exhibited in the World of Spirits, A. C. 3218. But perception is necessary for man to recognise them in the world below. If E. R. from this illustration is enabled to carry out the reasoning, as he has attempted, so as to be enabled to see that honey "corresponds to delight, because it is sweet," I can have no objection to his conclusion; though I do not see how the reason given shows it.

If, however, E. R. does see this correspondence, he does not appear to have very accurately observed it; for he says that the honey— the delight of ratiocination derived from the scientifics of the natural man- -"is food for the spiritual." But E. S. says that when honey signifies SUCH delight, "it is the delight of the exterior natural principle; inasmuch as this latter delight is of such a nature, that it comes from the world through the things of sense, therefore the use of honey was forbidden in the meat offerings, (Lev. ii. 11,) where honey denotes such external delight, which, inasmuch as it contains in it somewhat derived from the love of the world, was prohibited."(A.C. 5620.) Surely E. R. cannot mean that what is "derived from the love of the world" is food for the spiritual man, and yet he says the delight of ratiocination derived from the scientifics of the natural man, which has this love in it, is such food!

E. R. pretends that more than the fact of correspondences, as stated by Swedenborg, " can be comprehended by the natural man.” I have been given to understand that he is not singular in his opinion; but what avails an opinion, so long as there is no fact on which to base it? Has the natural man, as such, ever enjoyed such a condition of intelligence? The best argument which they could adduce would be, to shew to the reason of the natural man, that a certain mental principle produces a certain physical existence as its efficient cause. Until they can do this, the position that the knowledge of such a fact belongs to perception, remains untouched. To perception this knowledge has been vouchsafed;—to the reason of the merely natural man it never has.

I am next asked whether I have " any idea of the amazing labours of Swedenborg." I have certainly no pretension to an adequate idea. natural mind. To such minds the evidences of the Word, as the interpreters of the Word, are not always received as demonstration; and, to meet the wants of those, much may be done, by judicious, well-chosen, discriminating analogies. In this matter great care is necessary, because the reason for the signification of a word which may be gathered from analogy, may be no reason at all for its correspondence: but no such illustration can ever show, to the reason of the natural man, the connection subsisting between a natural effect and its spiritual cause; the knowledge of this fact belongs to a faculty which regeneration is to develope, and which I believe to be perception.

I am aware, however, that they were very great;-that his scientific acquirements were exceedingly extensive, that his reasoning powers were astonishingly profound, and that he was privileged with many years' intercourse with the spiritual world, from which he was enabled to perceive correspondences, and state the fact; but with all these superior advantages I am not aware that he has, in E. R.'s sense of the term, scientifically demonstrated the correspondence of a single subject. And why was this? Clearly because the subject is not admissive of such demonstration! If it had been, Swedenborg, with every requisite qualification, would certainly not have omitted to leave us some examples. The assertion that it was impossible for him to have "demonstrated ALL the Correspondences which he has introduced in his writings," is nothing to the purpose: I ask not for I will be satisfied with a single instance of the scientific and rational demonstration which I understand E. R. to contend for.

ALL

Your correspondent says that I have "evidently misunderstood" the passage from H. H. 110. The reason he assigns is, because I have not cited the clause which immediately succeeds. Let us take the whole passage as E. R. would have it, and notice his remarks: "As to those spiritual things in heaven to which natural things in this world correspond, no one can now understand them but by a particular illumination from above, because the Science of Correspondences is at this day totally lost amongst us.' "'*

;

To show that I have mistaken the meaning of this passage, E. R. has given an analysis of what he thinks to be its true sense. In the first clause of that analysis, he wishes it to be understood that the "spiritual things" treated of are not correspondences. Hence he talks of those things being "the nominative to the verb;" and afterwards speaks of those things as being something different. But if the spiritual things of heaven are not correspondences, what are they? and whence do they come into being? The things of heaven are certainly spiritual, but they are derived from the state of its inhabitants; they all correspond to such states, and the knowledge of such correspondences constitutes the intelligence of angels. They are their correspondences, and consequently E. R.'s argument breaks down at the very outset.

He next says, "What is said of those spiritual things?'—that they cannot now be understood." This is plainly an inaccurate representation of the statement. Swedenborg does not say that they

*The clause italicised was omitted in my former citation.

cannot now be understood; on the contrary, he certainly declares that they may be understood "by a particular illumination from, above," and I cited the passage in my former paper, to prove no other point.

But, "Thirdly," E. R. having concluded that I have quoted the passage to prove that "the spiritual things of heaven cannot be understood," cites the final clause, which he supposes to be Swedenborg's reason for this, namely, "Because the Science of Correspondences is at this time totally lost amongst us;" but this reason is not given by E. S. to show why the spiritual things of heaven cannot now be understood, but to show why "particular illumination from above" is requisite for understanding them. The omission of that clause, then, does not prove any thing in opposition to the general purport of my former communication; on the contrary, it affords an additional evidence of its truth. E. R.'s argument is formed on supposition that I had written an article treating of the means whereby the knowledge of correspondences was to be restored; but, at the same time, that I was ignorant that it was lost; or why else insist upon the introduction of a passage which tells us no more than that fact? The Science of Correspondences is lost. But why was this? Certainly not because the knowledge of science or the activities of reason have been lost. No; but because "at this day it is altogether unknown what spiritual perception is," (A. C. 5228;) the restoration of which, I conceive, to be necessary for the recognition and preservation of that" angelic science" in the world. "Among the ancients the Science of Correspondences was the chief of all sciences: through that science also they imbibed intelligence and wisdom, AND THEY WHO WERE OF THE CHURCH ENJOYED IT BY COMMUNICATION WITH HEAVEN; for the Science of Correspondences is an angelic science." (H. H. 87.) When E. R. says that Swedenborg's meaning in the above passage (H. H. 110) is "that spiritual things cannot be understood for want of the Science of Correspondences," he has conceded to me the whole point. The Science of Correspondences is an "angelic science." To know it, then, evidently implies the possession of a Spiritual Grace; therefore, those spiritual things cannot be understood for want of that spiritual qualification, which I think is Perception.

Although E. R. professes to agree with the remark" that the knowledge of correspondences is not to be so obtained as a philosophical scientific," he seems merely to mean that the knowledge of the fact could not have been so obtained; but, as the fact is re

vealed, he maintains "that our knowledge of its wonderful nature may be very greatly extended by observation and research." If by "observation and research," is meant scientific observation and research into the things of nature, (and if this is not meant, the remark has no point,) my reply is, that such a course will not elevate the mind into a knowledge of things spiritual. Man may be thoroughly acquainted with the economy of nature, and yet he may not know a single spiritual truth.

The notion that our knowledge of an "angelic science" may be very greatly extended, by an enlarged acquaintance with the scientifics of nature, is a doctrine which, as a believer in the spiritual philosophy of Swedenborg, I cannot concede. "To explore the mysteries of faith by scientifics, is as impossible as for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, or as for a rib bone to enter into and direct the most pure fibrils which compose the breast and heart: so gross, and much more gross, is the sensual and scientific [principle] in respect to the spiritual and celestial. He who desires to investigate only the hidden things of nature, which are innumerable, with difficulty discovers a single one, and in the course of his investigation is liable to fall into many errors, as experience teacheth; and how much more likely is this to be the case in investigating the hidden things of spiritual and celestial life, where myriads of mysteries exist for one that is to be found in invisible nature!" (A. C. 233.)

I am referred to D. L. 374, where the correspondence of the will and the understanding with the head and lungs, is treated of; and where it is said "the assertion is plainly made by E. S., that correspondences may be reasoned upon by ANY ONE who admits the necessary premises." I, however, can find no such sentiment. It is a statement of E. R.'s, and not an assertion of Swedenborg's. I, nevertheless, concede to him that any one may reason upon correspondences WHO ADMITS THE NECESSARY PREMISES. But what are those necessary premises? I have no doubt that they consist of instruction concerning correspondences from the Word, and faith therein. Those who are so instructed, and who have faith from thence, have the necessary premises: and it is agreeable to Divine order, from such instruction to enter into scientifics. "But it is contrary to Divine order for man to enter into those things which are of heaven and the Church from his sensual principle, (thus from the scientifics, which are from the world;) for the world cannot enter into heaven, but heaven into the world, as is the case when the Lord by (or through) heaven flows in with man, illustrates Him, teaches Him, and leads Him by the Word." (A. C. 10,236.)

If in this paper I have been led to trespass a little on your space, my apology is the importance of the subject, and the desirableness that no mistake concerning it should remain uncorrected.

Preston, November 8th, 1844.

I am, yours, &c.

R**

*

"UNITARIANS."

To the Editor of the INTELLECTUAL REPOSITORY.

IN page 12 you have permitted the printer to make me say,— "Under such circumstances, a just view of our immutable, fundamental civil relation, forbids us to call the Unitarians Christians."

Instead of this, I have every reason to believe that I wrote just the contrary, as follows:

"Under such circumstances, a just view of our immutable, fundamental civil relation forbids us TO REFUSE to call the Unitarians Christians."

By the omission of the words "to refuse," all that follows in connection with the mutilated sentence, is reduced to nonsense. I need not remark, that a contributor expects that he shall not be made to utter just the contrary to what he has written.

In the last paragraph of the above article (page 15) "our readers” is printed for "your readers."

Z.

[Of course we readily give insertion to our correspondent's correction of an unfortunate mistake of the Printers, in our correspondent's article in the last No. of the Intellectual Repository. It is but justice to the Printers, however, to say, that they had undertaken the printing of the Magazine for the present year at a short notice; and that, with a view to the completion of the January No. in due time, (having themselves a great press of business,) they were obliged to entrust the printing of the greater portion to another Printer, with whom (and in consequence of the unavoidable hurry) the mistake arose.]

THE UNITARIAN SCHEME AND NEW CHURCH
THEOLOGY OPPOSED TO EACH OTHER.

"Say, then, in intelligible language, that Jesus was a man, but that God was with him, and acted by him, and we shall be agreed in words as well as in reality.”— Priestley's "Letters to the Members of the New Church," p. 31.

“A spurious, and at the same time an adulterous faith, is theirs, who regard the Lord not as God but as a man only. This is evidently the case with the two wicked heresies of Arius and Socinus.”—E. Swedenborg. T. C. R. 380.

To the Editor of the INTELLECTUAL REPOSITORY.

"THERE appears to be but little difference between the views of the New Church and Unitarianism," said a clergyman to me the other