he is a devil; and if this doctrine of science contradicts revelation, to that extent it would be held untrue. But it does not: so far as it speaks, it speaks of the fact of which revelation shows the nature. Do we then expect science to be revelation? What the doctrine asserts is the logical outcome of natural reason applying itself to the highest problem, and discovering within it a substantial fact. The question is not what that Cause is, absolutely; but whether the doctrine of a Cause expresses a truth, expresses truly the thought of natural reason; whether or not this expression be an advance upon any previous scientific expression of the fact which that reason may have given; and whether in this advance there is any approximation to truer conceptions. About the two first there can be no manner of doubt; the idea of a Cause as a necessity of thought is the highest expression of the natural reason, and an almost immeasurable advance upon any previous idea scientifically enunciated. By so much, surely, it is an approximation to a purer conception. There is still a difference, and a wide one, no doubt the difference itself proper to revelation and reason; one which concerns the attributes of the primal fact, and no longer discusses fruitlessly the existence of the fact itself. To reject the truth of reason because it is not the whole truth of revelation—surely the force of folly could no further go.

One more point of difference: revelation declares a God who is knowable; reason, a cause unknowable. This, of course, is also a difference proper to revelation and reason, since the cause is only knowable as revealed. It would be absurd to charge this difference upon science opprobriously; in so doing we should simply be vilifying our natural faculties.

But this point of difference is itself a point of union, to the consideration of which we now pass. For revelation, not only implicitly, in its very fact, contains this idea of natural unknowableness, but itself declares God unknowable by natural reason. To make it a charge against science, or to reject what it does say on the plea that it teaches an unknowable power, is to undermine the primary ground of revelation in and to man. On this point, therefore, the two doctrines are agreed.

Again, as already elicited, they are in agreement also as to the fundamental fact with which we are here concerned-an adequate cause of the universe. This they both assert; and the assertion on the part of science implies, moreover, a long stride towards that revelation from which it yet seems to stand aloof, but with which, by this elucidation of its new attitude, we seek to show its possible harmony. The question of the future is, What is that Fact?

We have here, then, two independent witnesses, each speaking within its knowledge, and, so speaking, entirely at accord. It matters nothing that one does not know enough; we never expected that it would. If it could, neither would have been worth having; certainly revelation would have been at an end. But precisely because they give independent testimony to the same fundamental fact from within

their own knowledge, are they in union, and their evidence good. To undervalue the testimony of science because it cannot say all that revelation says would be essentially absurd, because self-contradictory. Science, in this thing, says all that it can say; discovers the primal fact itself, "from the things that are seen;" clears natural reason of the mists of thought which have obscured its vision, and prepared the way for the better understanding of the higher truth which revelation has to give-begun, in one word, that union which it is now the Church's place to perfect. Need I once more say, that the blindness of men of science to the true value of their own work does not affect that value by one iota. The Is it has become the What is it.

It only remains to show how this doctrine of science would work practically; and for this purpose let us take an illustration. Suppose that young man, brought up in an educated family, has been led to question the truth of the idea or notion, as he may call it, that there is a God. He is not greatly given to overrate the intelligence of theologians or to take their opinion off-hand. Their text-book is to him little different from other books, except that it claims to be more, and doesn't prove, but even appears to contradict, its own claim. He sympathizes with scientists, because they not only know what they are about, and can render reasons for their opinions, but give him some definite truth, so far as it goes, by which his mind can, to the extent of his acquirements at least, be satisfied. He does not deny supernatural things; nay, he would gladly listen to an intelligent exposition of them; with him they are simply in abeyance as the unproven teachings of his childhood, and dim unverified guessings of later years.

Now, our young friend, (do we know any such ?) is reading the book of an acknowledged master in his own line, a man whose reason he has been led to regard as of a high or the highest far-reaching order, and whose fair and intelligent grasp of the matter he discusses is unquestionable. In the course of his reading he comes across the proposition, that “belief in a Primal Unconditioned Cause is a necessity of human reason." Being a thoughtful, truth-loving fellow, he reads on, doubtingly perhaps, with always a reserve of hesitance; but as he reads, the thing clears itself before him, and there, at last, it stands out, luminous in its own certainty-proved, if reason and fair argument can prove anything. Imagine the result: the young man is staggered; that idea "doth give him pause;" he is at length compelled to bethink himself whether in quietly disregarding that Primal Cause he was not denying himself the legitimate exercise of his own reason-a very serious matter, to say the least of it, to a young man who desires to be, or to be thought, rational.

Since he cannot compel belief, however, he casts about for further light. To that end, he falls to discussing with himself the doctrine on its merits. "It does not say personal God, because if we begin to predicate attributes of the Infinite we are landed in contradictions. Is, then, this Primal Cause a part of nature? a kind of inner life of

nature? That cannot be, because nature is conditioned, and it says distinctly unconditioned. Neither a part of nature nor a personal God, what can it be? But does it exclude a personal God? Clearly it does not; it only says what reason alone is competent to say, and no more, whatever possibility of revelation there may be. And it's true; I feel

that it's true: I must believe in a Cause of all that is, lying back of all that is, and yet do I know the nature of that Cause? do I know what it is? I don't. That doctrine is just my own thought, if I had only known it—at any rate it's true; and the more I think of it the more I see that I am compelled to think it true.

66

Still, what is it, that something? It's all very well to say that reason cannot think of it; I must think of it. I cannot rest in this state. It appears to me that there is only one possible supposition that would bring light-but, no no, that is too absurd-it's impossible that such a contradictory book as that Bible should really after all be the revelation of the unknown nature of the unconditioned. No, it wont do! There's no help for it. I see clearly enough that there's something behind these things, causing them, which seems to take the place of what religious people call God; I know there's a something, but I have no evidence what that something is not a scrap. It surely is strange that the deepest thing in life should be so terrible an uncertainty to know it, and to know nothing about it! Ah, well, well! we must grope on, grope on-but what would I not give to know whether that First Cause is a living God! I seem to have had something roused in me that I cannot still. I dare say I shall come some day to worship that Unknown as the Highest and Best, when I've accustomed myself to that idea of the Highest; but I confess it feels strange and eerie to me now, the idea of praying to an infinite-What? Force? Vapour? Gas? No, these things are all conditioned. But if it's something, it must have a nature, though I can't find it out, though it is unknowable by reason. Spirit, is it? But what is that? Can it be infinite, if there is such a thing? Who shall tell me?—and after this muddy vesture of decay,' what? who knows? If there is a God why doesn't He show Himself in some way or other, and satisfy our poor questions? Ah, well! I don't know, perhaps I am talking downright nonsense. At any rate, if I am, I am not fooling anybody else. But a something, an infinite something behind the universe and causing it-it's a tremendous idea! Whatever comes of it to me, I shall never get away from it more; I feel as if seeing and believing it were a sort of turning-point in my life. There, Spenser! I've had enough of you for to-day; I can't read any more." And he shuts the book, saying to himself, “An infinite something, an infinite something! What? Can there be any doubt upon the mind reading this, of what there is still left to do? Is it not manifest how this doctrine of science is preparing the way, and will in the future prepare it, for the New Church? In this transition period (and is not the doctrine a transition doctrine?) many will accept this teaching who can do no other, because they have forsaken the Old, and are as yet unprepared to

look upon revelation in the light of the New, even if they have ever heard of it except through the voice of ridicule. The doctrine, in this way, will be a stay and bulwark to many a young mind in the generation to come; and I think, for one, that we ought to be devoutly thankful to God for such a provision in the meantime for those who would otherwise be either without belief, or openly declared materialists. It seems to be precisely that necessary intervening step between the Old and the New, between materialism and spiritualism, which will lead each to the other, to unite in the kiss of peace, and where they may find a common ground on which to erect that nobler spiritual house-the home of the rational man of the future.

Need we ask how this is to be speedily possible? It will not be by the mere pointing out of the possibility, as here attempted, unless it touches some mind who will grapple the whole problem and thoroughly work it out. Will some man of capacity for the work give us a book in which the whole question shall be systematically and efficiently sifted; the relations shown between the doctrine of science and the New Church truth, and the steps clearly traced by which a seeking mind may pass from quasi-philosophical darkness to the light of life? Would that it might be done, and in the language of the day; not in the technical phraseology of the New Church.

Practical people tell us that human affairs are not governed by logic, or by abstract propositions; but surely such know nothing of the progress of thought; and if they apply this crude dictum to the primary relations of the mind to truth, to the intellectual and spiritual progress of life, to the order of man's rational enlightenment, assuredly they know not what they say. THOMAS CHILD.

THE TAFEL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION.

To the Editor of the Intellectual Repository.

REV. AND DEAR SIR,-I have often wished that the members of the New Church in England were interested practically in the Interlinear Bible that is now being published by the Rev. Dr. Leonhard Tafel, of New York, and his two sons, Rev. Dr. R. L. Tafel, of London, and Rev. L. H. Tafel, of Philadelphia.

No work that I have seen or heard of provides an easier and clearer way, by which laymen can refer at their pleasure to the very words of Holy Scripture. It is not necessary for a reader to learn Hebrew and Greek that he may use this Bible. By means of simple English any one may learn from it the primary meaning of any word, and have laid open before his eyes the elements out of which every translation must be constructed. So far as it has already been produced, it is the best book of reference to the Best Book, and, as such, I cannot help thinking that it has claims upon the New Church in England which have not yet been fairly considered.

I do not mean to say that the renderings of Hebrew and Greek words are such as might have been desired in every case, and I have no doubt that some may be found foreign to our notions, and incongruous to the ideas of Englishmen. But this is a matter of comparatively small moment, and may justly be overlooked in view of the difficulties attending such a work, and the merits of the undertaking as a whole.

In one of his letters to a friend Swedenborg wrote, "When heaven was opened to me, it was necessary first to learn the Hebrew language, as well as the correspondences of which the whole Bible is composed, which led me to read the Word of God over many times; and inasmuch as the Word is the source whence all theology must be derived, I was thereby enabled to receive instruction from the Lord who is the Word." This quotation is, I conceive, a remarkable demonstration of the value which New Churchmen are justified in attaching to a Bible in the original languages, accompanied everywhere with word-renderings, that place it within easy reach of all English-speaking people.

Permit me to ask, Mr. Editor, whether the work is not deserving of more help than we have given it hitherto? Though it be not perfect, (how could it be,) should we not be grieved if it were to fall through? Let us consider for a moment what is the present position of the work. I am only connected with it as a subscriber from the commencement, and by having watched the notices of it that have appeared in the English and American prints, but I suppose the case stands thus::

Perhaps as many as thirty numbers, including those already published, may be needed to complete the entire Bible. Of these only eight are now before the public. "It was intended to publish a number every two or three months, but in 1874 only two were published, and only two in 1875." The Hebrew numbers are 7s. 6d. each, and the Greek numbers 6s. The ninth number, which is in the printer's hands, is delayed from want of funds. I believe that no donations have been made or ever asked for, on behalf of the work, but subscriptions for the book are solicited; and they are much needed to carry it on. Every number is handsomely printed on superior paper, in a beautiful and good-sized type, the Hebrew with points, and is fairly worth the money. In several recent numbers of the Messenger attention has been called to the enterprise, and, as a consequence, a larger number of names have been added to the subscription list. Further than this, the pleasing announcement is made that Mr. L. C. Jungerich of Philadelphia has appropriated a sum of money to supply ministers with the work gratuitously. It may be expected therefore that, notwithstanding the lack of support hitherto experienced, the undertaking is likely to prove finally successful, and no doubt a copy of the work will be in the hands of every New Church minister in America.

May we not hope that the ministers in England may all be supplied with so powerful an aid to the efficient performance of their sacred

M