tion according to an edition of the Arcana Calestia which was published by the Swedenborg Society in 1848. But in 1861, the Society published an edition in which the same passage reads thus: "From this it may appear also that the earth is not to endure for ever." Now I think that according to this latter reading, and its connection with the context, we are not obliged to believe that Swedenborg affirms that the earth will have an end. All that we are obliged to believe him to affirm is that it may appear from the natural sense of the words, "During all the days of the earth" (Gen. viii. 22), that the earth will not endure for ever. After this affirmation of the appearance that the earth will not endure for ever, Swedenborg immediately in the next sentence takes under consideration the notion of those who think that the last judgment spoken of in the Apocalypse will be the end of the earth, and points out that last judgments are the ends of Churches, and that the last judgment of the Apocalypse would be the end of the first Christian Church, but would not be the end of the earth. Now, to suppose that Swedenborg affirms positively that the earth will have an end, and also to suppose that his explanation that last judgments are the ends of Churches is used merely for the purpose of showing that the judgment of the Apocalypse was not to be that end, though it was to have an end at some time,-I say, to suppose these two things is to involve ourselves in inextricable difficulty. For in making that explanation, he says that, under the circumstance of a last judgment, a New Church is always raised up by the Lord. As he knew then that, under the circumstance of a last judgment, a New Church is always raised up by the Lord, is it not absurd to suppose that he is at the same time affirming that the earth will have an end. Mr. Bruce admits that Swedenborg knew when he wrote (A. C. 931), that, while a Church remained on the earth, the earth would never have an end. Well, then, as he also knew that the Lord always raises up a New Church under the circumstance of a last judgment, how can Mr. Bruce conceive that he at the same time positively affirms that the earth will have an end. I contend that Swedenborg does not reason with those who believe that the last judgment of the Apocalypse will be the end of the earth, for the purpose of showing them that the earth will not have an end at that judgment, though it will have an end at some time, but for the purpose of showing them that it will never have an end. He takes such persons as representatives of all who believe that the Scriptures predicate the end of the earth, for the purpose of showing them that while the Scriptures do in many places predicate the end of Churches and their spiritual heavens and earths, they never predicate the end of the natural or material earth. If this be not Swedenborg's meaning, then I am persuaded there is as great difficulty involved among the statements of A. C. 931, considered in itself, as Mr. Bruce supposes to exist between one very short sentence in A. C. 931, and the work on the Last Judgment. I think if any one will peruse very carefully and intelligently A. C. 931, he will find that Swedenborg affirms in it

only the appearance from the natural sense of the Word that the earth will have an end, while he shows from the spiritual sense that it will never have an end.

But there appears to me to be a method by which this question may be decided to a demonstration. Allow me here, as briefly as possible, to pursue that method to its legitimate consequences. Swedenborg, it is said, affirms on the strength of the natural sense of the words "during all the days of the earth" (Gen. viii. 22), that the earth will not endure for ever. I maintain, on the other hand, that he affirms on the strength of the natural sense of these words merely the appearance that the earth will not endure for ever. But Swedenborg affirms that the natural sense of the words is merely an apparent and not a real truth, so far as the Apocalyptic last judgment is concerned. I ask, then, on what authority does Swedenborg make the distinction that the natural sense is not really true with respect to the last judgment of the Apocalypse while it is really true with respect to some indefinable time after the last judgment? It could not be on the authority of any scientific position. which he held as to the incapacity of the earth to remain intact to eternity, for he would know that he would on such an authority as that be liable to mistake. It could not be on the authority of any revelation which he had from the Lord, because he says in his work on the Last Judgment that the earth will never have an end, which proves he could have had no such revelation. Well, then, to interrupt the reasoning for a moment, I here lay it down as an axiom that he could not by any other authority but one, or both, of these two, have made this distinction. Hence, then, it is manifest that the distinction could have no existence in Swedenborg's understanding. The inevitable conclusion then is, seeing that the distinction could have no existence in his understanding, that it has no place in A. C. 931, saving in some ambiguity or some lapse of language. Manifestly, then, Swedenborg predicates from the natural sense of the words, during all the days of the earth," only the appearance that the earth will have an end, the natural sense being only the apparent truth and not the real truth, not only with respect to the Apocalyptic last judgment, but with respect to any other period of time afterwards-Q.E.D.

66

With respect to the other supposed difficulty or contradiction broached by Mr. Bruce, I would like to make a few remarks. When Swedenborg says (A. C. 3,869), “It is well known that Jehovah has not eyes and ears like a man," he is evidently referring to the natural sense of the words. And, indeed, it is well known that Jehovah has not natural eyes and ears. But that when Swedenborg wrote A. C. 3,869 he did not know that Jehovah had eyes and ears in the same sense and in the same degree as he knew it when he wrote the work on "Angelic Wisdom Concerning the Divine Love and Wisdom" is altogether out of the question. In A. C. 49 he speaks of the members of the most ancient Church as communing with the Lord face to face.

Now, from this it is manifest that he knew the Lord had a face, and therefore he must have known that He had eyes and ears. I would refer the reader to A. C. 8,708 for another proof of the same thing. From these considerations it must be manifest that Swedenborg knew when he wrote the Arcana Caelestia that God had eyes and ears in the same sense and degree as he knew it when he wrote the Divine Love and Wisdom.

Into the question of the proper method of accounting for the apparent contradictions of Swedenborg I cannot at present enter. I do not think, however, that his illumination was progressive and his understanding partial with respect to the matters concerning which he wrote from the Lord. I do not think there was ever any lapse of the understanding when he wrote from the Lord and not from himself; but there might be sometimes a lapse of the external memory and thought, and thence a lapse of language. Hence, I am disposed to think that all his apparent contradictions are at last resolvable into some ambiguity or incongruity of language. This position derives much illustration from the lengthy consideration I have given to the two apparent contradictions broached by Mr. Bruce.-I am, etc., JOHN PATTISON.

NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE, Aug. 21, 1877.

The arguments so temperately stated in this communication were, as far as regards the passage in A. C. 931, advanced by a writer in the Repository in 1828. The answer to the first argument is the correction of a misunderstanding, and may be given in Noble's words on that occasion. "The Word constare, in the phrase constare potest, here used by the author, never means to appear without actually being so, but always to appear because it is so,-to be plain, manifest, or certain." The author therefore, according to this, states that, from the declaration in Genesis viii. 22, it is certain that the earth will not endure for ever, but will have an end. The second argument, then also used, is that the author, while he declares that the only cause of the end of the world is the end of the Church, states that when one Church comes to an end the Lord always raises up another. If this "always" is to be understood absolutely, there can be no doubt that it proves the endless duration of the earth; but understood relatively to the statement that the earth is not to endure for ever, it teaches that within the period of the earth's endurance, one dispensation will succeed another.

The argument on the second subject is very easily disposed of. While the Scriptures speak of the patriarchs seeing God face to face, they declare that no man can see God and live. And our author explains this seeming contradiction by informing us that when the Lord appeared to men before the incarnation it was in the person of an angel.

W. B.

491

Miscellaneous.

"One

"This troublesome doctrine of eternal torment has thus passed into the close confines of the Wesleyan Conference. The doctrine taught in its place may mistakenly interpret the teachings of Holy Writ, but the doctrines which have long prevailed can no longer be maintained.

'The bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself upon it; and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.' The Conference may refuse to have open questions of doctrine, as it has refused the admission of laymen to take part in its deliberations, but it can no more exclude the light which is penetrating the minds of the preachers than it can arrest the progress of liberty which is changing the character of its government and

CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY AND THE preacher. They had begun their union WESLEYAN CONFERENCE. of upon a certain basis, and only upon that the most striking incidents," says the basis could it be maintained. 'My dear Christian World, "connected with brethren,' he continued, 'I shall not be the holding of the present Conference much oftener among you, but in the name at Bristol, occurred during the con- of God-I speak it with all reverenceduct of the inquiry into character. It let us have no open questions that were appeared that two or three young not open questions with John Wesley.' preachers had sent in their resignations, on the ground that they no longer believed in the doctrine of eternal punishment, as taught in Wesley's Sermons, and in his Notes on the New Testament.' Mr. Thomas Hughes thereupon asked, whether it was wise in cases like these to push their discipline so far as to compel men of high conscience to resign their place in the Methodist ministry. He thought the Conference might hold their doctrinal views firmly, and yet refuse to push matters to such a point, to such fine distinctions, as to compel men to withdraw from them, on the ground that their views did not precisely and fully harmonize with their Connexional standards. He submitted that question without at all committing himself to the views of those young discipline.' men. He knew that there were many men in the body who had doubts upon the doctrine referred to, who for some reason-probably a lack of courage or talent-had not publicly declared their doubts. Dr. Osborn submitted that it could not be an open question among Methodist preachers. It was open enough to Independent preachers and Baptist preachers-to men who had not subscribed to any creed; but no man in the Methodist Conference was in that position. Every man whose name was on the Minutes was in this position: They did not seck him: he sought them, and came to them, and said, 'I, Thomas Hughes, or I, George Osborn, etc., believe the doctrines taught in Wesley's first four volumes of Sermons, and his "Notes on the New Testament" (the longest creed in Christendom). It was a sine qua non that he resigned his liberty of thought upon the fundamental doctrines contained in those standards; and the man who was not prepared for that was not prepared to act in his place as a Methodist

NEW CHURCH LITERATURE.-The gratuitous circulation of the writings of Swedenborg, and the publication of several collateral books in elegant form has led to frequent notices of late by the periodical press. These notices have been with few exceptions commendatory. We give recent notices of "The Appeal," "The Evening and Morning," and Mr. Presland's published lecture, "Is there a Personal Devil?"

"The Appeal."-We cut from a contemporary the following account of this work :- "Having carefully read this work we would advise those who are in the habit of speaking against Swedenborg and his teaching, to do what Bishop Horsley advised his clergy to do when they were preaching against Calvinism: 'Pray, gentlemen, be so good as try to know what Calvinism is before you assail it.' Swedenborg's views are regarded by many Christian people either with horror or pity-in the former case they are denounced as dreadfully heretical; in the latter, they are

"The Evening and the Morning."Several reviews of this work have appeared in the public press, mostly of a commendatory kind. From a number sent us we give the following extracts from the notice in the Literary World: "As to the work itself," says the writer, we are prepared to admit that it is decidedly interesting, and that in many points it is conclusive and irrefutable. The story is a very simple one, but, so far as we see, quite sufficient for the purpose. It is interesting enough to retain the attention of the reader, and sufficiently varied in its character to illustrate the different positions which are taken up by the writer. The chapters are brief, and the style of writing,