confirm what be advanced. The Swedish nobles, who administered to the queen this moral and political medicine, took care not to speak of it, since she would never have forgiven them, even after the revolution of 1772.

"While the queen lived, few persons, even in Sweden, knew this anecdote, and this is the way it was discovered.

"The old Chevalier Beylon, who happened to be passing at three in the morning by Sudermann where Swedenborg dwelt, saw the two senators coming furtively out of his house. He had been present when the queen gave the commission to Swedenborg. In this manner he easily guessed the plan, and held his tongue, being glad that the queen bad received that lesson.

“There is the key of a story, which probably has procured to the theosophical sect more than one adept. I attest the truth of this history, which has since been confirmed to me by a person of superior rank.'

"The Chevalier Beylon told me many other anecdotes of Swedenborg, whom he had known. Some have escaped my memory, and others are before the public. The greater number were not very important.

"It rests with you,+ Sir, to name me, if any one raises doubts of the truth of this narration. If no one contradicts it, I will remain under the veil of incognito. In the retirement in which I live, it scarcely suits me to break lances with the inhabitants of the New Jerusalem. Before I join them, I wait for the discovery of the beautiful city with jasper walls, and to receive in earnest of it some portion of the golden pavement.

"Feb. 9, 1788."

"I am,

&c.

"The anonymous author announces facts so clear, and rests them on circumstances so particular, that few will raise doubts of the authenticity of his story. But, to be quite impartial, we must here publish the different explanation which another person equally worthy of credit has given, by denying the existence of the fact from what he had heard the queen herself say. This then is the second version:

"I found this rumour generally accredited at Stockholm. Swedenborg had given the queen dowager news of the late prince of Prussia. People declare that she gave him this commission only to try the truth of his visions. But what was her astonishment when the prophet, admitted to a public audience, told her all that she had inquired.

"Having a free access to the queen, I one day seized the occasion to ask her the truth of the facts reported. She answered me, smiling, that she was ignorant of none of the writings that were circulated, nor of the motives of those who accredited them against their own conviction."

The same author subjoins the following narrative:-The Abbé‡ Pernetti, editor of Swedenborg's works, relates that the queen of Sweden, to try his knowledge, asked him the contents of a letter she had written to her brother, and that Swedenborg had fully satisfied her. He adds, that in her last visit to Berlin she admitted some academicians to her table. These asked her the truth of the revelation of the letter, and she answered, "Oh! as to what concerns the story of the Countess of § Mansfeld, that is true." Some one asked her again, for a sum she had already paid, but had mislaid the receipt. She complained to Swedenborg, who the next day informed her that

* Probably not the father of the Chevalier B. who is speaking, or he would scarcely thus describe him. † With the Editor of the Monatsschrifft.

Dom Antoine de Pernety, Benedictine of St. Maur and Rosicrucian, Swedenborg's cotemporary, and the most considerable of his disciples, president of the Swedenborgian Society of Avignon.

§ I believe this name should be Marteville, not Mansfeld.

her late husband had appeared to him to tell him where the receipt

was.

The truth is (adds the author), that the paper had accidentally been used as a mark in a mystical book which the count had lent to Swedenborg. And as that class of books were kept in a cupboard devoted to that purpose, the prophet had no difficulty in designating the place where the receipt was deposited.

ON THE DUTY OF PARISH OFFICERS.

SIR,-In the Events of the present month (February) recorded in your Magazine, the following statement appears at p. 244 :—

"It ought to be known that parish officers refusing immediate relief to destitute persons, whether parishioners or not, subject themselves to heavy penalties, which the magistrates are empowered to enforce."

I shall be much obliged if you can inform me from what authority that statement proceeds, and by what statute such penalties can be enforced.

I fear it is a construction of the Poor Law too beneficial to the poor to be true,

Your obedient servant,

P. F. CLAY. Rector of Chawleigh.

ON SEPARATION FROM PAROCHIAL COMMUNION.

SIR,-A correspondent, "L. de R.," in your last Number, taking compassion on the disappointment of " Rufus" in not having seen any reply to the questions of "Meleager," kindly gives his own views; for which, I dare say, the complainant would feel obliged. In his communication, "L. de R." alludes to two inquiries of mine proposed in your last volume, p. 686, under the signature, “Ductor Dubitantium." This signature, by-the-bye, seems to have afforded "L. de R." some amusement; but I humbly conceive that he who is often called on to answer the questions and resolve the doubts of others, must himself not unfrequently ask questions, and have the hesitation of his own mind removed. Two questions may, therefore, it is presumed, be asked by one who is nevertheless himself often acting as Ductor Dubitantium. It appears, then, that "L. de R." did notice my queries; will he kindly give me the benefit of his opinion on them, that I may be better prepared to counsel those who are in perplexity as to the course they ought to take, in consequence of the vicious conduct or unsound doctrine of their parochial minister?

I will change my signature, and subscribe myself, Sir, your much obliged servant,

DUBITANS.

ON THE REVIEW OF DR. MILLER.

MY DEAR SIR,-A friend of Dr. Miller's has written in the February Number, to relieve Dr. M. from the charge of not using the term catholic correctly, and to complain of the injustice of my review of his pamphlet in the January number. The extract he gives from the pamphlet itself only shews that he knows the proper application of the term; but it does not exonerate him from the charge of using it incorrectly in p. 76, nor from misunderstanding Dr. Pusey's use of it. And the circumstance that two persons, quite independently of each other, (for I knew nothing of Professor Sewell's notice of the subject till I saw it in the Magazine, and as little could he foresee in November what I should think of it when I saw it in December last,) should make the self-same observation, shews at least that Dr. Miller gave some handle for it.

With regard to my having "disposed of Dr. Miller's arguments by a general accusation of misunderstanding," instead of "refuting" them seriatim, I believe I have only kept up the usual practice of the Magazine, in which the limits allotted to notices of books do not allow of their being noticed at any length; and, consequently, the opinion of the reviewer is necessarily given in general terms, and taken for what it is worth. His assumption that I am one of Dr. Pusey's party is well known to you to be incorrect.

I remain, my dear Sir, faithfully yours,

THE REVIEWER.

ON BAPTIZING AFTER THE SECOND LESSON.

SIR,-You request your correspondents to be brief, and I think I need not be long in answering the objections of " M. A., a constant Reader," against returning to the practice of baptizing children after the second lesson. His first objection seems to be, that, as we cannot observe with exactness all the rubrics, we need not observe any more than we like, or only so far as we judge expedient: this is matter of opinion; so I can only say, my opinion is, that if we cannot keep all, we ought to try and keep as many as we can; and the more strictly we can keep to the letter of them the better. 2. He says the rubric is, after all, only of human authority, and may be altered again. So it may; but, en attendant, surely it is our duty to obey it; if at least the Article be true which says that "the church has power to decree rites or ceremonies," &c.; and whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.

3. He seems to take it for granted that the upper classes will never consent to have their children baptized during the service; to which I can only answer, that about a year ago, a gentleman of good fortune had his child baptized in my church after the second lesson, and the wife of one of the wealthiest and most powerful commoners in the kingdom stood godmother to it; and yet they did not feel themselves, nor did the congregation consider them any ways degraded by it; and all the parties afterwards declared that they never enjoyed a christen

ing more, or entered so fully into the spiritual meaning of the service as "the reception of the child into the congregation of Christ's flock;" and I have never had any objection made since I restored the custom; nor do I think any one will, except it be some cross-grained farmer, or some purse-proud upstart, for whose sake it is hardly worth while to break a law of the church.

4. He is afraid it will make the morning prayers too long: to which an obvious answer is, that baptisms are always appointed for the afternoon service, during which the complainers of the length of the prayers are sitting comfortably over their wine and newspapers, leaving the church to the "poorer classes," those interesting phenomena, who actually do not feel the hardship of remaining an additional quarter of an hour in the house of God, and who, I find, follow the service of baptism with almost as much eager attention as they listen to a sermon.

And lastly, "M.A." objects to the custom because he fears it will add to the divisions in our church, already too many, and form a new sect, I suppose, of After-second-lesson-baptizers. At this rate, the only way of securing uniformity would be, to have nothing at all to conform to. There existed such a kind of negative catholicity in certain times of the history of the children of Israel, when we are told "all men did that which was right in their own eyes;" but I do not think that was meant for an ensample for us to follow-though in these latter days it is too much the rule. I fear indeed there are sadly few who obey the church, for conscience', not for crotchet's sake. Every man is, when he comes to be sifted, a church unto himself; but this is no excuse for breaking a rubric, when it is in our power to keep it. Yours sincerely, C.

THE USE AND ABUSE OF FINE ARTS IN RELIGION.

SIR, I believe the lawfulness and expediency of employing the fine arts in religious worship was a question early brought before the Christian church. While some Fathers discountenanced or opposed such an application of them, others believed that every talent which God has given to man might be consecrated,* saw no objection to

Painting and sculpture have never reached perfection in the hands of men who did not dedicate them to the service of religion. It is difficult to resist the inference that if they are lawful at all, the path which they ought to take is indicated. Why is art at a low ebb in England? We have statuaries who cut as well as Canova; our painters can colour exquisitely, but they toil for men who cannot stimulate their talents because ashamed to use their services in the legitimate way. Religion, however, has not been without its influence in the eminence they have. Did ever man take such likenesses as Sir Joshua Reynolds and Sir Thomas Law. rence? Can any statuary in Europe rival the busts of Chantrey? I think he who turns over the leaves of Grainger, and works on local history, will suspect that the demands for portraits of favourite preachers in the seventeenth century, and for church monuments at all times, have mainly contributed to keep alive the only branches of art which now flourish among us.

lining their sanctuaries with cedar, commemorating their pastors by painting and sculpture, and forming altar services of elaborately engraved and precious metals. Never having been induced to examine the details of the Iconoclastic controversy, I would not attempt to give an opinion upon it; but I know that many sound-minded men have censured the precipitancy of Leo the Isaurian, however much they reprobated the second Nicene Council. If indeed the letter of Pope Adrian to Irene could be taken as an authoritative exposition of the opinions of the Iconodulic party, the Caroline books and the Council of Frankfort-on-the-Maine seem to offer no opposition to them. The misfortune is, that what Bishop Cosin once said on the concession of another pope was evidently true of this-" We thank him not at all; he would allow it us as long as it stood with his policy, and take it away as soon as it stood with his power."

But while the Greek and Latin churches were rent asunder by the zeal of Constantine, it is pleasant to remember that our own continued orthodox. The British church was amply represented in the Council of Frankfort, and in perfect harmony with its sentence is the second canon of the Council of Calcuith, over which Wulfrid, primate of Canterbury, presided in 816, which enjoined on the artist bishop who consecrated any church to draw the figures of the saints to whom it was dedicated on its wall or altar. For this very council implicitly rejects the second Nicene, and proves that this church was as yet untainted with the fanaticism of the Eastern, and the close approach to idolatry of the Western church.

After witnessing this struggle, which had really been going on for centuries, one might wonder that all the West should have settled into Iconoduly, and the East bowed down before representations in perspective, of things which they abominated in relief; but the solution is found in a desire, inherent in most breasts, after the likeness of those whom they love and venerate, who being dead yet speak; and if that cannot be had, the features which most nearly expressed their ideal character.

There would be something ungrateful to Providence in deploring too much the loss of interesting objects in that havoc of the arts which took place at the Reformation. The manner in which it was done is far more legitimate matter of complaint-the insult, and scorn, and contumely cast on memorials of men who were justly revered in their day and generation; the apostles, and Christ himself. Something of that devotional feeling, however, with which the disciple recals the look and gesture of his Master, or with which he endeavours not vainly to enhance the impression of the words of one whom he has never seen, by studying delineations of his face, revived while the destruction of images had only run its first stage in the English church. It is impossible to read the letter of Jewel to one of his Helvetian friends,-Gaulter, I think,-thanking him for a silver image of Peter Martyr, recalling the happy past, and attesting by affectionate criticism the eagerness of his desires after something which it was meant to be, without feeling that no party violence can quite obliterate an instinct of the heart determined to