animated existence, we may, at the same time, trace the development of the various forms of life in man.

In the next, or Silurian age, the animated beings of the previous period become not only more abundant in species and number, but fishes first begin to appear, which in the succeeding age, called the Old Red Sandstone period, become abundant. The following age, called the Carboniferous period, or the age in which coal was produced, was characterised by an abundant vegetation, the debris of which being washed down by torrents into the bottom of shallow waters, and covered with sand and mud, formed eventually those eminently useful strata, called coal-beds, the main sources of health, wealth, and comfort, to the people of this country.

In the Oolitic age the forms of life are more developed, and the Sauria or Lizard tribes appear. These animals were characterized by their magnitude. The Ichthyosaurus had the body of a fish, the head of a crocodile, with large eyes, and long jaws armed with strong teeth. It may be well to observe, that whatever corresponds to a general, of which particulars constitute the species, is characterized by its magnitude. Thus the whale and the elephant both correspond to the sensual principle in general, the former to the external, and the latter to the internal, and specifically to the scientific principle of that degree. (A.C. 42. 7293.) The internal of the sensual principle is subjacent to, and more immediately in connexion with, the rational degree; hence ivory, the product of the elephant, corresponds to natural truth. (A.E. 774.) Now, it is not improbable that these prodigious animals of the Saurian tribe were correspondences to the sensual degree in general; and although their form and structure may appear to us so monstrous, we certainly cannot hence argue that, on that account, they had their origin from infernal influx. It appears to be a law in the organization and development of forms, that the lower the principle in man to which they correspond, the less is their approximation to the human form. Thus in all kinds of fish and reptiles, although there is a tendency to that form, yet the features of it are the least developed, because those animals correspond to the lowest, the sensual and corporeal principles in man. In considering this subject, it should not be forgotten, that these principles are necessary to the perfect constitution of man; he could not be a man without them; and the Lord desires to enter into a covenant of conjunction" with these principles, denoted by that beautiful prophecy of Hosea ii. 18, where it is said, "In that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things

of the ground." The correspondence of animals to the different principles or degrees of life in man, is very striking and manifest in this passage. The Lord, through the process of regeneration, makes a covenant for us with the reptiles of the ground; that is, He purifies and blesses our sensual and corporeal appetites and desires, and in this manner enters into conjunction with us, and causes the peace and bliss of His kingdom to prevail within us, which is denoted "by his breaking the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and making us to lie down safely." This passage, one would think, is sufficient to convince every unprejudiced mind, that animals correspond to principles in man. The higher the correspondence, the stronger is the tendency to the human form, and the more completely are its features developed. It also appears to be a fact, that in the progress of this development, as in the Saurian or lizard tribes, the features of the form appear, as compared with the perfectly developed human features, illshaped and distorted; precisely as the sensual, compared with the spiritual degree of man's life, is grovelling and low, possessing but little of the human principle, which more especially belongs to the rational and spiritual degree of our nature. It cannot, therefore, it is presumed, be concluded, that because these ancient animals were of such peculiar form, they were emblems of anything infernal, and animated by an influx from hell. Moreover, it may be necessary in this discussion to consider qualities abstractedly from their forms, although we well know that, in reality, qualities cannot exist apart from the forms of which they are predicated. Now, we often find that venomous and noxious qualities exist in forms which are more pleasing to the eye than animals of similar form that are neither venomous nor noxious. Thus there are several kinds of serpents, which, although dreadfully venomous, appear, from the peculiarities of their skin, more pleasing than those which are perfectly harmless; and yet the former are direct emblems of infernal deceit and malignity, and correspond to the sensual principle in its perverted states, whereas the latter correspond to the sensual degree in order. And amongst men it often happens, that the direst malignity lurks under the pleasing external of polished manners and courteous behaviour. Hence we again conclude, that the peculiar form of these primeval animals is no proof that they were actuated by venomous and noxious properties, and that they consequently might have existed prior to the existence of hell.

When we come to the Tertiary system in geology, animals of a higher order appear; and in the periods immediately succeeding, the mammalia, and the highest orders of terrestrial animals, come upon the

stage of existence. These also, such as the Mastodon Megatherium, &c., are noted by their vast size, and were much larger than any animals now existing. They were, however, herbivorous, and as such, we presume, could not correspond to anything evil, since we do not know of any of the herbiverous tribes (except probably the sloth) which have such a correspondence. It is true that the hare and the coney, or the rabbit of Judea, were forbidden as articles of food in Lev. xi., but so was the camel'; and the reason was, that not belonging to the herd or to the flock, they did not represent the good of the Church, such as comes directly from the Lord, and is appropriated by Him to the true members of His Church. They represented natural and simple good, such as exists with the Gentiles, who are not instructed in the truths of the Church, and who therefore cannot receive and appropriate its genuine good, denoted by the animals of the flock and the herd, which the Israelites offered as sacrifices, and which they were permitted to eat.

After this period the present races of animals came into existence, which, as to the highest orders, correspond to the rational degree of man's life; and when the work of creation was so far completed, that all the principles in man, from the lowest to the highest, had their correspondent emblems in nature, the earth was prepared and furnished with everything necessary for the reception of man himself, who then appeared as the crown and consummation of the whole work; because created, as to all his forms and degrees of life, to become the image and likeness of the Creator himself. In this discussion, therefore, it has been admitted, that geologists are right when they state that man did not appear upon the stage of life until after a succession of ages. But, notwithstanding this admission, we see no reason to believe that the animals, especially of the Saurian tribe, characterized by forms resembling a combination of the fish, the lizard, and the crocodile, had a bad correspondence, or that they were actuated by a venomous and noxious principle, the effect of influx from hell. Guided by the science of correspondences, the reasons, I conceive, might be shewn why all the primeval races of animals, from the mollusca to the mammalia, became extinct before, or at the time when, the present races came into being. But as this discussion would extend my letter too far for the present, I may probably resume the subject again.

SIR,

UNITARIANS.

To the Editor of the INTELLECTUAL REPOSITORY,

PERMIT me to thank you for your just and judicious note in page 70, which relieves me of the task of saying anything further in defence of my statements, or in vindication of my object in writing the article entitled "UNITARIANS."

My views of my duty to my neighbour, however, demand that I should bring under the notice of your candid readers, some of the assertions of your Liverpool correspondent, who, for his own gratification, certainly not for the information of the members of the New Church, has made a display of Unitarian doctrinal errors, for the purpose of proving, what nobody doubts, "the Unitarian scheme and New Church Theology opposed to each other."

It is a principle dear to every good mind, that we should endeavour not to be blind to the merits of those from whom we differ. On this principle, after fully admitting the utter contrariety of the Unitarian and New Church doctrinals of faith, I pointed out to my brethren, as a fact which I judged had not been generally observed, that the Unitarian body commanded our sympathy by its primary attention to the principle of good, as the great end of religion, and the chief glory of Christianity. And how has this been met by your correspondent? He has appealed to the doctrinal prejudices of his New Church brethren, as if he were anxious to persuade them never to think of Unitarians but with an exclusive reference to the points on which we entirely differ, and not at all with reference to those sentiments in which, to say the least, we appear to agree. He has endeavoured to quench any favourable feeling that the extract I sent you might possibly produce; first, by thrusting between it and the mind of the reader, the dark doctrinal web he has woven of Unitarian errors; secondly, by endeavouring to make the Unitarian attention to moral principles, and consequent frequent use of the term moral," appear ridiculous; and, thirdly, by asserting that the moral terms (I beg his permission to use the word "moral," for really I cannot do without it) as used by Unitarians, do not bear the same meaning as when used in the New Church; that there is " a vast difference" in the meaning attached to the words " Truth, Love, and Order," as used in the extract I sent you, and in the theology of the New Church, so that "between the two there is scarcely anything in common."

66

I make your correspondent a present of all the success which may attend the first-named portion of his tactics. It will avail nothing with the generous and ingenuous reader.

In regard to his second manœuvre, I only say, that if some of our people were more fond of the word "moral" in its practical sense,-I mean its more than negative acceptation,-it would do them more good, and bring the cause of truth more credit, than their fondness for the word "spiritual" in its merely doctrinal acceptation. For want of a due sense of the deeply important meaning of the word "moral," it is very possible for those who deem themselves spiritual-moral men, to shew by their splenetic behaviour, that the moral part of the compound is somewhat deficient. Your correspondent insinuates, rather than openly avers, that Unitarians are necessarily merely moral men; that they have such an antipathy to the very word spiritual, that, of necessity, there can be nothing spiritual in them; and he affirms that "they have no distinct idea what the term 'spiritual' means!" Now, what makes morality to be spiritual, according to the New Church doctrines ? Is it not the motive, as set forth in the following axioms ?-Good works must be done as in the sight of God, and not as in the sight of men; for, in the latter case, they are merely natural, or merely moral, but in the former case, they are spiritual. Evils must be shunned BECAUSE they are sins against God. Does our Liverpool friend mean to say, that none but a believer in the Lord's Deity, as we believe it, can carry out these principles? This he dare not affirm. How, then, can he arrive at the conclusion, that the Unitarian cannot be a spiritualmoral man? What shall hinder him from shunning evils as sins against God, and, consequently, what shall prevent his morality being made spiritual by that One Lord whose name alone brings salvation? (Acts iv, 12.) Or what shall prevent his having the benefit of the declaration, that "in every nation, he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him?"-I admit that wherever the pride of mental acquisition exists, it will prevent moral works from receiving at the hands of God a spiritual quality: but even if it be admitted that this pride is too prevalent amongst Unitarians, is this lamentable error confined to Unitarians? I am really grieved at the attempt made by a professed New Churchman, to throw ridicule upon the zeal of Unitarians in the cause of moral principles. If Dr. Whichcot (not a Unitarian) was right when he said, "Nothing is more spiritual than that which is moral," I fear the Liverpool article will bring us some discredit: and if the writer of it felt it necessary to express his hope, that no reader of my paper would think otherwise than that the