perception, which was proper to the celestial man, had ceased, its "origin being the separation of the will from the understanding." So that, according to this statement, the men of the most ancient church were not possessed of the rational principle, this "not being included in God's original design in the creation of man." Indeed, "S. S." distinctly states, and afterwards repeats the assertion, that "the celestial man had not the rational principle." And yet, after these broad statements, he affirms that "the simple mental forms were the same with the most ancient people as they are with man now," statements which stand in direct opposition to each other. If the "simple mental forms," whatever is meant by the phrase, were the same in both cases, how could rationality be wanting in the one, and only come into existence in the other, not being "included in God's original design?" Again, he states that, "with the most ancient people, that which is sometimes called the rational principle by Swedenborg, was not such as existed after the decline and extinction of the most ancient church, and such as exists at this day." But that is a very different thing from saying that the men of the most ancient church had not the rational principle because they were in perception. When Swedenborg speaks of the rational principle as pertaining to unfallen man, I presume he means what he says. Such a mode of dealing with the subject as followed by "S. S." is calculated rather to confuse than instruct the mind.

I should be sorry, however, even unwittingly, to do "S. S." an injustice. Palpable as is the contradiction in the two classes of positions just noticed, from a close examination of his paper, I conclude his meaning to be, that, assuming the rational principle to be merely the power of reasoning and drawing conclusions, the most ancient people, not standing in need of exercising such a process, did not possess the principle such as he has defined it. But in this he has reasoned from a false assumption, and has consequently argued himself into erroneous conclusions. In order to show the misapprehension into which he has fallen, I must request the attention of the readers of the Repository to the following extracts from Swedenborg. According to him

"The rational principle is the medium of union between the internal man and the external; and thus, from the Lord, it perceives what is doing in the external man, and reduces it to obedience; yea, it elevates the external man from things corporeal and earthly into which it immerses itself, and causes man to be man, so as to look upwards towards heaven, the country for which he was born, and not like brute animals to the earth only, where he is merely a sojourner; and still less to hell. These are the offices of the rational principle; wherefore, unless a man be such as to be able to think in this manner, he cannot be said to have any rational principle. To be able to reason against goodness and truth, is no proof of possessing a rational principle." (A. C. 1944.)

a subsequent paragraph it is explained that truth is rationally perceived from good, and not from reasoning respecting it :

"For when good is conjoined, and has respect to truth, all is clear to man, and this successively more and more, for he then begins to know innumerable things, and in this case proceeds from the good and truth which he believes and perceives, as from a centre to the circumference, and successively extends his views by a continual removal and dilatation of the boundaries thereof. By this means the light of truth derived from good increases immensely, and becomes a continuous lucid principle, since in this case he is in the light of heaven from the Lord, who reasons whether a thing be so or not does not even see, much less touch, the first threshold of wisdom." (A. C. 3833.)

Elsewhere it is stated

[but] he

"That God is said to open the eyes, when He opens the interior sight or understanding, which is effected by an influx into man's rational principle, or rather into the spiritual of his rational principle, and this by the way of the soul, or an internal way unknown to man. This influx is the state of his illustration, in which are confirmed to

him the truths which he hears, or which he reads, by a certain perception within his intellectual principle." (A. C. 2701.)

Once more

"He does not possess the rational principle who can reason from scientifics, and occasionally to appearance, more sublimely than others, it being only the lumen of infatuation which produces such dexterity; but he possesses the strength of the rational principle who can discern that good is good, and truth truth, consequently that evil is evil, and false false." (A. C. 4156.)

Speaking of illustration, after explaining that the capability of reasoning about goodness and truth is no proof that those who so reason are in illus tration, since this may arise from the imaginative and perceptive faculty, which, as he further explains, is twofold, being, on the one hand, derived from the light of heaven, or on the other, from the lumen of infatuation, it is added that—

"Both appear similar in the external form, but [that] they are altogether dissimilar in the internal. That which is in the light of heaven is in good, that is, has place with those who are in good. These from good can see truth, and know, as in clear day, whether it be so or not so.' (A. C. 4214.)

From these extracts, if the sentiments expressed in them are true, and numerous others conveying similar statements might be added, it is evident that to restrict the rational principle to "the power to reason, and to draw conclusions or adduce proofs from certain propositions," is to ignore its essential characteristics, and to rest in the lowest manifestation of which it is capable, which is rather a derivation from it than itself. In fact it more nearly answers to what Swedenborg terms ratiocination (see A. C. 977, 1071-73, &c.) than reason, and may be, and more frequently is, irrational than rational. Considered in its essential nature, the rational principle is a plane on which the light of heaven may descend, and impart the faculty to see truth in its genuine light, rather than to reason about it, which implies the defect of the rational principle rather than its presence. From this, too, it is evidently not correct, as asserted by "S. S.," that "man by virtue of the rational principle does not know truth from error," although it is quite true that he cannot arrive at such discernment by ratiocination. The definition of "S. S.," again, ignores the office of the rational principle as a medium whereby the principles in the human internal, which are above the plane of human consciousness, enter by influx, and are rendered appreciable to the intellectual perceptions in a kind of image. From the importance of the subject, I venture to trouble the reader with one more extract bearing on it :

"Spiritual light is above the rational sphere, and natural light below it, and this latter light is of such a nature that it can confirm whatever it pleases; but in case there is no influx of spiritual light into that which is natural, a man can neither discern whether any truth be true, nor consequently whether any false be false; for such discernment results solely from the existence of spiritual light in natural light, and spiritual light comes from the God of heaven, who is the Lord." (T. C. R. 334.)

The definition of "S. S." answers rather to the lumen of the natural degree just described than to the rational principle. This latter being an organized form receptive, when in order, of spiritual light, or illustration, through the internal from the Lord, and corresponding afflux through heaven, whence such light is represented as being above the rational sphere. Thence it descends also into the natural, when this is reduced to order, which it illustrates and enables to discern the true from the false.1

The next point open to objection is that which assumes that the rational

For the fuller explanation of this subject, however, the reader is referred to my Essay on the Rational Principle, which has already appeared in these pages, and which has been mainly collated from the statements of Swedenborg.

principle is born with man. Nothing is more strongly insisted on by Swedenborg than that there is nothing innate or connate with man save the faculty to know and the inclination to love. Thus it is stated—

"That the rational man is not connate or born with man, but only the faculty of becoming rational,' and that although children appear to have a rational principle, it is still not rational, being only a sort of rudiment of that principle.'

Elsewhere

(A. C. 1893.)

"The first rational principle of man is conceived and born by an influx of his internal man into the life of the affection of the sciences of his external; but his second rational principle from an influx of goodness and truth through his internal man. This second rational principle he receives from the Lord when he is regenerated, for he is then made sensible in his rational principle of what the good and truth of faith is." (A. C. 2093. See also 1990.)

Further

"The essential good of the rational principle, which is formed by an internal way, is the essential ground, but truth is the seed which is sown in that ground; there is no other possible method whereby the genuine rational principle can be born." (A. C. 3030.)

From these extracts it is clear that "S. S." is at issue with Swedenborg on two points: first, that the rational principle is born with man; and, secondly, that man forms what this correspondent terms his own "rational mind." The rational principle, according to Swedenborg, is altogether distinct from the faculty of becoming rational, which two are confounded by "S. S. ;" and that the "rational mind," to use his terminology, is not formed by man but by influx from the Lord, the only part man is capable of taking being co-operation with the Lord in its formation. It is clear, then, that the rational as a principle is formed subsequently to birth, partly by education, and partly by influx; and that the faculty of becoming rational would never impart rationality to man without the means essential to its formation. In short, the principle has to be actually conceived and born before it can exist.

LITTLE NELLIE'S GRAVE.

I GAZED upon the grassy bed
Where little sister lay,

And wondered that the time had sped
So rapidly away.

Like the last deep footprints in the sands
Which fringe Death's narrow stream,
And the farewell wave of the tiny hands
That little mound doth seem.

'Twas but as yesterday to me
I clasped her wasted form
Within my arms so tenderly,

While the tears fell fast and warm.
But many years have come and gone
And left their trace on me,
Since my own, my darling angel one,
From suffering was set free;

And high, to yonder world of light,
Above the thought of care,

Was borne by angel bands so bright-
Eternal joys to share.

And yet I think of her e'en now,
Unchanged, nor older grown,

Of the same sweet face and marble brow,
And the youthful form I've known.

I scarce can grasp the mighty truth,
Or bend my mind to know,

That the spirit-forms of tenderest youth
Unto perfect stature grow.

In that world of full-developed life
No blighted buds are seen;

But the flowers bloom, and the pruning knife
No more, with edges keen,

Will need to lop the drooping bough:

No weakly life is there,

But all in grace and beauty grow

In that land without compare!

Reviews.

S. L. MOORE

HEADS OF THOUGHT UPON THE FUTURE STATE OF MAN. THIS sketch, drawn up to remove the difficulties and resolve the doubts of a friend, is so excellent, that we would advise the writer to fill up the outline and give his thoughts to the public-for the book is only printed for private circulation and at the request of the friend to whom the observations were addressed. The Church wants works of a persuasive and prac tical character; and we have no doubt, judging from it as it is, that a more enlarged edition would be highly appreciated and prove extremely and extensively useful.

THE INFINITE AND THE FINITE. BY THEOPHILUS PARSONS. Boston (U. S.): Roberts Brothers; Carter & Pettie.

A NEW Work by this auther means a new pleasure and a new profit to a large circle of readers. Would this circle were much larger than it is! so many more would enjoy what we have experienced, and what every one who reads his well matured thoughts on the subject must feel-a deepened conviction of mind and satisfaction of heart with the truthful views he gives with so much grace and simplicity of the Infinite and the finite. The book is not, as the title might lead some to suppose, such as they would expect from those who write metaphysical and philosophical treatises on the subject. The author is not wanting in the knowledge of the laws of mind and matter, but he does not attempt to feed the minds of his readers with the wind of mere abstract speculation. He speaks to the reasonable soul which God has given, not merely to the speculative mind that man has builded up. The consecutive chapters of the work are so connected, being the successive links of a chain of inductive reasoning, that it is difficult to quote a part which is complete in itself. They gradually unfold the idea of the Infinite as it must be formed in the mind, if it is to be an intelligent apprehension of the highest knowable truth.

"Whatever is was created, except the Creator. If we go up with the ascending series of cause and effect, when we come to the summit we find that which was not caused; for if it were caused, we must go a step further

and find its cause. And that which is at the summit and is itself not caused has the whole series below it, and must be the cause of all causation. The totality of being consists of Creator and created. But God created all things, not out of nothing, but from His own substance, and is in all things that He created, not as a part of them, but as their life and sustaining cause. But distinctness is not independence."

GOOD WORDS

for June (Strahan) contains a sermon by the editor, preached before the Queen, in which there are some good points. One in particular deserves quoting: As far as the soul of each of us is concerned our entering into the kingdom of God is one with the kingdom of God entering into us. It consists in God reigning over our inner world of being, our wills becoming subject to His will, and He thereby gradually subduing us to Himself; bringing every thought, feeling, and passion under willing captivity to His righteous government."

Another truth, which we are glad to see in so popular a journal, is well expressed in these stanzas :—

A VIOLET.

"God does not send us strange flowers every year,
When the spring winds blow o'er the pleasant places
The same dear things lift up the same fair faces;
The violet is here.

"It all comes back-the odour, grace, and hue;
Each sweet relation of its life repeated;

No blank is left, no looking for is cheated;

It is the thing we knew.

"So after the death winter it must be,

God will not put strange signs in the heavenly places;
The old love shall look out from the old faces.

Veilchen! I shall have thee."

SIGNS OF THE TIMES: EXPLANATIONS APPLICABLE AND NECESSARY FOR THE PRESENT TIME. Extracted from the works of the Honourable Emanuel Swedenborg: to which is added a Pamphlet by a Member of the Victoria Discussion Society. London: Clayton & Co., 17 Bouverie Street, Fleet Street.

ON opening this handsome octavo of 400 pages we were surprised to find that it consisted almost entirely of extracts from Swedenborg's writings. The introductory chapter is from the "Apocalypse Explained" (Nos. 706-730), being an exposition of the great sign which was seen in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; of the birth of her man-child, who was to rule all nations; of the other sign that was seen in heaven, a great red dragon which stood ready to devour the child as soon as it should be born. The book thus commences with the explanation of one of the most striking and interesting parts of the mysterious Book of Revelation, and one which treats of "the New Church which is to be established by the Lord after the end of that which is in the Christian world."

These extracts occupy 34 pages. Then come above 200 pages of extracts from the "Arcana." These consist, however, not of explanations of the text, but of dissertations and relations that come between the chapters.