against the teaching of the Word and the immortality of the soul. We have shown that the literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis is an unwarrantable assumption. However, therefore, life may have originated upon the world, or what was the nature of man's beginning, can in no way affect the Biblical account of the origin of life, seeing that it is an allegory investing spiritual truth of the highest character. Now life originated upon the world in some mode; if there is life on the planets, and we believe there is, it must have originated on them in a similar mode. There may have been a "primordial substance" as the first life germ-we cannot say; and we may deduce the origin of life from many forms or one form, yet still the "question will be inevitably asked," as a learned professor has said, "How came that form there?" Thus again we are carried past the "interaction of atoms," and either landed in impenetrable mystery or placed at the feet of the Divine. That there has been a successive development in animal and vegetable forms, from lower to higher, is clearly established by the facts of geology. This development has mainly been the result of external conditions. Whether, in the case of the animal kingdom, this development proceeded in an increasing ratio from lower to higher, until a form fittingly organized to be the seat of reason and the soul was produced, we perhaps shall never be able to ascertain. It seems plain almost to demonstration that there is a discrete degree between man and animals. There are certainly low types of the human race which seem to be closely allied with the ape tribe. An ape, however, has never yet in the memory of man, by any species of progress, or by the most happy combination of circumstances, assumed the form and capabilities of the very lowest specimen of the human family. In the case of the human race, civilization has caused a continuous upward movement. The vast hordes of barbarians that at one period roamed through the forests of Europe have been supplanted by races of a more refined type of mind. The brain of the Papuan, we are told, is not nearly so large as the brain of a European. Consequently the apparatus for recording his experiences, and hence for the development of his mind, is imperfect. Under the refining influences of civilization that defect would undoubtedly disappear from the race, and the Papuan would ultimately be capable of achieving the same wonderful results as the European. Man differs from an animal especially in the capability which he possesses of developing his mind to an unlimited extent; no bonds can be set to the knowledge which his mind is adapted to grasp and retain. So far as we at present know, no process of development has yet brought about the same result in animals even of the highest order. The doctrine of the "survival of the fittest" is as true in the case of man as in that of animals. Many races of men have disappeared, and beings of finer parts have survived. But this "survival of the fittest" we cannot conceive to militate against the doctrine of the soul's immortality. The more perfect the instrument, the more accurate the results. Hence the higher the development of the body, the more perfect the action of the soul, and therefore the greater its achievements. But it is asked what is it that survives when sensation ceases in the body? We can find but one answer. And that is, that the soul, the seat of sensation, has quitted its tenement. Still we apprehend that it can be proved indirectly that the soul continues to exist. Using an illustration which has recently been cited. Suppose a telegraph clerk is surrounded by his instruments, he can communicate with a hundred places, and thus prove his existence. But a thunderstorm arises, his instruments are disarranged, he is still in his room, but he cannot inform any one that survives. Supposing the wires of his instruments to correspond to the organs of sensation in man, and suppose a break occurs-an accident resulting in death-he can no longer directly communicate the fact of his existence to those around him. He knows he exists equally as the clerk. But the one is as incapable of proving the fact as the other, when we restrict the one to his wires and the other to his nerves. But the clerk can prove his existence in other ways, it may be said. So also can the soul, if we seek for our proof beyond the region of nerves and crude experiment. There are powerful evidences of design in creation. And design argues an intelligent cause. The flower has exquisite organs adapted for reproducing its species, but the faculty of foreseeing ends and providing for their attainment is not an attribute of atoms. The end is attained by the interaction of atoms, but they have no power of deviating from that end, and they submit to influences beyond them. The "survival of the fittest" is a doctrine substantially true. But there is an end to be gained by this "survival," and that end seems to be the most complete happiness of the fittest. This seems so in man's case. Civiliza tion brings its blessings, and will bring them more abundantly as man, in the development of his more sacred faculties, is fitted to receive them. Divine blessings reach us through media; the more perfect these media in all departments of nature the richer and more abundant the blessings. We therefore conceive it no unimportant feature in the design of creation that the "fittest" survive. But if design points to intelligence, where may we look for the origin of things? All nature when devoutly studied points silently upward to an infinitely wise God. This is the conclusion at which we must inevitably arrive. Creation is an effect, it cannot be the cause of its own effect. Creation is also finite and limited in time. It must therefore have a cause neither finite nor limited in time. While then we thus trace upward from the creature to the Creator, and stand in the presence of Him whose "ways are not our ways, and whose thoughts are not our thoughts," let us bow the head and reverently adore. Reverting again to the "survival of the fittest," we remark that this doctrine is as true in mental as in animal life. In some departments of thought this goes on more rapidly than in others. Development in scientific truth has been rapid, but growth in clearness and purity of theological thought has been slow. Scarcely a step has been made in a forward direction since the time of the Fathers. The Bible is acknowledged to be in great part utterly incomprehensible. The march of thought continues, and still theologians are found far behind Hence it arises that in many minds biblical truth fades and scientific truth survives. But as the mind becomes fitted to receive spiritual truth of a higher order than that previously accepted, it is supplied by an orderly revelation. Modes of interpretation of the Word that once found implicit and ready assent are no longer tenable. Old creeds fail to satisfy reflecting and intelligent minds. But a clearer light is breaking in upon the field of theological thought, and by this light we perceive the Word to have unmistakeable indications of a divine origin; we perceive that it is an inexhaustable fountain, adequate to supply and enrich all minds with the life-giving streams of its spirit. In the new theology there is a consistency and clearness which former systems have wanted; while the spiritual world and the soul are dealt with philosophically and rationally. In conclusion, we believe that no danger to religion can arise from the advance of scientific thought, but rather from attempted resistance to that advance by theologians. As the human mind grows in strength by the influence of civilization and education, it leaves the traditions and errors of former generations, and searches by the light of reason for purer truths. There is a deep longing amongst men for more light upon the divine Word and the immortal life. Wherever this light breaks forth let us fearlessly receive it. For be assured that as the falling leaves of autumn are swept away by the gale, so will error in our conceptions of nature and of God be borne by the coming ages into the oblivion of the past, and truth alone will survive. I. T. Correspondence. MAURITIUS. (To the Editor of the Intellectual Repository.) PORT LOUIS, MAURITIUS, 17th September 1874. REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,-At the last meeting of our Society (that of the upon three publications of our president, Mr. Edmond de Chazal. A short conversation arose on the subject, and the undersigned were deputed to write to you respecting it. We thank you sincerely for the friendly terms in which you allude to Mr. de Chazal's publications, and we feel much gratified that any efforts here to spread the truth should be noticed in your periodical, but there are two or three errors in the reviewer's account of our Society that we feel bound to bring under your notice, feeling assured that they are involuntary, and result from the circumstance that we have not such frequent and full communication with the Church in other lands as we ought to have. The errors we allude to are the following: After speaking of the efforts of our Society to procure a minister, and of the difficulties it experienced in this attempt, the writer proceeds thus: "They succeeded at last in obtaining one, unknown however to the Church in this country and in America. G He had belonged successively to the Greek and Roman Catholic Church, but he seems to have pursued an eccentric course. He did not remain long with them; and we have since found him in India, in America, and recently in Australia." This statement is incorrect. The person alluded to, that is Mr. Bugnion, never was our minister, and never conducted a single one of our services, as we did not consider him to be a thorough New Churchman, though possibly he wishes to be received as such. It is quite unnecessary for us to enter at any length into his history, but a few words on the subject are perhaps required. We understand that he came to Mauritius in 1858 in connection with the Independents. He did not however agree with them for any length of time, and towards the end of 1859 a separation ensued, into the merits of which it is needless for us to enter. After this, it is true, that he and his family received hospitality from Mr. de Chazal, but he never was treated in any way by that gentleman as a minister of the New Church or of our Society, of which he was never a member, for Mr. Bugnion's religious ideas and the manner in which he proclaimed them were on many points unacceptable to our president and to our Society. Mr. Bugnion formed a congregation of his own, to which he preached for some time, then left for Europe, returned here, made a short stay, and then proceeded to India, where he remained for about four years. After this he travelled in America and Europe, and came back to Mauritius towards the end of 1871. Here he renewed his relations with his former congregation, but he never had anything to do with our Society either as a minister or member. Towards the end of last year he went to Australia, where he still is. As to the supposed fact of his having belonged at one time to the Roman Catholic Church, we never heard of it, and we do not think it is correct. We think it quite unnecessary for us to enter into further details as to Mr. Bugnion's act. We may however mention one which has induced our president not only not to consider Mr. Bugnion as a New Churchman, but also to decline any social intercourse with him; we allude to his unwarrantable assumption of the title of Bishop. The Rev. J. Bayley, to whom Mr. de Chazal wrote at the time, can, we believe, give you more precise information on this subject should you desire it. Another error we wish to point out is one contained in these words: "Since the Bishop left Mauritius the service we believe has been conducted by Mr. de Chazal; and we hope that, in their peculiar circumstances, he exercises all the functions of a minister." The truth is, that ever since our Society has been founded Mr. de Chazal has conducted our monthly services, and when he is unavoidably absent Mr. Lesage or Mr. G. Mayer replaces him, quite irrespective of Mr. Bugnion's presence in or absence from this island. We use the term "monthly," because, owing to our being scattered over different parts of the island, we cannot meet oftener. On other Sundays each head of a family leads the services for his own people. We have thought it necessary to trouble you with these details, since we do not wish to pass in the Church as a Society that has had for its minister a person whose writings bear, as you say, "evident traces of Harrisism and Spiritism." We cannot, Mr. Editor, conclude a letter addressed to the organ of the New Church in England without expressing our satisfaction at the steady progress of the New Church ideas which we find recorded in its pages, and our admiration of the ability with which these views are therein proclaimed. We are also glad to see from the reviews it contains that many interesting and instructive New Church works are published from time to time.-We beg to remain your faithful brothers in the New Church, T. H. ACKROYD. P. E. DE CHAZAL, Secretary. [We have also received a long letter from Mr. Bugnion, vindicating himself from some charges which some of his friends had informed him our reviewer had made against him. The only "charge" made against him was, that "his liturgy bears evident traces of Harrisism and Spiritism." As this is a simple fact, which Mr. Bugnion does not deny, but only endeavours to justify, his letter, which does not deserve insertion, needs no reply.] Review. SANCTA CENA: OR, THE HOLY SUPPER, EXPLAINED ON THE PRINCIPLES TAUGHT BY EMANUEL SWEDENBORG. By the Rev. Augustus Clissold, M.A. London: Longmans, Green & Co. THE need of clearer and more worthy views on the subject of the Holy Supper than are held in Christendom at the present day is made very evident by the author in his preface. According to one writer" the ordinance (considered as a sacrifice) is an absolute mystery. It involves a paradox or apparent contradiction; a seeming incompatibility of terms; in short, a mystery, whatever the exact nature and limits of that mystery may be supposed to be. It remains a divinely stated paradox, irreconcilable by man; a mystery utterly beyond his power to clear up, and such it must ever be." The Holy Supper being represented by the Passover, involves the law that by death alone can death be undone. "How this should be, in what sense one death can act upon another death, so as to do away with it, or with any of its consequences, we are absolutely devoid of faculties for comprehending." And thus the Feast of the Christian Passover, which was intended to feed the souls of the faithful with the flesh and blood of a Living and Divine Body, becomes at best a mysterious ceremonial. In the work itself the author shows the true nature and use of the Sacrament. "The two fundamental ideas in the Holy Supper are, first of all, that of The Word, whether living or written; and secondly, that which the Word effects, namely, the conjunction of the church on earth with the church in heaven." He had first pointed out the Scripture doctrine respecting the Word, that from the beginning, before He was made flesh, our Lord was the Word, mediating between the Father and all creatures. But there is a written Word as well as a Living Word, and the written Word is also called the Word of God. As being the Word of God there is a sense in it in which the Word of God written mediates between the Father and all creatures. This being the case, the written Word of God is like the Living Word of God, the medium of communication between the Father and the Church. Not that there are two Mediators, but One only; inasmuch as the written Word mediates between God and man, only in virtue of the Living or Eternal Word being in it; and as such the written Word is itself the medium by which we have life from the Eternal Word. As the Word is the medium of conjunction between God and man, and the Holy Supper is also said to be such a medium, what is the nature of the relation and connection between them? By extracts from Swedenborg enlarged and simplified by his own commentary, the author presents the subject in great clearness and beauty. "It is not by any figure of speech that the Living Word and the written Word are both spoken of as one, and are both called the Word of God; but because the Word of God written is |