becomes successively less general, and at length particular in the degree that truths grounded in good are insinuated; for every truth derives from good its brightness, and also its power of illustration. Hence now it is that, as previously said (5206), truths were exterminated out of the natural principles, which is to the intent that the natural principle may receive general illustration from an interior principle, and afterwards in the general illustration or common light, truths may be there replaced in their order, whereby the natural principle is illustrated particularly. In this manner correspondence is effected between the spiritual and the natural principle with man, or between his internal and external; for truths are first procured, afterwards these truths are as it were exterminated; yet they are not exterminated, but stored up, and in such case the inferior principle receives general illustrations from the superior, or the exterior from the interior, and in that light truths are replaced in their order, whence all truths therein become images of the common or general principle, and correspond thereto."

Then follows the extract referred to:

"In all and singular things also which exist, not only in the spiritual world, but also in the natural, a common or general principle precedes, into which things less common, and finally particular things are afterwards and successively inserted. Without such insertion or infitting nothing can have inherence; for whatsoever is not in some general or common principle is dissipated." (A. C. n. 5208.)

When taken in its connection, what has this to do with the origin of species? It is simply the exposition of a law of the Divine order whereby every entity depends on a general principle which forms the common basis, and on which rest, as on their ultimate, the particulars of which the details are composed. Thus the common principle which holds all organized bodies together is the skin; whilst within this common integument are successively developed the organs and viscera of the body; and within these again the fibres; and within the latter the fibrils, each enveloped in its proper covering. Without this the body would cease to be an organized form, and become a crude shapeless mass. The same holds good with regard to the mind, this first receiving general truths, which are afterwards successively enriched by the insinuation of particular truths.

Another statement of Swedenborg, it has been suggested to me, might possibly be urged by some in favour of the Darwinian theory, viz.: "That the Lord operates from first principles, through ultimates into intermediates." A little consideration will, however, remove such an impression. The "first principle" in the procreation of the human species, is unquestionably the human essence or human internal in the parents. But in the animal which is destitute of even a spiritual principle, to say nothing of a human internal, there is no human first principle but only an animal from which to act into and through the

ultimate, consequently such as is the first principle, such will be the ultimate, and such the intermediates. Besides, the different species of animals are but the embodiment of particular affections, whence the whole of animal natures in their totality are but equivalent to the aggregate affections in a single human mind, and this only in the ultimate or natural plane; how then could the subject of a single general affection, by however an unusual a birth, produce a congeries of faculties such as exists in the human subject, especially too when the most wonderful part of man's nature lies incalculably superior to any and every thing which the animal possesses?

Mr. Omant refers to the passage in the Arcana which speaks of the first race of men as having lived like wild beasts, and strangely remarks, that "Swedenborg must have been speaking of animals who were developed into man." How any one can argue that living like a beast means to be bona fide an animal, is to me a marvel. All that Swedenborg intends to convey, is that in the infancy of the human race, as in the infancy of the human subject, only the corporeal degree was at first developed. In both cases the spiritual degree must be potentially present, or it could not be developed. It is wonderful how a pet theory will warp the judgment of even intelligent men. Professor Huxley in a lecture delivered not long since in Manchester, illustrated the development theory by reference to the expansion of the infant in after life, through the agency of education. But no amount of education will develop in the animal aught beyond instinct, which, indeed, develops itself mainly without education. The domestic animals have for ages lived more or less associated with man, and yet their instinctive powers are not superior to those which have lived in a wild state, except that by his rational principle man utilizes their instincts and powers to his own purposes. To him the horse yields its strength, the cow its milk, the sheep its fleece, and the dog its instinctive sagacity; whilst a large portion of their enjoyment appears to result from their fulfilling his behests.

Whilst, however, the instincts of animals are innate, spontaneously growing up with their growth, the human subject is born in complete ignorance, in which it would remain save through the agency of instruction; and although this might appear at first sight an imperfection, it is, nevertheless, an indispensable condition of man's superiority. For instance, beyond the circle of their natural instincts it is not possible for animals to pass, nor can any amount of instruction impart elements foreign to their nature. With man, on the contrary, no such limits

P

exist. Coming into the world without either innate knowledge or affection, but endowed with the faculty of acquiring both, there are no such boundaries to his progression. It is true that he is finite; but within this range there is no term to his advancement. From this condition of his birth, moreover, in which he stands so distinct from animals, every acquisition of knowledge and virtue but enlarges his capacity of further reception; so that his whole mind, so to speak, is a congeries of vessels ever standing open when in order ready to be filled with new mental gifts and graces, these too becoming vessels which can never be filled to repletion in time or eternity.

Again, whilst it is admitted that man possesses a nature which we term animal, it is to be observed that the similarity lies on the surface only. Viewed interiorly it essentially differs, by virtue that there lie within it the germs of his higher nature, so that his animal part is capable of being humanized, and of thus being raised above itself, and placed on a platform which no animal can reach. In short, when in order, he is human throughout every degree of his mind from the highest to the lowest. Moreover man is the only being capable of interpreting the works and designs of the Infinite, and of recognizing the being and presence of the Supreme. Through him the works of the Creator praise their Author, He being the link which completes the circle in which creation descends from and returns to God.

Other arguments might be added which my space only admits of hinting at. The brain of the least civilized races of man is, for instance, immeasurably larger than that of the largest anthropoid ape, being fivesixths of the size of that organ as developed by the highest forms of civilization. Mr. Darwin assumes that the brain is developed by mental exercise, but this fact contradicts his assumption of the human brain having been so developed from the ape. For here is a brain which has not been so developed, and could not, therefore, have been transmitted from an animal progenitor with a brain scarcely half the size; and the fact points to the origin of man by a special creation, and the endowment of a reserve of brain-power waiting to be developed under favourable conditions. Another fact inimical to the theory is the formation of the human larynx with the capacity of giving expression to musical sounds, which is entirely absent in the species of the ape tribe, and could not, therefore, have been derived from that source. Mr. Darwin's theory of the peculiarities of the parent descending to the offspring again does not hold good in the case of bees, the worker in the hive being hemaphrodite, whose male parent is a drone, and its

mother the queen bee, neither of which works. The only intelligible explanation of this peculiarity is that offered by Swedenborg, of an influx from the spiritual world falling into its soul and determining its habits.

When Mr. Omant remarks, that those who object to man's having descended from a monkey, do not object to his having been formed from the dust of the ground, he spoke without due consideration. Man being derived from both worlds, his body must have been from the earth, the common storehouse of all physical organic forms. As Longfellow has beautifully said,

"Dust thou art, to dust returnest,

Is not spoken of the soul,"

where reside the distinctive human characteristics, this world simply supplying the material clothings. Finally, those who favour the Darwin theory are ignorant of or overlook either the laws of the Divine order in creation, which involve distinctness as well as unity, or the nature of discrete degrees. Important as is this subject, my space will not allow of developing it. Suffice it, therefore, to remark that every organized being is distinctly one. Take the human body; every organ, viscus, and fibre, notwithstanding its forming an integral part of the whole animal economy, is preserved distinct from every other. Still more is this the case with different orders of being. In short every degree of creation, whether spiritural or natural, is limited and terminated with its own ultimate. Even the three heavens, all of which are from the human race, are so distinct, the one from the other, as to have nothing in common (D. L. and W. 202); each being bounded by its own limit, and discretely separated from the other. So much for their distinctness; their union is based on the perfect correspondence of the whole from the highest to the lowest, by means of which the influx from the Lord permeates and harmonizes them. Now who could seriously suppose that heaven with its discrete degrees has after all only been developed from a monkey! Individuality of species between which the Creator has set bounds which they cannot pass is as essential to the existence of created being, as the relation which one thing bears to another. To have created on the Darwinian theory, would then have introduced confusion into God's works if it had not undermined the very basis of individuality. W. W.

196

CASTING PEARLS BEFORE SWINE.

A SERMON BY THE REV. R. L. TAFEL, PH.D., PREACHED IN THE CHURCH, CROSS STREET, LONDON, ON SUNDAY, MARCH 10, 1872.

"Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine; lest perchance they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."-MATT. vii. 6.

THE words of our text are of great importance to the members of the Lord's Church, who are understood by the disciples, to whom they were addressed. For in these words we are clearly taught, not only in what state of mind we ought to be, in order to receive worthily the holy things and the truths of the Church, but also how they must be communicated by us to others, so as to be received by them in a holy and worthy manner, and so as not to be profaned or rejected by them.

We are taught in the New Church that in the Sacred Scriptures animals represent those feelings and inclinations which man has in common with animals; all of which are in his external or natural man. Some animals represent only good and innocent affections; such are sheep, cattle, lambs: others again represent only evil and depraved affections; such are wolves, leopards, tigers, foxes: while there are others that sometimes represent good, and sometimes evil affections, and among these are dogs. From the fact that they live on animal and not on vegetable food, and also that they eat unclean things, it is evident that, even when taken in a good sense, they can only mean the lowest and most external things in man, such as external desires and appetites. In such a better sense dogs are referred to by the Lord, when a Greek woman, a Syrophoenician by nation, besought Him to cast forth the devil out of her daughter, and when He said "it is not meet to take the sons' bread, and to cast it before the dogs," where by the sons are meant those who are within, and by dogs those who are without, the Church. In a similar good sense are we to regard the dogs that licked the sores of Lazarus; which represent those out of the Church who are in good, but not in the genuine good of faith. This good quality of dogs is represented by their attachment to their masters.

In this good sense, however, dogs are not used in the words of our text, where we read-" Give not that which is holy unto the dogs." Here a different feeling is represented by dogs, but one which is likewise