, Longfellow's Psalm of Life," by Mr. W. C. Jubb; and song, The Little Mountain Lad," by Miss Bridges. During the interval an able address was delivered by the Rev. R. Storry. The second part opened with a song by Mr. Ayres, "A begging we will go.' This was followed by an able rendering of Barker's "The White Squall," by Mr. R. C. Jubb, who received an encore. Mr. Chris. R. B. Storry then gave as a reading Tom Hood's "Ode to my Son." Mrs. J. Jubb followed with Ehren on the Rhine," for which she was encored. Young's glee, "Blow, ye balmy breezes, blow," concluded the second part. The Rev. E. Jones delivered an address during the interval. Part the third opened with Balfe's duet, "The sailor sighs as sinks his native shore," ably rendered by Miss Storry and Mr. R. C. Jubb. Sullivan's "The Chorister" was then given by Miss M. E. Jubb, who was encored. Mr. J. C. Ogden followed with a recitation. At this stage of the proceedings a vote of thanks to the performers, secretaries, and others who had contributed to the success of the meeting, was proposed by the chairman, seconded by Mr. Ogden, and carried unanimously. Mr. C. R. B. Storry replied. A similar compliment was paid to the Revs. R. Storry and E. Jones, for their presence and co-operation. The Rev. R. Storry replied, and proposed a vote of thanks to the chairman, which, seconded by

the Rev. E. Jones, was heartily carried, and the Chairman replied. A highly successful entertainment, likely to have good results, was brought to a close by Pinsuti's charming glee, "Good-night, goodnight, beloved.".

SUNDAY-SCHOOL LESSONS.

CAIN AND ABEL.

May 11, Morning.—Gen. iv. 1-16. In the previous chapter we have an account of the origin of evil, and in the history of Cain and Abel we have details of its development. Cain, the first-born of Adam and Eve, means possession, and corresponds to faith or truth. His younger brother Abel means breath, and corresponds to love or charity. In the history we read that Cain was a tiller of the ground, but Abel was a keeper of sheep. We are then told of both making an offering unto the Lord, and that while Abel's, of lambs and kids representing innocence, was accepted, Cain's, of fruits and grain representing truths, was not. There is no reason assigned, but we learn in verse 7, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ?” So that we may conclude that, notwithstanding the outward agreement of Cain's act with his brother's, there was an internal difference between them. Note that it was "God who looketh on the heart,' had not respect unto Cain and to his offering; also that Cain was so angry that he was induced to commit the greatest conceivable crime the murder of his brother; and finally, that he denied it. The Lord spoke unto Cain. When we have done wrong the voice of conscience speaks to us, and tries to reason with us, and to lead us to better paths. These brothers represent two classes of people, but they also represent two principles which should be in every person. They are brothers, and there should be a close and loving connection between them. When there is, the offering of both will

be accepted. But the "possession," upon which so many are apt to pride themselves, truth which does not lead to, but is antagonistic to good, is sure to kill Abel, "love or charity," when they do not unite as brothers should do. Faith then separated from charity is cursed, and to it alone even the earth declines to yield her strength. And yet faith in the truth is in itself good; he who destroys it is departing still further from the straight way. The Lord, therefore, is said to have "set a mark on Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." At the end we read that "Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod," of exile or banishment. All go out from the Lord's presence by sin, and can return only by repentance and obedience. We learn from this that faith is the elder, and love the younger brother; that they should be united as brothers; but that if we are proud of our faith alone and do not put it into action, we slay our brother, and thereby give up our nearness to God, and become a wanderer or exile from our Heavenly Father's home and love. Faith is still to be preserved although thus perverted, because its destruction would reduce us to a lower condition still.

THE POOL OF BETHESDA.

May 11, Afternoon.—John v. 1-16. From this we learn that the Word of God is ever near to man as a pool of heavenly water, intended to purify from natural evil and to restore all to the health and strength of spiritual life. The Divine Word is here called the House of Mercy or Bethesda, and the healing influences it is intended to exert do not extend merely to the rectifying of disorders, but to the reception of the goodness and mercy of the Lord. All who are made sensible of their spiritual infirmities lie in the porches of this house; they apply to the sacred Scriptures for instruction in its holy truth; but some, from want of fixity of purpose, suffer the evils of selfish and worldly loves to step down first, so as to prevent the reception of the good effect they are secking from the spiritual medicine of the Lord's truth. The Divine presence and help give them the needful spiritual power; but this is followed by the Divine caution, "Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." That is, lead a life according to the truths of the Word, and guard against a relapse into evil as a state of profanation.

MARRIAGE.

On 22nd April, at Howard Street Congregational Chapel Sheffield, by the Rev. Joseph Deans, brother of the bride, HENRY, eldest son of Mr. WILLIAM MOORHOUSE, of Wakefield, to EMILY, youngest daughter of Mr. JOHN DEANS, of Sheffield.

DEATH.

On 16th April, at Aycliffe, near Darlington, Mr. BARTHOLOMEW NOBLE, aged 72 years.

Printed by MORRISON AND GIBB, 11 Queen Street, Edinburgh. Published by JAMES SPEIRS, 36 Bloomsbury Street, London.

REVIEW.

By Rev.

The Science of Correspondences Elucidated. EDWARD MADELEY. Edited by his Son, and Revised by B. F. Barrett. New and enlarged edition. James Speirs, 36 Bloomsbury Street, London. MADELEY on the Science of Correspondence is the only book wholly dedicated to that subject, and professing complete exposition, which the New Church has produced; and in this issue of the work we have an enlarged edition of the original, published nearly forty years ago, but now for some time out of print. The book as here presented constitutes a large volume of 391 pp. 8vo, is clearly printed on thick paper, is substantially and attractively got up, and is, withal, extremely cheap. To those who know the work already this new edition will be welcome for its specialities; and those who make its acquaintance for the first time cannot fail to appreciate the benefit of a separate treatment of its important subject, especially as clothed in such excellent external form as that in which we have it here.

Turning to the contents of the book, there is a sense in which it seems almost out of place to criticise them. The subject is so well known in its general bearings, these bearings are so fully taken here, and their presentation aforetime so widely appreciated, that there seems nothing to say, from this general and popular point of view, except to commend the volume to every reader of New Church literature, and to express the wish that each would endeavour to master its contents. It is the kind of book which the general reader needs, and which he is certain to appreciate. Simply and clearly written, it deals amply in details, and is devout in tone; it is, in a word, a good, full, and excellent popular exposition of the subject, and as such nothing better need be desired. The appendix, moreover, greatly enhances its value, especially in the section dealing with Egyptian Hieroglyphics, and in that by the Editor on "The Documentary Theory." These, together with the section on "Correspondences, Representatives, and Significatives" (we should rather say, with the fact of such a section having been written, and only wish we could add, with the substance also of what is written), serve to give just that touch to complete the general exposition which the more thoughtful reader will feel the want of in the book itself, and which the ordinary reader will hardly miss until these sections. reveal it to him.

Before attempting serious criticism, we transcribe an interesting and instructive passage, given in the appendix, from a reply by M. Portal, Member of the Asiatic Society of Paris, to the paper in the British Magazine of December 1841, maintaining that the facts announced by Swedenborg in relation to Hieroglyphics are in opposition to the discoveries of science. After giving lengthy quotations from Swedenborg, M. Portal proceeds :

Swedenborg, then, establishes a complete conformity between hieroglyphics as they existed in their origin and the correspondences of the Bible. Let us examine what hieroglyphics at their origin were, and what they became at a later period. Hieroglyphics were, at first, a series of pure symbols. That is the opinion of Swedenborg, you will say. But it is equally the opinion of Champollion and of the learned Lepsius. Champollion says, “According to all appearance, the Egyptians at first made use of figurative and symbolic characters." "I am of opinion," says Lepsius, "that the Egyptians had originally a system of writing entirely ideographic. If we cannot arrive at a time when phonetic signs were not yet introduced among the Egyptians, we at least find, at a later period, entire formulæ and phrases still in use composed solely of symbolic characters." Even at the time when the Egyptian method of writing became, in part, syllabic or phonetic, the symbolic system did not cease to prevail. So, says M. Lepsius, "We find, at first, a multitude of words, which, having formerly been expressed by ideo

graphic signs alone, and transcribed at a later period into phonetic letters, have nevertheless preserved for the first phonetic letter the ideographic sign itself." 'We have already," he elsewhere says,

spoken repeatedly of this primitive and continual tendency not to forego the use of symbolic signs. In effect, this symbolic system of writing, propagated from one generation to another from so many ages back, had too much identified itself with the religion, the mythic traditions, and the customs of the Egyptians, ever to be capable of being displaced by the uniform system, destitute of attractions either for the eye or the fancy, of a purely phonetic method of writing." In effect, the symbolic system of writing was so inherent in the Egyptian religion and the royal power that flowed from it, that, according to the remark of Champollion, in inscriptions, the abstract ideas which belonged to the religious and royal departments were specially represented by symbolic characters; as is the case on the Rosetta stone with the ideas, God, immortality, divine life, power, good, benefit, law or decree, superior region, inferior region, panegyric, temple, etc.

Finally, the phonetic system of writing itself still preserved the symbolic character. The letters pronounced by the mouth were still, to the eye and understanding, true symbols... Thus the phonetic system of writing was at its origin symbolic, and always preserved this character. Symbolism was continually materializing itself, as Swedenborg announces and science evinces; but it is not the less true that the phonetic words consecrated by religion, and which thence were no longer liable to variation, preserved their primitive character by being always written with symbolic signs. The names of the gods prove this in the most irrefragable manner.

From the preceding facts we conclude that Swedenborg was justified in affirming that the hieroglyphics were symbols. But did our author really mean to say that all the hieroglyphics, without exception, were symbolic? On this subject he has said nothing, and the rules of induction alone may serve as our guides in this inquiry. Swedenborg formally lays it down that the Bible from one end to the other is symbolic-not only in every phrase, but in every word, and in every letter, even to the least iota. Nevertheless, on turning to his explications, whether of Genesis, of Exodus, or of the Apocalypse, we perceive, from the first verses, that Swedenborg ranges the words under three perfectly distinct categories-1st, Symbolic; 2nd, Figurative; and 3rd, The proper and natural sense, as adverbs, prepositions, etc. The Egyptian system of writing, according to the discoveries of Champollion, literally traces its outlines on this system of symbolic, figurative, and phonetic words.-British Magazine, vol. xxi. p. 520.

M. Portal then produces, says Mr. Madeley, numerous perfect coincidences between the signification which Swedenborg gives to various terms and things and the signification supposed by modern writers to have been anciently assigned by the Egyptians to the same terms and things. From among others I cite the following

Stones signify natural truths, and The monuments of Egypt call preprecious stones the truths of intelligence, cious stones, hard stones of truth. or spiritual truths. A.R. 90.

We have spoken and wish to speak highly of this book as a popular exposition of Correspondence, but to speak critically, it is an exposition of Correspondence rather than (as it professes) of the science of it; and our criticism may be summed up in the complaint of the absence of scientific accuracy. We are by no means confounding this with a scientific method of treatment, which was not to be expected in a merely popular work; but in a volume dedicated to the Science of Correspondence we have a

right to look for a definite exposition of the central thought itself, involving some consideration and removal of its difficulties, as distinct from mere illustration of the thought, however full. It is such accurate and clearsighted exhibition of the germinal thought of the treatise for which we look in vain. Nor does the Editor's article, "Correspondences, Representatives, and Significatives," cover the neglected ground; and if it did, the vice of inaccuracy clings also to that so closely as to have made. it valueless. We will first indicate what we mean in regard to the Editor's work, and then point out the neglected lines of the book as a whole. We quite appreciate the labour which the production of the book. in its present form must have cost the Editor; we sympathize with him in his wish and endeavour to make his father's work as complete as possible, according to his light; but it is the absence of the necessary light which it has become our duty to note. Our delight would have been to find it otherwise; our regret is that it is not otherwise; and all that we say, though said with the certain desire to expose the erroneous, we say with the utmost kindly feeling, and because we ought. But the work has been "revised" by Mr. Barrett; we can hardly think that Mr. Barrett has seen this article on Correspondence," written by the Editor.

In appendix, section 21, p. 378, the Editor says:

It (Correspondence) is used in New Church phraseology to imply the relationship which exists between two things united as cause and effect when a discrete degree subsists between them ;-we say, when a discrete degree subsists between them, because it is necessary to guard against supposing that correspondence exists wherever there is a relation of cause and effect between any two material subjects, or subjects on the same plane of existence. The material cause is, in all such instances, a merely secondary one, acting from another hidden within itself, or operating through it.

Why

The phraseology here, and throughout the Editor's writing (for we shall meet with the symptoms again), has that characteristic of inefficiency and of forcible feebleness so marked in those who have little power of abstract thought, and so patent to the literary instinct. should correspondence be the relationship, when a relation will amply suffice? Why should it be a relationship which exists, when it cannot possibly be a relation without existing? Why must it be between two things (or between things at all for that matter?) when it might just as easily be between two dozen? Why should such relation subsist? What is the meaning of such a word in this connection? especially when the relation has been expressed already by the very different idea of existence? Why should the distinguished and specially selected "two things" be "united" as cause and effect, when they cannot be cause and effect without being united? Why must the "two material things" be "subjects," when there is nothing for them to be subject to, and when the sense plainly requires them to be objects, though of somewhat pitiful distinction? When did "the material cause" (whatever that may be) begin to "operate through" the cause "hidden within itself”—the material through the spiritual?

These are superficial criticisms only because they are criticisms of diction rather than of thought; but to any clear-seeing man they speak plain symptoms of disaster for all subjects of an abstract kind upon which the editor may undertake to write. Let us see, then, whether the thought may hope to fare better than the diction.

All that is written after the hyphen in the first sentence, and something also that is written before it, shows, as plainly as if it had been confessed, that the writer has not mastered his subject. Did the Editor ever encounter a cause and effect between which there was not a discrete degree? Is there ever "a relation of cause and effect

between any two material objects?" or do "subjects on the same plane of existence ever stand to each other in that relation? Is not the only truth in Materialism an essential New Church doctrine, viz. that in nature the successional relation between phenomena is that of sequence? How often do we say that the spiritual world is the world of causes, and the natural the world of effects! Why then do we not hold with strictness to our own conclusion, that among effects there can be no successional relation but that of sequence? But the Editor is not alone in this particular looseness of thought. Nor does it help him to call the material effect a "secondary" one, acting (for such, after all, is his meaning) from another "hidden" within itself: the material effect is not, and cannot be, a cause at all; and it is strictly the "hidden" cause that is the "secondary one,”—the First being God. We take the liberty, therefore, of eliminating all that follows the "two things united as cause and effect;" and by thus pricking the thought and diction of the passage find it reduce itself naturally to this dimen-sion, Correspondence is the relation between cause and effect."

Again, the Editor says, "Representation, while it recognises and springs from Correspondence, belongs, not to the nature of things, but to their actions, or the things which spring from them." "Representation is the action of things which are correspondences in themselves."

It is a little curious to define "actions" as "the things which spring from" other things, seeing that effects which are not actions come under the same category; yet that this is the Editor's meaning, and that the clause, "the things which spring from them," is definitive, and not the alternative, of the "actions" previously mentioned, is plain enough from the definition of Representation in the second sentence as that of " "action alone. We must leave the reader now, however, to look after these minor matters for himself, while we attend to the serious instruction the Editor would impart to us.

Our first business is with the undertoned self-contradiction of that first sentence, to the clauses of which we need only add a word or two if we would render the undertone audible. We are there told that Representation "springs from Correspondence;" and though not following logically, yet it is true, and the Editor means that, of course, there is no Correspondence without Representation. But in the second half of the sentence we read that Representation "belongs" "to the action of things" (belongs? Oh, Mr. Editor, what a word for a philosopher to use!). Now since Representation "belongs to the action of things," and there are correspondences which have no action, it follows that the contradiction held in solution is precipitated, and that there are Correspondences without Representation,-the position inferentially denied in the statement of the relation of the two. The Editor, then, may have all the land before him where to choose; only he cannot have both east and west at once: either there are Correspondences without Representation, or there are not; if he says there are, that Correspondences do not always effect Representation (which he would lead us to think, by confining his definition of Representation to action), he is directly at war with fact; if he says there are not,that Correspondences always do effect Representation (which he would lead us to think, by saying that Representation "springs from" Correspondence), though he says what is true in itself, he is still not only at war with fact through his own definition,-in which Representation and action being one, Correspondences must always effect action, when yet they don't, and so cannot effect