probably he is describing a dishonest simulation, rather than a sincere effort " always to observe that propriety of behaviour" which is prescribed in the third of Swedenborg's four "Rules of Life."

In the foregoing remarks I mean to affirm, that we cannot look up to each other too deferentially, provided we give the first place to the Lord, by constantly looking up to Him, and I judge, that so far as this rule is complied with in the Church, there will result a freedom of communication, a beneficial "free trade" of opinion, sentiment, and precept, and a cordial intercourse from which all rudeness, harshness, and bigotry, with all the injuries and woes they inflict, will be utterly excluded. I hesitate not to give an opinion, founded on more than forty years' New Church experience, that the neglect of cultivating exterior innocence, as above defined, is one great, if not the greatest cause, why some departments of our public affairs have been conducted in such a spirit and manner as to preclude useful persons of gentle dispositions from engaging in them, because it would involve too great a sacrifice of peace to minds of so sensitive a character. I have now in my eye an individual every way an example of the loveliness of genuine exterior innocence, (because, no doubt, in his case an outbirth of interior) who was asked by me some years since the question, "Why do you decline serving on such a Committee?" when he replied, "I really cannot; the contentions I witness there, injure my state more than I can bear." And whence originated those contentions? (And one contentious character in a body can give to the whole a contentious appearance.) I answer, from unconcern about mere human opinion! True honour is described by Dr. Johnson as a regard to character; and Addison says in his drama of Cato, that "Honour aids and strengthens virtue where she meets her, and imitates her actions where she is not." In true honour-that is, in a just concern for our estimation in society, there is nothing servile, cringing, time-serving, or tortuous. True honour is justly described further by Addison, as "the noble mind's distinguishing perfection;" and why? Because the interior principle of innocence comes to its perfection and fulness in ultimates, in that exterior innocence which is identical with truly honourable and gentlemanly feelings and behaviour.

And let no reader be surprised that we here use terms, too often found on the lips of rakes and polished hypocrites, or that we give to them such high Christian significance. However these terms may have lost their original meaning, it will be sufficiently clear that such was, and ought to be still, their legitimate and recognized acceptation. What other signification can be given to the following Apostolic expressions?

Be courteous."

In lowliness of mind let each "Be kindly affectioned one to

What other conduct could be meant to be inculcated in the exhortations, "Honour ALL men." esteem others better than themselves." another; in honour preferring one another :" "submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God"? How can these be reconciled with unconcern for the opinion of others? In one word, exterior innocence is gentleness. "The fruit of the spirit is gentleness." "I beseech you by the gentleness of Christ." And here is the origin of the term "gentleman," and the clear delineation of its meaning. No doubt the first propagators of the Christian sentiments just cited, regarded their special inculcation upon the chiefs and leaders of the uncivilized tribes and nations to whom they came, the best way to prepare them for the interior reception of the spiritual truths of the Gospel. Hence it came to be well understood, that to be gentle, and not fierce and grasping, was the proper mark of a Christian-the indispensable distinction between a barbarous and civilized condition; and thus it came to be universally understood, that a Christian must be a gentle-man. Although this term is more generally understood to have originated in human pride, it is, and ought to be considered by us, as a Christian institution, and consequently it ought to be considered as an essential mark of a New Church Christian, whatever his external condition, that he must be a gentle-man in his feelings and behaviour,-not content with leaving it to be assumed that he has that interior innocence which consists in looking up to the Lord, but taking care also to prove that he has that exterior innocence which consists in honouring all men, in looking up to them, and in each esteeming the other better than himself, so long as facts to the contrary shall not forbid such estimation.

Granting, even, that exterior innocence without interior, is hypocritical, conventional, and of earthly origin, it still is the mark of high civilization, and in its effects upon all within the sphere of its cultivation, highly beneficial. In the higher ranks of society, the noblest and the bravest are distinguished by the gentleness of their speech and behaviour, as well as for inspiring confidence by their undoubted honour, and the certain conviction that they will behave themselves as gentlemen in every particular. Among them preeminently stands that distinguished man, the Earl of Carlisle, one of the gentlest and least exacting, and at the same time one of the most talented minds and exalted characters, a man justly entitled to be regarded as the people's friend, in all sincerity. High homage it is to the exterior principle of celestial innocence, that the greatest men of this great nation, consider it to be their most distinguishing and inalienable characteristic, to exhibit

habitually the likeness of it,—in the case of the truly Christian portion, a living likeness, and with the rest, such a likeness as charms in a beautiful piece of statuary, which of itself is far too valuable to be contemptuously cast away.

The cultivation of exterior innocence will never fail to open an inlet to gratitude, the indispensable first step to genuine good; while those who indulge in the most frequent infractions of it, will be found generally amongst those social monsters, the ungrateful! To have a respectful idea of others, must ever lead to a high estimation of any kindness we receive from them; whereas the contrary estimate leads those who entertain it, to receive kindness either as a tribute due from inferiors to superiors, or as a mere act of duty which incurs no obligation. One of the charms of polished life, is the strong sense expressed (and felt by the sincere) of gratitude for the least acts of kindness.

Occasionally some unfortunately constituted persons are met with who reject the practice of gentleness, courtesy, and politeness, as hypocrisy, giving in to what they are pleased to call blunt honesty of behaviour,—a real nuisance to civilized society. But these are of the "I don't care" school, of the same school as the unjust judge, who is described as saying, "I fear not God nor regard man.” A young person taking up this barbarous, unprincipled principle, precludes, until he repent of it, all hope of improvement, and that notwithstanding any amount he practices of religious conformity. When "I don't care"“I am unconcerned about mere human opinion, whether good or bad,” stamps its repulsive image on the countenance, and expresses itself in the tones, gestures, and words of one of the gentler sex, it is peculiarly offensive, and cannot but produce a shudder in every well constituted, highly cultivated mind that happens to witness it. What a blessing it will be when members of the New Church may universally indulge the. assurance, that all their brethren are deeply sensible that the "highest style of man is a Christian," and the highest style of Christian is a gentle-man. How pleasantly will business then be conducted; then the two ears will be allowed to do, as they were intended to do, double duty, as compared with the one tongue; then every one will know beforehand, that justice will be done to his argument, because his hearers will be doubly more desirous to hearken and learn, than to talk and teach; then each will look up to the other, because all are inwardly looking up to the Lord.

I trust "Evita" will not think that my high estimation of a principle and practice he seems to undervalue, has led me, in the unavoidable expression of my own estimate, into saying anything unpleasant to

him. I dare say the expression used by him to which I have taken liberty to object, had a limitation and qualification in his own mind which he happened not to express. But as the sentiment would stand as a guide to some whose mental peculiarity might cause them to be misled by it, I felt it my duty to oppose the sentiment, yet with all just respect to its author. W. M.

WHAT DOES GEOLOGY SAY?

Scientiâ nulla res est præstantior.

GEOLOGY is a science, entitled, from its importance, its utility, it's comprehensiveness, and its fascinating attractions, to rank among those studies which are deemed essentially necessary to the education of the philosopher, the gentleman, and the man of science.

And yet, though its importance is admitted and its utility acknowledged, how often do we meet in the theological world with men of intellect, of sound knowledge, and sometimes of profound learning, who avoid the discussion and study of geological subjects as something unholy and profane.

And how is this to be accounted for, unless by the fact that there exists among the believers in the doctrines of the Old Churches a certain undefined dread lest the astounding revelations of geology should be found to be at variance with their interpretations of the Sacred Word?

That their fears are well-founded we purpose to show; but so briefly as merely to call the attention of members of the New Church to a subject so well worthy of their notice.

Probably in a much greater degree than any other science, has the study of geology given rise to scepticism and doubt as to the truth of the Word, among the adherents of the Old Churches, and it has doubtless been reserved for the doctrines of the New Church fully to clear geologists from the imputation of being Biblical infidels, by unfolding the heavenly arcana contained in the literal sense of the Book of Genesis, and thus rendering futile the oft repeated attempts to reconcile the evident truths of philosophy with the supposed incongruities of the Word.

One of the first lessons taught by geology is, that no geological phenomena are capable of affording us any proof of when our world was created; this is most true. The geologist need not attempt, be it by investigations ever so accurate or profound, to put an age of years upon our globe; but even though he be naturally at fault here, let us listen with attention to what he tells us, nay, demonstrates to us, regarding

the comparative age of our planet, its former states, and the changes it has undergone both in inhabitants and organization. Every one knows the popular belief on the subject of the creation of our world, viz.:"that God created all things of nothing, by the word of His power, in the space of six days."*

It is undeniable that this is the literal belief of the bulk of the professing Christian world at the present day, and as such it is the belief with which we have to do, as we are attempting to shew from the facts of geology that it is absurd, unscientific, and contrary to truth.

And now let us see to what this belief will tend, when compared with the teachings of science. If we consider the six days as six periods of 24 hours each, and add to it the period man is supposed to have been an inhabitant of the earth, viz.: 5,850 years, we shall find the age of our globe, and consequently of the solar system, to be in round numbers about 6,000 years.

From this let us turn to a statement or two proved by the geologist, and see how far the two agree. A large portion of the crust of the earth has been ascertained to have been deposited in the form of sediment from water. Now, in ordinary cases, it requires a century to produce an accumulation of sediment a few inches thick, and geologists imagine they have ascertained that the fossiliferous or sedimentary strata of Europe are no less than eight or ten miles thick. If, then, it takes 100 years to produce a few inches, how many thousand years must have been occupied in the production of eight or ten miles-and how will 6,000 years look, compared with the product of such a calculation?

But take another instance; Lyell has calculated that the Falls of Niagara have been in existence for no shorter a period than thirty-five thousand years, and it is beyond calculation, how much older than that the strata are through which the Niagara flows. How then, again, does 6,000 agree with 35,000, and which is the most probable, which the most satisfactory? From these two data, then, it follows, that if we believe geology we must disbelieve the account given in the Word as being literally true, or, believing the Mosaic account to be correct, we must discredit the direct evidences of reason and judgement. One or other of these positions do we assume, by taking the relation in Genesis literally, and receiving geology as a true science. But again, taking the account literally, we find that the space of two days, viz.: of the fifth and sixth, were occupied in the creation of animated beings, for on

* Vide Shorter Catechism of Church of Scotland.

Lyell's Principles of Geology, chap. 14, p. 204, last edition.