case the corruptibility or incorruptibility of a fluid is no guide to its correspondential value. S. T. now rejoins that this is "no argument at all," because I "must know that in all circumstances nature's chemistry, working out God's laws, yet requires man's care-taking." I must now add that this is not true as a general rule; but that in so far as it is true, and applies to the point in dispute, it confirms my argument.

Fourthly, S. T. thinks I have "mistaken the purport of his argument with respect to the correspondence of fermentation." Going back to his first article, let us see his own description of that purport, namely, to show that

"The whole correspondence of the process of fermentation, the action of the fungoid leaven, the evolved heat, the disengagement of the deadly carbonic acid gas, the separation of the lees, is most interesting, and ought not only to establish the propriety of using fermented wine in the Lord's Supper, but to establish in the minds of New Churchmen the whole question of alcoholic use and abuse."

Point by point I examined this argument, and showed its fallaciousness as bearing on the purport just described. What other purport it can have had than the one assigned to it in the above quotation from S. T.'s article, I am unable to imagine.

Fifthly, S. T. now says that the change occurring in fermentation "is not, as H. puts it, change 'tending only to rank degeneration and decay,' but change tending to purify by separating impurities.” The case, as I put it, was thus: "Having spoiled the grape-juice," I said, "wasted great part of the nourishment it contained, defiled the atmosphere, and run its own ignominious life-course, the fungus dies, and its dirty relics at last leave the liquid clear." That "impurities were separated," I thus fully admitted; but then these impurities consisted of the fungus itself, and of the results of its action on the pure juice. The fungus brings or makes all the dirt; and then credit is claimed for it by S. T., because in the end the filth thus added by it gets cleared away.

Sixthly, Our kind friend S. T. remarks that "to say that carbonic acid gas is not deadly is-I would not use the word if another would do-disingenuous." This shows what liberty a writer may take, if he only "regrets the employment of a mode of argument which transgresses good taste, if not charity." He may steal a horse, whilst another may not look over the hedge. My letter was wholly free from ill-natured remark about S. T. In return, he cries out against "opprobrious epithets," accuses me of disingenuousness (which means lying), and takes his stand upon "good taste, if not charity."

Fortunately for me, I never said that carbonic acid gas was not deadly; so that S. T. might after all have made another word "do" had he been so disposed. What I said was, that this element "is not deadly at all, as it exists in the grape, before rendered gaseous by the decomposing work of the torula." "Not even when set free as gas," I added, "is it deadly, but it refreshes, so long as we swallow without breathing it." Deadly when breathed? yes, of course; deadly otherwise? not at all. The real point of the denial (which S. T. overlooks)

was as to the elements of carbonic acid gas as existing in grape-juice before fermentation. At that stage there is no deadly gas, no deadly thing of any kind—nothing that requires to be "set free " on account of its deadliness-no excuse, therefore, for invoking the aid of the fungus for its liberation.

And now, finally, a word or two on T. S.'s complaints of ill-usage. He cries out against the "tyranny of teetotalism," "the uncompromising condemnation under opprobrious epithets not only of everything in the shape of alcoholic stimulants, and of those who think well to use them, but the employment of a mode of argument which transgresses good taste, if not charity." He has not so ticketed these genial comments as to enable one to be quite sure for whom he means them; but I may claim as my own that "sarcastic tone" which he says I have "chosen to impart into" the discussion, "calculated neither to advance fair argument nor to promote kindly feeling." Looking carefully over my letter in the February Repository, what I do find in it is perfectly merciless dissection of S. T.'s argument, but nothing at all said unkindly of S. T. himself. The only personal remark I made was that his reasoning faculties appeared to have been indulging in complete repose-a thing which might have been said without offence by one angel to another. I am sorry S. T. thinks that sarcasm has no lawful use against bad arguments. Swedenborg did not think SO. His writings are sometimes sharply sarcastic. I have even read of One who was Love itself and Wisdom itself, and who yet employed at times very withering sarcasm.

But how is it that the Temperance argument is no sooner stated than there goes up a cry against the "tyranny of teetotalism" and the intemperance of Temperance? Here is a custom of alcoholic drinking, the utmost good use of which (if we allow it any) is as a molehill compared with a range of mountains in the evil use. It is supposed to have some real medicinal, some slight dietetic use, by its admirers; but recent calculations by medical men show that at least 120,000 persons die of it every year in our own country alone.* Her Majesty's judges assure us again and again, that but for this drinking, they as magistrates would have very little to do. It fills half the beds in the infirmaries. Its victims crowd the workhouses, and add largely to the pressure in the lunatic asylums. There is no impoverishing, degrading, and brutalizing practice which it is not in league with and does not powerfully aid. Robbing of their best customers almost all classes of tradesmen, it pours the pecuniary strength of the masses into channels of profligate waste, whilst sapping the energies and destroying the good habits of those on whose industry rests the commonweal. It cheats schools of their pupils and churches of their frequenters, turns useful office-bearers into objects of pity, and does not always spare even the pulpit itself. And whilst doing evil on all hands, it more than aught else baffles and paralyzes all good endeavours.

*

For

Dr. Norman Kerr and Dr. Morton of London, Dr. Hardwicke, coroner for Middlesex, and a host of coroners and medical officers of health.

M

that also is true which Mr. Hill, recorder of Birmingham, said of it, that let philanthropy strike into whatever path she may, "the drinkdemon always starts up and blocks the way." Surely if charity may ever use earnest words of strong denunciation, it must be in dealing with an evil so vast, so monstrous, and so murderous.

What we say then to kind Christian-hearted gentlemen is, Could not you manage to do without your molehill of supposed good dietetic use, in order to help us to remove these mountains of most unnecessary evil? This is no mere question of use and abuse, six of one and halfa-dozen of the other. Your real use, if you prove it, is comparatively small at the very most; and it is mainly a use specially self-regarding. All the rest is paltry self-indulgence. And over against this a magnificent gain in the good of the community. Can you hesitate? Surely New Church charity gives up something for the neighbour's good; and could you wish for a better opportunity?

In reply, we get loud complaints of tyranny and intolerance, mingled with the sort of reply given by the bystander to the fireman. The brigade were hard at work in sweat and smoke, trying to save the neighbourhood, and all the while a bystander was throwing little bits of wood amongst the flames. The fact was, warmth was so agreeable and so genial to his constitution; his blood beat so much quicker, his faculties seemed so much nimbler in it; it added in so many ways to his happy usefulness, that his stand-point with regard to the conflagration was quite opposite to that of the brigade. What he said to the fireman was, "Leave me my liberty. You are free to use your water; leave me alone in the enjoyment of my fuel." What the fireman, when he found out what the bystander was doing, said and did to that man, I need not here describe. The language, it is possible, sounded intemperate and tyrannical to the bystander. The movement which accompanied it may or may not have been perfectly in good taste. All I insist upon is, that there was nothing in it, on the fireman's part, that ought to have been regarded as inconsistent with good, wholesome, vigorous Christian charity. H.

Reviews.

EMANUEL SWEDENBORG. An Outline of his Life and Writings. By the Rev. JOHN HYDE. Third Edition. London: James Speirs.

A CLEAR and forcible presentation of New Church teaching in a short compass. We think no work could be produced more suitable to place in the hands of one who, either from want of time or want of interest, would not read a large volume. Few could peruse this little book without having their interest roused for further reading in Swedenborg, and few could plead, or indeed would care to plead, want of time to go through its attractive-looking pages. The author's mode of handling his subject can

be, however, best appreciated from an instance. We give the one in which he asks and answers the two questions that naturally occur to all who look into the claims of Swedenborg. Mr. Hyde states them as follows: "If the system of theology which he teaches be true, how is it that seventeen centuries of the Christian era were allowed to elapse before this true system of theology was communicated to mankind? If the method of interpreting the Scriptures set forth in Swedenborg's works be the right method, how is it that the pious and the learned of the Christian Church have been, for so many ages, left in almost total ignorance thereof?" These questions he answers in two ways, by asking in return why the earthly agencies of steam and electricity, which have done so much for mankind, were so long in being discovered? and why the Israelitish economy and the Lord's Coming did not occur before they did? "Was the lateness of His coming any proof of the falsity of the claims that He made when He had come?" "If the objection has any pertinence to Swedenborg, the same objection will be found just as pertinent to all teachers who have ever arisen. The explanation, however, if any explanation can be given, must be as wide as the area embraced in the questions. Such an explanation will be found adequate to cover the question as to Swedenborg, and to include all the other topics above introduced. It is this: There must be a Divine adjustment between the times in which men live, the faculties they possess, their capacity of receiving knowledge, and the knowledge which they receive. This principle is illustrated every day. When the wisest philosopher addresses children, he has to adapt the topics which he treats, and his method of treating those topics, to the childish apprehensions of his audience. If he speaks on the highest themes, he must still accommodate his style to his hearers, bring down his thoughts to their level, and, as to the way in which he phrases his ideas, adapt himself to their limited faculties and knowledge. This necessity is universal. From it not even the Divine Wisdom can escape. To reveal more than men could at any time receive, would have been only to have provided for the rejection of what he had intended to reveal. We are thus supplied with the reason why the astronomy, geography, and chronology of the Scriptures are altogether in accordance with the notions entertained on such subjects by the people to whom the revelation came, and by the medium through whom the revelation was given. They would inevitably have denied the truth of a message which would have come into conflict with all they held to be true in such matters. So also the perfect morality of God coming down to the Jews could clothe itself in external forms only a little higher than the character of the people would admit of. The 'hardness of their hearts' compelled accommodations of the Divine will so as to be adapted to their states. A higher revelation would have been useless to them, and would have been rejected by them. 'Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so' (Matt. xix. 8). So also Jeremiah declares (vii. 21-24) 'that the whole sacrificial system of worship was an adaptation to the lower spiritual condition of the Israelitish people.””"

DOES SHEOL OR HADES MEAN HELL? OR, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GIA-HINNOM AND SHEOL, AND GEHENNA AND HADES. Read before the Conference at Frankford, Philadelphia, by G. Field. Detroit, 1879. Pp. 34.

THE author of this short essay on the genuine signification of the several terms used in Scripture to denote the different abodes of those who have

departed this life, was led to compose it by way of controverting what he considered erroneous views on these points, which were advocated at a Conference meeting in New York. It was there maintained that, "in seventytwo out of seventy-nine passages in which the word Sheol is used, it is clearly and unmistakably identified with Hell, and likewise that, in the New Testament, the Greek words used as meaning Hell are Hades and Tartarus, while those that mean Heaven are Elysium and Ouranos." This startling statement suggests an unfavourable estimate of its propounder's scholarship. In this country, at least, there is an old, if not a general, assent to the opinion that Sheol really means the first and common receptacle of all who depart this life, before they are adjudged to Heaven or to Hell; and equally that Hades is its usual and proper Greek representative; whereas Elysium does not occur in the New Testament at all; and Tartarus is only found, in a verb, in the passage 2 Peter ii. 4. Thus Mr. Field might have hesitated to enter into a dispute with such an antagonist, had not his zeal for the truths at stake induced him to make this effort to vindicate them.

A citation-with a few omissions of non-essentials-will enable the reader to form an adequate estimate of the author's ability to refute the errors he controverts, and to elucidate the truths he advocates :

"The words used as the subject of this essay, although so entirely different from each other, are usually rendered by the same word (Hell); and varied only when the context will not possibly allow it; then the translators substitute the Grave or the Pit; but where the word occurs which does mean Hell, as being its earthly type, there they use the name of a mere earthly locality-the valley of Hinnom; all of which confuses the mind. When these words are so captiously rendered, how is the English reader to know for what they stand, or what they mean? If Tophet, the valley of Hinnom, 'where they burn their sons and daughters,' and 'where the carcasses of this people shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and the beasts of the earth' (Jer. vii. 31), does not mean HELL, there is no word that does; or where Isaiah says their worm shall not die, nor their fire be quenched' (lxvi. 24). If this is a description of the same region which the New Testament calls Gehenna (Mark ix. 44), and this be the true correspondent imagery by which the Hell of the Spiritual World is described, then how can it be the same as Sheol, or Hades? Was Jonah encompassed by such impurities and burnings in the body of the whale, when he said, 'Out of the belly of Sheol I cried'? And yet the translation renders both ideas by one word! Or, is there any warrant for believing that it was into this Hell that the Lord descended after His crucifixion? because it is written of Him, "Thou wilt not leave My soul in Sheol' (Ps. xvi. 10). Or that Jacob, mourning for the supposed death of his son, could have thought it was into such a Hell that Joseph was gone, and he should go there too? And yet, to be consistent, the translators should make him say so! But, seeing the incongruity of this, they introduce another word instead, and represent him as saying what it was just as impossible for him to have said, 'I shall go down into the grave unto my son, mourning' (Gen. xxxvii. 36), when he did not believe that his son was in the grave, but that a wild beast had devoured him."

Mr. Field pursues his inquiry in this spirit through several cognate questions connected with the Scriptural names of the abodes of the departed; and he has appended a supplementary essay, on the sense to be attached to Swedenborg's use of the words Infernus and Infernum, and on the equivalents by which they should be rendered in translations. He has stirred inquiries which might be profitably carried on in this country, and which, it is to be hoped, will lead to an exacter discrimination of terms in this province of theology. We commend his essay to the notice of those whose interest leads them to such disquisitions. N.