For there is an original correspondence of the whole soul of man with nature, prior to, and comprehending his particular relations; but lying, as it were, latent, till moral progress enables it to be felt, and understood, and enjoyed. Therefore is it that in the degree wherein man rises towards Excellence within, does he find Beauty plentiful without; and that in the ratio in which he becomes morally corrupt, it shrinks and dissolves from view. For as culture glorifies, so does vitiation of the spiritual quality of the observer crush and obscure, the divine image within, marring the fine harmony on which the sentiment of beauty rests, and leaving power to apprehend no more than the bare superficies or coverings of things,—always their unworthiest portions. Yet never can the sense of beauty be wholly lost, let a man debase and degrade himself how he will; for while there is life in him, God likewise is there, and wherever shines the divine light, it brings out something man is fain to admire. It is because of the sympathy thus enlarged and diffused, that to the devout mind no companionship is more lovely than that of nature. There, he who is capable of the true sentiment of Beauty, feels himself in communication with a life which everywhere expands and exalts him; and in the solace of it, feels renewed and refreshed. There, and with such capability, faith is easiest and most animating; and God himself most clearly seen. So that while Religion, truly so called, makes the heart more sensible to beauty, Beauty, in its turn, encourages religion.* Truly so called,' because religion is neither acquiescence in doctrines, nor observance of rites and ceremonies, but devotion of the whole soul to fulfilment of Divine example.

6

Wherever the eye is directed, then, it is to perceive a manifestation of the sublime and eternal principles which in their highest forms are sex and marriage. Love, as innumerable poets have sung, rules the heavens, the earth, and the waves that gave her birth.' What wonder that amo, I love, identifies itself even with the grammarians' teaching of a verb. But the grandest fact of all is that the sexuality of the world is not an independent institution, but a necessary result and counterpart of the sexuality of mankind. Man is the primary fact of the universe. Every object and phenomenon which it includes, exists because he exists; and because he loves and weds, is the earth spread with its perpetual marriage feast, and the air filled with hymeneal songs and welcomes.

No fact, however, is of the slightest value or importance, if it be forgotten that the design of all facts is use. What, then, is the great

* See an eloquent discourse on 'the Religion of Beauty' in the Phonetic Journal for 1850, page 31.

use of the inquiry we have been prosecuting? It is not a mere matter of curiosity. It shews that there is no development, no result, no fruit, where there is not an harmonious sexual coöperation; and that as the archetype of marriage is the union in the Divine, of Infinite Wisdom and Infinite Goodness; for our souls to flower forth as God intended, and acquire divine similitude, in them likewise must Wisdom and Goodness dwell in connubial love. The intellect and the affections must be united, and both must be united or reconciled with Himself.

REAL AND SPURIOUS CHARITY.

In the last number of the Intellectual Repository there appeared an article by W. M. on Prejudice. In this it was shown that although prejudice is generally condemned as an evil, it really performs important uses, and has its origin in Divine order. When it is evil, it may be considered as belonging to an evil will. It is plain, therefore, that very mistaken notions are entertained respecting prejudice; and it is the object of this paper to show that some opinions equally erroneous are entertained on the subject of Charity.

Considered as the love of our neighbour manifested in good works, it might be thought that there could be no difference of opinion cencerning Charity; and yet it may be real or spurious, according as it is or is not combined with that light of intelligence which should be inseparably connected with it. A man may appear to be doing good when acting in violation of charity, or to be doing evil when acting most charitably, and in violence to his own feelings. Thus, it is well known that almsgiving is often false and mischievous charity, while the severe punishment of an offender is true charity. It must be acknowledged, therefore, that many persons, not properly instructed, unwittingly err concerning charity. But self-love is its great antagonist. There is nothing so powerful in depriving a man of the light of truth which belongs to it. And this self-love assumes such a varied disguise-it is such a Proteus in shape-as to escape detection by the subject in whom it dwells, though often plainly exhibited to other persons. Under its influence, a man will demand that treatment as the exercise of true charity to himself, which he would think altogether unreasonable-the veriest false charity-if expected from him by another.

One form in which self-love is often exhibited, is a proneness to think one's own merit neglected, or one's services not sufficiently appreciated. This is sheer folly. If a tradesman complains of the neglect of the public, or the want of kindness and support on the part of those on whom he thinks he has a claim, who but himself will attribute the

neglect to any other cause than his own defect of temper, uncouth manners, or other unfitness for business? So, when mixing in society, a man is generally estimated at his true value. If not, it must be owing to some eccentricity or other defect, which prevents his real merit or talent from becoming known. He may think those with whom he is connected deficient in charity. He may charge them with pride, or a want of consideration for others. But the appearance of such lack of charity in them, is likely to arise from a want of true charity in himself. Were he earnestly desirous of serving others, instead of grasping at the gratification of his self-esteem, he would not be annoyed by such feelings of disappointment as have been noticed, but would receive a larger share of real honour, and be fully satisfied with his deserts.

There is nothing, however, concerning which the judgment is more likely to be led astray than on the subject of riches or property. If a man is scantily supplied, he may naturally think that his more wealthy relative or friend should share with him his abundance. This often does take place, and probably ought to take place more frequently or more liberally than it does. A correct knowledge of the circumstances, and an unbiassed will, are necessary to determine in what case it is an act of true charity. But it is not sufficiently considered, that the first duty of a man is to preserve and improve his own position, as to his capability of doing good. He has no right to deprive himself of, or even to lessen, that power of usefulness which Divine Providence has intrusted to his care. Imperfect notions of distributive charity may suggest a different course; but on due consideration it will be seen that by each individual's cultivating his own ground of usefulness, the aggregate amount of produce is by far the greatest that can be obtained for the benefit of the whole community. The power of doing good may not in all instances be faithfully employed: but it is more likely to be used with propriety by those who have fairly acquired it, than by being divided and used as common property. In the latter case something like a level might be effected, but it would be a low and degraded one. By each individual being the conservator of his own interests, although an impure proprium may too frequently and too greatly prevail, yet, under the controlling hand of Divine Providence, the greatest amount of good-which should be the object of true charity-is undoubtedly produced. In proportion as mankind improve in purity of motive and elevation of purpose, the amount will be increased.

In like manner, it is the duty of a society to maintain and strengthen especially its own capabilities of performing the uses for which it was established. The same principles which apply to an individual man apply to a body of men. A New Church Society, for instance, may

have incurred certain responsibilities and obligations, which its members should feel it incumbent upon them to discharge. But irrespective of such circumstances as those, it would be a great mistake for them to be influenced by the idea, that, so long as the general cause is benefited, it is a matter of indifference through what particular society the benefit or support is conferred. This notion, if acted upon, would tend to paralyse or greatly lessen the exertions of a society. A non-member, impressed with the comprehensive nature of charity, may think all the societies equally entitled to his support; but on connecting himself with any one, it becomes his duty to promote the advancement of that one in preference to every other. And this is not inconsistent with true charity; for if every society makes an effort for promoting its own interests especially, the interests of the whole will be most effectually promoted, and the general cause most efficiently served.

An especial attention to individual interests, then, is perfectly consistent with true charity. It is, in fact, the most efficient performance of duty, and that is the most important exercise of charity. In regard to neither individuals nor societies, is it incompatible with reciprocal good will, and the interchange of kind and friendly offices. Nor does it preclude the giving of such assistance to each other as circumstances may render expedient. It is undoubtedly necessary to guard against selfishness, to be watchful that the insidious enemy self-love be kept under subjection. We know that it is common in the Established Church-perhaps among Dissenters also,-for a minister to leave his charge or congregation, in order to take another with greater emoluments. Perhaps a wider field of usefulness may justify him in making such a change; and whether it is correct for a stronger society to draw a minister from a weaker one,- -or for a more powerful employer, by higher wages, to entice the best workmen from his neighbours, these may be questions for the casuist. But while paying especial regard to one interest, it is obviously needful to avoid doing injury or injustice to the rest. To avoid any apparent breach of charity, indeed, or the interruption of brotherly feeling, it may be sometimes expedient to swerve a little from the strict line of conduct which a sense of duty might otherwise direct. When the love of the neighbour is united with New Church intelligence, there will be little difficulty in determining the right course. The greatest amount of good should be the end, with an especial caution against doing evil that good may come. Nothing will justify a departure from the Divine laws. Nothing should reconcile us to the Popish doctrine, that a good end will sanctify bad means. Whatever is contrary to moral action, if assuming the guise of charity, must be a spurious charity. DISCIPULUS.

To the Editor.

29

THE APOCALYPSE EXPLAINED.

SIR,-Observing from the last report of the London Printing Society that it is their intention soon to reprint the first volume of the Apocalypse Explained, I beg to call the attention of that society's committee to the importance of revising the translation, or at least of correcting it in one very important particular. In examining a passage of Scripture in that work a short time since, I was surprised to discover, what I had not before observed, that the translator, instead of giving Swedenborg's rendering of passages from the Word, has merely copied the common English version. This is a great error, for thereby we lose the advantage of having Swedenborg's own version of the innumerable passages of Scripture which are contained in the Apocalypse Explained, and the explanation of which constitutes the chief value of that work. It is to be hoped, that at some future day, we may have a complete New Church translation of the Word; but in the meantime, had the translator of the Apocalypse Explained pursued the same course as Mr. Clowes in the Arcana Cœlestia, and given us Swedenborg's version of passages from the Word, instead of merely copying the common English one, we should already possess, in English, a translation of a large part of the Word, by Swedenborg himself.

To shew the importance of this matter, and the very serious nature of the defect in the present translation of the Apocalypse Explained, we will adduce some examples. We were examining a passage in Deuteronomy xxxiii. 20, which, in the common English version, is exceedingly obscure. Speaking of the tribe of Gad, it is said, “He dwelleth as a lion, and teareth the arm with the crown of the head." Now this is without meaning; for it makes the crown of the head an instrument for tearing or making an incision in an arm. Looking for an exposition in the Apocalypse Explained, (the great treasure-house of Scriptural inter pretations,) we found it in No. 435. We found the exposition, however, very unsatisfactory. The passage is given, not in Swedenborg's version, but quoted just as it stands in the common translation, He teareth the

66

arm with the crown of the head;" and the exposition is merely this :'Signifies, that he is nourished by truths external and internal." We could not see the connection of the passage with the interpretation, nor by any application of the law of correspondences could we draw forth a meaning from the words as they stood. The thought at once occurred that the translation was incorrect. Not happening to have the Latin