cannot be the same, the language of the Old Testament being Hebrew and not Greek. And that it is not synonymous has been already shown; for the Greek karaddayn (katallage) does, as Mr. Noble states, signify reconciliation, but the Hebrew word (kaphar) has no such meaning, but signifies properly to cover; hence to cover over, to overlook, to forgive. Reconciliation may be an effect of that forgiveness, but that is not the meaning of the word, nor does it signify at-one-ment or union. Mr. Noble, indeed, broadly states that the word atonement in the Old Testament signifies reconciliation. He says, "Though the word atonement occurs but once in the New Testament, it is often used in the Old, but always in the sense of reconciliation." This is certainly an error. Swedenborg always translates the word kaphar by expiation, which is a very different thing from reconciliation. Expiation is synonymous with atonement, in its ordinary sense, and not at all in the sense of at-one-ment.

And what have we, in fact, in the New Church, to do with reconciliation in any manner? The Word does not express any doctrine of the New Church. Reconciliation on the part of God conveys the idea of a return from a state of anger, and involves the old doctrine of Divine wrath. And as to God reconciling us, that is without meaning: what propriety is there in speaking of a sinner or offender being reconciled? The truth is, we seek to force a meaning upon the Apostles' language which it will not bear, and to make it appear that they knew what they did not know: it is certain the Apostles had not as yet a correct understanding of the nature of the Redemption, and it is vain to seek to show that they had. The Lord said to them-"I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now," and the true nature of the Redemption was doubtless one of these things. Before they could understand the true nature of the Redemption, they must know the laws of the spiritual world, the doctrine of Equilibrium, and many other things not then revealed.

The Hebrew term, kaphar, so often translated—make atonement for, in the Old Testament, (See Leviticus iv. 20, 26, &c.) Swedenborg translates, as before said, by expiate. Thus, in Exodus xxx. 16, “To make an atonement for your souls," Swedenborg renders, "to expiate upon your soul." So, in Leviticus iv. 26, where the common translation reads "The priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin," the literal rendering is "the priest shall expiate upon him from his sin." "Expiation," says Swedenborg, "denotes cleansing from evils, thus removal of sin: Aaron was enjoined to expiate the

people, and to pardon their sins." (A.C. 9937.) Thus the Hebrew term has no such meaning as at-one-ment or reconciliation. To expiate, as Swedenborg explains, denotes to cleanse from evils. It is said, "expiate upon him," in the literal rendering, probably to convey the idea that it was only an outward or representative cleansing that took place with the Jews by the offering of sacrifices or incense. "For," says Swedenborg, "it is to be known that those expiations were not real cleansings from evils, or remissions of sins, but only represented them." (A.C. 9506.)

Mr. Noble remarks-"It is not a little extraordinary that a word which occurs but once in the whole of the New Testament, from which more especially Christians profess to derive their creed, should have come to occupy so great a space in the language of the theology of the day." The remark is very just. And I would add, is it not still more extraordinary that New Church writers should seek, nevertheless, to introduce it into the language of the New Church theology, in which the doctrine commonly understood by that word is utterly repudiated and condemned? If, as Mr. Noble's remark implies, the Old Church theologians have no sufficient excuse for making so much use of the term, how much less excuse have the New!

The object of using this term is distinctly avowed in the following extract from an article contained in the "Intellectual Repository," for July, 1829: The doctrine of Atonement," remarks the writer, "is therefore worthy of being named amongst the doctrines of genuine truth, even although the doctrine of the Lord's Glorification, as set forth in the writings of Emanual Swedenborg, contains the whole substance of it under a different head or name. It will be found in practice that many may be led to listen to and understand the doctrine of the Lord's Glorification, under the title of the Atonement, who would slight it under a name which might be prejudged as setting aside the Atonement; for this, however explained, they believe to be a fundamental doctrine of Christianity." So, then, the object of using the term "Atonement is to catch people of the Old Church in a New Church net, as it were, by pretending that we hold a doctrine which they regard as essential, through making use of the same name to define a doctrine which is entirely different. Is that quite straightforward?

One of our opponents, it may be added, has had the acuteness to detect this fallacy, and has pronounced our using the term Atonement in the sense of At-one-ment, "an etymological quibble." I think there is some justice in the remark. I may add, that if we use it at all in

that sense, we should honestly call it at-one-ment, not a-tone-ment, and thus mark the distinction.

To show that the use of the term "atonement," as the name of a New Church doctrine, is a comparatively new idea, and was unknown to the early and able writers and preachers of the New Church, and that they spoke out plainly and boldly against the doctrine of Atonement as an Old Church falsity, we quote the following passages, recorded in Hindmarsh's History of the "Rise and Progress of the New Jerusalem Church," pp. 224, 314. In a letter, dated 1814, addressed to "The Members of the Select Committee of the Clergy appointed by His Majesty the King of Prussia, to make proposals for the improvement of Public Worship," Mr. Hindmarsh says "It is true the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice and atonement is received and taught by the generality of Christians. But as it is not on that account the more reasonable or the more scriptural, and it being as possible for Christians in the present day to misapprehend the true nature of their religion, as it was for Jews in ancient times to misunderstand the drift and nature of theirs ;-so it becomes us again and again to examine the Scriptures, in order that we may discover their genuine meaning on this as well as on other most important subjects." The Rev. J. Bradley, writing in 1819, making a report of his missionary visits, uses the following strong language (not too strong):-"The doctrine of the Atonement may be considered as really the sole obstacle to the reception of the Heavenly Doctrines, the idea being extremely comfortable to the natural man, that a person may be saved merely by addressing a few words to the Divine Being in the name of Jesus, and claiming an interest in his blood. Having been taught to place all confidence in this single point of faith, many, finding thereby that a good life is not essential, seize with ardour the darling theme, sing it often with ecstacy, and consider the man that would wrest from them their misplaced confidence, as no less than their mortal enemy. Could some measure be devised to make Christians in general ashamed of the absurd doctrine of the Atonement, the well-disposed among them would in all probability give a ready reception to the doctrines of Divine truth.'

This is manly and straightforward speaking. It is plain that there was no New Church doctrine of Atonement (under the etymological notion of at-one-ment,) thought of in those days. And it may be asked, is it the way to "make Christians ashamed of the absurd doctrine of Atonement," as Mr. Bradley justly terms it, to bolster them up with the idea that we of the New Church hold it too-only with a reservation

and explanation? No! The true way is to assault it boldly as a falsity, to show (and in that argument we are very strong) that it is not a Gospel doctrine, being never once named in the Gospels ;-that it is a doctrine only of the Jewish religion—a representative and ritualistic dispensationand forms no part of the Christian system. This would be to assign the term its right place in the Scriptures and in religious use. And by thus opposing the term itself as being no part of Christianity, we should do much more towards driving the doctrine itself out of men's minds than by continuing to use it approvingly, only giving to it a new definition. London. O. P. H.

GENERAL CONFERENCE.

The ensuing General Conference will be held at Salford, commencing on Tuesday, August 11th, 1868. Secretaries of Committees who have not yet forwarded their reports to the Secretary should take an early opportunity of doing so. F. PITMAN, Secretary,

20, Paternoster-row, London, E.C.

The Salford friends would be glad to receive, as early as possible, from the Secretaries of such New Church Societies as are distant more than twelve miles from Manchester, information as to the number of delegates or ministers likely to attend the ensuing Conference, and also the names and addresses of representatives as soon as practicable. Communications should be addressed to Mr. E. J. Leeming, Savings Bank, Manchester.

REVIEWS.

MAIDEN, PREPARE TO BECOME A HAPPY WIFE AND MOTHER. An Address to Young Women on Marriage. By HENRY BUTTER. London: S. W. Partridge and Co.

THIS Tract, intended as a companion one to "An Address of Warning and Advice to Young Men," contains much excellent counsel, which we cordially recommend to the consideration of those for whom it is intended.

In No. 8,

A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE NEW CHURCH.-A series of Tracts, of which this forms the first, is being issued by the "American New Church Tract and Publication Society." They are well written and nicely got up, and cannot fail to be useful. "Death is the Gate of Life," the analogy between the death and resurrection of man and the decay and germination of the seed, is more minutely traced, and the argument from it more pointedly put, than we remember to have seen.

MISCELLANEOUS.

NOTES ON SOCIAL & RELIGIOUS report presented to the public meeting