and thus able to become a kind of image of Himself, by possessing the ability of receiving the gifts of love and wisdom, which are Himself.

Thus it was in His goodness that the Creator endowed man with reason, to the end that He might raise him to loftier heights, and bestow upon him indefinitely greater joys than could be conferred upon a creature not possessed of rational faculties. But every height has its corresponding depth. Upon the possession of such a faculty was necessarily attendant the possibility of its abuse. If man could reflect upon all things, he could, necessarily, reflect upon himself; and being nearest neighbour to himself, and most in company with himself, and seeing a great deal of that individual, it was natural that he should observe himself narrowly. When, then, in His Divine love, the Creator had raised man from his first animal condition up to a state of wisdom, man could not but observe in himself the wisdom with which he had been endowed. Yet, he was warned not to think too much about that, and especially, not to take a wrong view of it. He was told, and it was impressed upon him, that the wisdom which he seemed to possess in himself, was in fact not his, but was merely lent to him, being communicated every moment afresh from the Creator, as light comes every moment afresh from the sun. He was admonished to give the glory where it was due to his God, and not take it to himself, or it would corrupt his mind, and destroy his happiness, and in the end extinguish the very wisdom itself in which he gloried. And the warning was heeded. Long, long did man keep himself in due humility, and consequent peace and joy. When he chanced to observe or reflect upon himself, he did not allow himself long to dwell upon that object of meditation, but, aware of the danger of self-contemplation, he turned away, and looked rather at the beautiful works of God around him, or up to God Himself above him, and bowed down to Him in thanks and adoration. Thus did he long remain in a state of humility and innocence, and he might have so remained for ever; there was no necessity for his falling, there existed only the possibility of it, and that possibility, as already explained, could not be taken away, without removing the rational faculty itself, and that liberty of mental action without which man would not be man.

In course of time, however, as a result, probably, of frequent selfcontemplation, he began to wish that the appearance were a reality. "Is it certain," he would think to himself, "that this is so? Is it certain that this wisdom, these abilities, are not mine, but are only lent to me, momentarily communicated from God? It really appears

otherwise I wish that I might think I was something of myself, and not a mere dependent being." Now, a feeling such as this was the beginning of that proprium (as Swedenborg terms it) or self-love, which was the first germ of evil in the mind. We see whence this sprung: from self-contemplation. We see whence the power of self-contemplation sprung from the possession of a rational and meditative faculty-which faculty, as before shown, was necessary to man's character as man. Yet the possession of that faculty did not imply the necessity, but only the possibility of such self-contemplation and self-admiration: and such possibility was involved, as already explained, in man's faculty of freewill, that is, of liberty to look this way or that, upwards or downwards, and to use his rational powers in what way he would; and such liberty was also necessary to him as a man. Behind this fact, as before said, you cannot go arrived here, you have reached the bottom of the subject.

But if it still be insisted-" After all, however, must it not be considered that God is the author of evil in having formed man with such a constitution as to make evil even possible to him ?"—to this question I will reply in the language of Swedenborg: "It may possibly be imagined," says he, "that the free-will given to man in spiritual things was the mediate cause of evil; consequently, that if it had not been given him, he could not have transgressed; but, my friend, pause awhile and consider with yourself whether any man could possibly have been created without free-will in spiritual things and yet be a man: if you take from him that freedom he is no longer a man, but a statue only. For what is free-will, but man's power of willing and acting, of thinking and speaking, in all appearance as from himself? It cannot be considered that God is the author of evil, although He endowed man with free-will in spiritual things; nor that He by any means infused any evil into him; for He is goodness itself, and in this He is omnipresent, perpetually striving and urging to be received. Evil was not created by God, but was introduced by man; and this because man turns the good, which continually flows in from God, into evil, in consequence of averting himself from God, and turning himself to himself; and when this is done, there remains the delight of good, and this then becomes the delight of evil; for without a delight apparently similar remaining, man could not live, for delight is the very life of his love; but still, those delights are diametrically opposite."+

* The observation, "there remains the delight of good, and this then becomes the delight of evil," must mean simply that what is evil then appears as good; for what one loves or desires, appears to him as good.

+ U. T. 489, 490.

In this last remark Swedenborg gives us the very pith of the matter; he shows what the very essence of evil is :-that it is not a new substance, but simply an old substance changed in its form; it is love still, but changed in its direction—namely, from love to others into self-love; and as every love is attended with delight, which, as Swedenborg remarks, is its very life, therefore the delight also is continued, but, like its parent, is changed in its nature, and becomes an evil and disorderly delight, namely, the delight of self-love. For, as we all know, every evil has its delight, else men would not continue in it; but the delight of evil, being a perverted, disorderly delight, soon, in its indulgence, comes into conflict with the order or nature of things established by the Divine Creator, and from the resistance pain and suffering ensue. Evil soon punishes itself, because it runs counter to the true order of things, and thus is soon stopped in its course, brought to a stand, and turned back upon itself. Hence the torment which the evil suffer, because they cannot be allowed the indulgence of their perverted loves, since these are opposed to the whole order and happiness of the universe. Each man's self-love comes into conflict with every other man's self-love; hence discord, misery, hell.

We thus see what evil is; it is simply love turned from its proper direction, which is upwards and outwards towards God and our fellowmen,-inwards and downwards to self. Self-love being thus formed, anger is soon begotten of it; for anger, in itself, is simply the excitement of self-love directed against whoever would interfere with its indulgence: then hatred follows, for hatred is the feeling of anger continued, then violence, and all sorts of injuries, even to murder itself. Self-love is the one parent of them all. We thus see how evil came into existence, and how it thence has spread itself through the world. London. O. P. H.

(To be continued.)

THE LITERAL AND SPIRITUAL SENSES OF THE WORD.

IN the September number of the Repository is the "Report of the Committee appointed by the Conference of 1867, to consider the relative uses of the literal and spiritual senses of the Word." In that report there are two passages which appear to me to give a wrong impression respecting the words of Swedenborg, and I hope the esteemed authors of the report will excuse the liberty I am taking in criticising the expressions referred to.

The first passage is given as a quotation from Swedenborg in confirmation of the first proposition. It is as follows:—

"There is no communication with angels if the Word is understood according to the letter, without doctrine, which is the internal of the Word." (A.C. 9410.)

Now this passage is not found in the number referred to. The words of Swedenborg are :—

"Quoniam omnia quæ sunt sensus litero Verbi correspondent rebus spiritualibus et cœlestibus, in quibus sunt angeli; cum quibus nulla communicatio est, si Verbum modo secundum literam capitur, et non simul secundum aliquod doctrinale Ecclesiæ, quod est internum Verbi."

It will be seen from this, that the authors of the report have not given the words of Swedenborg, but a general idea of what they conceive to be the sense of the passages. It appears also to me, that they have fallen into an error as to the sense, in making the second quibus agree with angeli as its antecedent, in the masculine gender. The logical antecedent of the second quibus, as well as of the first, is in my opinion, rebus, and the pronoun refers to rebus spiritualibus et cœlestibus. And I find, on reference to the English translation of the Arcana, that Mr. Clowes took the same view of the subject. If this be the correct meaning, Swedenborg does not say there is no communication with. angels; but no communication with spiritual and celestial things, that is, no communication with the spiritual and celestial perceptions of the angels. I think he could not mean to say there was no communication with the angels; for he often asserts that even children, when they read the Word, have communication with heaven; yet children cannot be in the internal sense of the Word. Moreover, he observes, that when he read the Word, and understood it in the natural sense, the angels understood it in the internal sense, according to their respective states of perception. (U. T. 235.)

The second passage I refer to, is in a new translation which the writers of the report have given of a quotation from the S. S., in which they have rendered the Latin ex by "through." Now, the general sense of ex is out of, from, by; it is true, it may sometimes be rendered through in a causative sense, signifying by reason of, but not in the sense of by means of, which is the meaning implied in the proposed translation. I cannot see any meaning in the idea of drawing the spiritual sense THROUGH the literal. But to speak of deducing the spiritual sense from the literal, presents a clear idea, and accords with what is said in other places, that the internal sense is often found naked in the letter.

That the preposition ex is to be understood in the passage above referred to in the ordinary sense of from, may be seen from the proposition prefixed to No. 225, of the "Universal Theology:"-" Quod Doctrina Ecclesiæ ex sensu literæ Verbi haurienda sit;” that the doctrine of the Church must be drawn from the literal sense of the Word. To say the doctrine of the Church must be drawn through the literal sense, would certainly convey a very singular idea.

If I have misunderstood or misrepresented the meaning of the report, I shall be happy to be corrected. ROBERT ABBOTT.

EDUCATION AS A MEANS OF MENTAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE FORMATION OF CHARACTER.-No. II.

(Continued from August No.)

In my last article, I spoke of the difference of man and animals, so far to show that while the instincts of animals are spontaneously and rapidly developed to the utmost limit of their narrow range, the human faculties are slowly and laboriously developed in a circle which is bounded only by infinity. Instinct and reason, necessity and liberty, do not, however, express all the grounds of distinction between man and animals, nor can the faculties of the animal ever be developed into those of the man. They differ not in degree, but in kind. Man's nobler faculties are not, as some suppose, the result only of a larger brain and a more perfect organisation, but of his being formed after the image of a Divine Creator, and after the pattern of a higher world, even of things in the heavens. Man's nature transcends that of animals not by a continuous, but by a discrete degree. Man is not a developed animal, but an enveloped angel. He is formed after the pattern of the spiritual, as well as of the natural world. He is not only a microcosm, he is also a microuranus,a little heaven, as well as a little world. He is the end of which creation is the means. And as there is nothing in the means which is not in the end, so there is nothing in creation which is not in man: in creation naturally, in man humanly. It is this truth which makes and marks the distinctive character of man; which brings to light the nature and order of human development, and which shows us the importance of applying the means provided for the formation of his moral and spiritual character. And, as it is a part of my object to endeavour to trace the development of the human mind, as it proceeds according to discrete, as well as continuous degrees,—to describe the process, and point out the means of the formation of what, in the Writings of the Church, are called the natural, rational, spiritual,