things are called living things it is to be understood in relation to other created and finite things, which are of the natural world, and are inferior to them. So that when "T. R." says " God has created two universal kinds of substance (by which we understand two distinct kinds, as there cannot be two universals), the one is apprehended as living, the other as dead," we are to understand the one as being living in relation to the other, which is inferior; considered in itself, it is not living any more than the other; for the things which constitute the sun, in which they originate, are not life in itself, but are void of life in itself. They are called living because they are the substances in which are produced the existence of finite conscious life; and they are called active because they have no fixity; but that all external things are obsequious to the interior operations of the minds of the angels. Spiritual substance is capable of this, but not the natural; the natural can receive life only through the spiritual.

66

66

When Swedenborg's writings are more generally read, and are better understood, the idea of the body being void of life because it lives by derivation from the soul, will be looked upon as a notion belonging to by-gone ages, and which is not at all proper to the New Church. In the Universal Theology of the New Church," in the chapter headed, "That the Lord operateth of Himself from the Father," Swedenborg informs us, 'That God the Father operateth in the Son, and upon the Son, but not by the Son; and that the Lord operateth of Himself from the Father." (153.) And he states that as it was with the Lord, so it is with his Image and Likeness. In 154, he states that "all the angels in the heavens are filled with the Lord, for they are in the Lord, and the Lord in them; but, nevertheless, every one of them speaketh and acteth of himself from the Lord." It may be said, I know that it is the case with angels, for they have not the natural body; but it is not so with men in the world. Swedenborg says that it was the case with the apostles; his words are—" It is well known that the apostles, after that they had received from the Lord the gift of the Holy Ghost, preached the Gospel through a great part of the known world; and that they published it both by their discourses and writings; and this they did of themselves from the Lord; for Peter taught and wrote in one manner, James in another, John in another, and Paul in another, each according to his own particular intelligence. The Lord filled them with his Spirit, but each took a portion thereof according to the quality of his peculiar perception, and exercised it according to the quality of his strength or power." It may be said, Yes, but that life by which they acted, together with their strength or power, was the soul's in the body.

But Swedenborg says "This will admit of still more familiar illustration from the mutual commerce which subsisteth between the soul and the body, which are two substances distinct from each other, but yet reciprocally united; the soul acts in and upon the body, but not by the body after an arbitrary manner; for the body acteth of itself from the soul. It is plain that the soul doth not act by the body, inasmuch as they do not consult and deliberate with each other; nor does the soul command or require the body to do or to say this thing or that; nor does the body, on the other hand, require or request the soul to give and supply it with any of its power and assistance; for, in consequence of their mutual connection, all that the soul has belongs to the body, and all that the body has is the soul's property likewise." These remarks are so plain, even to the sensual apprehension of man, that it is almost impossible to misunderstand them. After adverting again to the Lord's Divinity and Humanity, he concludes with this important remark: This is an arcanum from the Lord himself, intended for the use of those who shall become mombers of his New Church." ("T. C. R.," 154.) Thus we see that the soul has its own life, and the body has its own life; and that the soul does not act by the body as a mere instrument which has no life, but that the body acts of itself, though from the soul. The idea of the distinction between the soul acting by the body, and the body acting of itself from the soul, is great; and its importance is as great as the distinction. If we think of the body as being the "instrument" or "hammer" of the soul, it is impossible that we can have a correct idea of the human constitution and the nature of man; and the right use of anything will depend much upon our knowledge of it, whether it be ourselves or anything else.

66

We ought to be cautious when quoting our author, and apply his words only in reforence to the subject which he has immediately under consideration, rather than to that which is the subject of our own meditation, or we may unintentionally misrepresent him, and mislead the simple-minded. We cannot but think that "T. R." will regret having quoted the following from "H. H." 464:-"The external or natural memory, so far as it regards all ideas derived from materiality, time, space, and all other things which are proper to nature, does not serve the spirit for the same use which it had served man in the world.” 'The external memory is quiescent as to anything material, because material ideas cannot be reproduced in the spiritual world." What our author says here is simply, that the contents of the natural memory, so far as they partake of materiality, or anything that is proper to nature, do not serve the spirit for the same use as they had done in the world.

This must be evident to all from the sense of the words, as well as to every one who has any idea of the difference between matter and spirit. But still our friend appears to have overlooked the plain sense, and gathered another idea, for he says "It is worthy of notice that Swedenborg here predicates materiality of those substances which he had before called natural, derived from the purest parts of nature;" while it is quite clear that it is not the substance of the memory which is meant, but the contents of the memory. And the term as it is here used does not apply to the subject, but to the objects of the external memory, as appears to be plainly stated. A state of quiescence of the external memory as to its objects, and the forms received from material things, is necessarily brought about when the medium by which it communicated with them is removed. In agreement with which it is stated, that man "carries with him his natural memory; for everything that he ever saw, heard, read, learned, or thought, from his earliest infancy to the last day of his life, he still retains." That is, the impressions on the memory from external objects; for these are all that he ever possessed, and they are what are retained, which are the contents of the external memory. It is further said—“The natural objects, however, which are contained in the memory, not being capable of being reproduced in the spiritual world, remain quiescent, just as they do with a man in the world when he does not think of them; but, notwithstanding, they are reproduced when the Lord sees good." ("H. H." 461.)

Now, although the contents of the external memory are taken from material objects, yet they are not material; neither is the memory which contains them material; but they are forms or impressions which are taken up by correspondency, which is a process that does not imply the taking up of substance, nor the transmutation of it. It is said that the natural objects in the external memory are not capable of being reproduced, still it is said that they are reproduced when the Lord sees good. Now, it is quite certain that if natural objects are not capable of being reproduced in the spiritual world, they never will be reproduced, for impossibilities are not performed there any more than here. But if we turn to 464 of the same work, Swedenborg himself will remove the apparent discrepancy. He says-"Although man has his external or natural memory in him after death, the merely natural things contained in it are not reproduced in the other life, but, instead, such spiritual ones as are adjoined to those natural ones by correspondencies." When says "the merely natural things contained in it," he means the forms of those things, and not the things themselves. From these words of Swedenborg himself it may be seen that in the spiritual world there are

he

no material substances, neither as memory, nor as objects; but all is spiritual, both subjects and objects. He is speaking of the external memory as it is in the spiritual world, and he never calls anything material which is there. The memory exists only with regard to its contents; without these there is no consciousness, no knowledge, and, consequently, no existence. And if the memory has not the medium by which it can communicate with material things, its contents can have no application; they cannot be applied to spiritual things, therefore they must be quiescent. Hence we may see that the term “material” does not apply to the substance or subject of memory, but to its contents.

"T. R." quotes from 432 of the same work; on turning to which we find that his quotation is the beginning of a chapter headed, "That as to his interiors every man is a spirit." It will appear evident to everyone who carefully reads this number, endeavouring at the same time to remove all preconceived notions, that our author is proving that the body lives from the soul, and not from itself; and that he is not proving that which is palpably contradictory, viz., that the living body does not live at all. We cannot suppose that Swedenborg ever thought that any one would or could believe that the living body had no life; neither do we suppose that "T. R." can think so. But enough has been said on this subject above.

Our friend, in quoting this number, has marked the phrase, “which appears in the body," as though it meant that the appearance alluded to was a mere appearance, or a delusion, and that it was not a real appearance, or that it was not the appearance of something really existing; but this is not our author's meaning. He intended to convey the idea that the life of the body was not in it independent of the soul, but that it was in the body from the soul; and that its appearing in the body was a presentation—that the life of the soul was continued to the body, and appeared in it, or that it was presented in the body; all things appearing when they are presented, where they are presented, and as they are presented. In this number Swedenborg does not use the term natural, but material; and from the frequent use of it, we think he ought to be understood to mean the material only, and not the interior degrees, which he calls natural. And although "T. R." quotes this to prove that he uses the terms natural body and material body simultaneously, still he admits that Swedenborg makes a distinction between them. And though he is endeavouring to prove that the body does not think, yet, in another place, he says that it does think; he says that the interior degrees," while man lived in the world, were organs of thought

and affection in the natural body." Now, this is all that we contend for; those interior degrees are parts of the natural body, therefore if they are organs of thought and affection the body lives; for to exercise thought and affection is to live, and it is human life. When Swedenborg says that it is from its spiritual substances that thoughts are produced, and not from its natural substances, he expresses our thoughts upon the subject. He states that thought originates in the spirit, and not in the natural body; but that it descends into it and appears, or it exists in the body by derivation from the soul. For as the soul in its ultimate form is such as it appears to the sight, so the ultimate activity of the soul is such as is manifested in the life of the body.

Our friend says much about dead substances and living substances; and he attributes to the living substances life, capabilities, and organization. He speaks also of the essences of these two kinds of substances; the essence of the dead substance he defines to be "deadness or inertness," the other he does not define. We confess that we cannot see the difference between the dead substance and its essence according to this definition. We think that it would be better to take a common sense view of these things, and speak of them according to what we know. The human form has high and noble faculties or properties which are not peculiar to mere matter; they exist in it nevertheless by derivation. Mere matter cannot be made to possess any properties but those which are peculiar to it in its unorganized state, for this alone is mere matter; but when it is organized it is made receptive of the properties of the substance of the essence as well as of the substance of the form, or by organization the properties of the essence descend, and become ultimated in the form; this is an effect which is the result of organization, and without which it could not be produced. When we say that the form is made receptive of the properties of the essence, we do not mean in the same degree, but in its own degree, by which the life of the essence becomes the life of the form. In agreement with this idea Swedenborg says—“ All the angels are forms or substances formed according to the reception of Divine principles, which are from the Lord, the Divine principles received by the angels are what are called celestial and spiritual, whereas the Divine life, and the Divine light thence derived, exists and is modified, as in its recipients. Hence it is that the forms and material substances appertaining to man are also of such a nature and quality, but in an inferior degree, as being grosser and more compound; that these latter are also forms recipient of celestial and spiritual things is very manifest from signs absolutely visible, as from thought, which flows into the organized forms of the tongue and produces speech; from