Since the appearance of the last issue of the NEW PHILOSOPHY several comments and criticisms have been communicated to me respecting the article on The Origin of Man. I propose in the present notes to briefly review these comments.

Among minor criticisms, it has been suggested that the theory to which we give the name "Mother Nature Theory" would be better named "The Arboreal Theory." We have no objection to this name in itself, but to our mind it is more limited in its application than the name for which it is suggested as a substitute. The name "Arboreal Theory" describes the particular method by which man was first created. But the name "Mother Nature Theory," while not so particularly describing the exact method of creation seems more fully to express the philosophy that underlies the theory. Moreover, the one term applies only to the creation of man, whereas the other applies to the creation of the whole of the animal kingdom.

Criticism has been directed against us for what is alleged to be "scant courtesy" in our treatment of the hominine-animal theory. We did not, indeed, enter as fully into the examination of this theory as some of our readers would have desired, but we can assure those readers that this was from no intention of showing upholders of this theory any lack of courtesy; it was simply the expression of our own inability to see any consistent philosophy in the theory itself. Whatever may be said of its truth or falsity, the evolutionary theory, as ordinarily held in the world, is at any rate one consistent whole, the theory, namely, that higher forms were produced directly from lower forms by a development induced by various causes. This law of evolution is held as applying to the whole gamut of creation from the first plasma to the most highly civilized man. But to our mind the hominine-animal theory lacks the virtue of consistency. So far as we are aware, this theory has been broached and supported only by New Churchmen, who, doubtless, were desirous to reconcile the teachings of Swedenborg with the findings of biological science. As we understand it, the theory is that evolution proceeded from the plasma by gradual development, in some such way as held by the modern biologist, but that when it came to the creation of man a different law came into operation; and man was created, not by development from an animal, but by the immediate creation of human seed in the ovum or womb of an animal. This theory offers no reason why the law should have been changed when it came to the creation of man. Still less does it explain why a law should then obtain which is inconsistent with the law ruling in the preceding creation. And since the theory, therefore, does not enunciate any universal law, but simply assumes what seems to us to be a special law ad hoc, it did not seem to require any extended treatment. However, we did attempt to show the objections to the special phase that distinguishes this theory, namely, the immediate creation of human seed in the ovum or womb of an animal; but we shall revert to this matter later on in the present article.

IMMEDIATE CREATION IN THE BEGINNING

A critic has asked us how the statement in the Writings, that in the beginning all things were created immediately, is to be understood in connection with the doctrine presented in our article. The statement referred to is in TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, n. 78. The Memorable Relation, given in this number, is an account of a conversation of an angel with Swedenborg on the subject of creation.

"I will show you (said the angel) how animals and vegetables of every kind are produced by God." Swedenborg was then shown beautifully colored birds of every kind, herds of cattle and other animals, a garden in which were fruit trees of every kind, and many fields of grain. The angel then said, "All these things are correspondences of the affections of the loves of angels who are in the vicinity," and he added that every least thing in the spiritual world was in like manner a correspondence." These things have been shown you (he continued) that you may behold universal creation in a simple type. God is Love Itself and Wisdom Itself, and of His Love there are infinite affections and of His Wisdom infinite perceptions. The correspondences of these are all and each of the things that appear upon the earth. But in our world, which is called the spiritual world, there are like correspondences with those who receive affections and perceptions from God. The difference is that in our world such things are created by God in a moment according to the affections of the angels; in your world, in the beginning they were created in like manner, but it was provided that they should be perpetually renewed by generations of one from the other."

The reason for this difference, he continued, is that the atmospheres and earths of the spiritual world are spiritual, while those of the natural world are natural, and "naturals were created to invest spirituals as skins invest the bodies of men and animals," barks, trees, etc. Finally, after bidding Swedenborg tell these things to the inhabitants of earth, the angel concluded: "Without a knowledge of this matter no one can know or even guess that creation is continuous in our world, and that it was like this in your world when the universe was created by God."

Without entering into the question of the modus operandi of creation in the spiritual world, it is evident from the above and other teachings in the Writings that in that world, as soon as an affection is active in an angel or an angelic society, there is at once presented the correspondential appearance of that affection; an appearance so real that it seems to be actually material; nor can any difference be discerned between these appearances and the fixed appearances of the ultimate world. These appearances may be forms of the animal kingdom or of the vegetable, but in either case it is full and complete appearances that are immediately created.

It is said that it was the same on this earth in the beginning, and the question that arises is, Does this statement mean that in the beginning animals and vegetables on the earth were created instantaneously in their full and complete form? We would answer at once, No! With regard to the vegetable kingdom, the Writings distinctly teach that "the first production from earths, when they were as yet new-made, was the production of seed. The first conatus in them could be nothing else (D. L. W. 312). The same principle must apply to animal creation. For all things were born into order and according to order, and the order of this earth is that organic forms of life must progress from simples to compounds, and thus must grow from seed, and must gradually clothe itself with the grosser things of nature for its more ultimate embodiment. The law is a universal one and is necessary for the existence of the "as of itself" with man, and for the image of the "as of itself" in the animal and vegetable kingdoms.

It is the instantaneous creation of seed, then, that is meant by the statement that in the beginning vegetables and animals on this earth were created instantaneously as they are now created in the spiritual world. The matters and substances of earth which, by spiritual influx, were formed into the primitive seeds of earth had no life in themselves; there was nothing in them that would develop into animal and vegetable forms. There must necessarily have been long preparation before they were fitted to receive spiritual influx, especially in the case of the higher and nobler organic forms; but as soon as this influx was received they were ordered and arranged into animal and vegetable forms at the very moment of the influx. This was, in fact, the instantaneous creation of fixed forms corresponding to affections, or the instantaneous fixing and infilling of spiritual influx. The taking on of grosser substances is merely a matter of time and growth and adds nothing to the essential creation. The essential creation of the fixed form is already accomplished when seed is made. And, indeed, the seed is actually the form of the vegetable or of the animal in the sphere and according to the geometry of interior nature. This is plainly manifest from the mere consideration that in the course of growth nothing whatever is added that will give form to organic beings. The form is already existent in the seed, and all that is added is but the further embodiment of that form, that it may descend into the grosser sphere of nature.

It may be objected that this "instantaneous creation" goes on at this day equally as in the beginning of creation. This, indeed, is essentially true, and necessarily so, since the law of creation is one. It is essentially true because the matters and substances from which seed is formed must first, in every case, have been received by the parent in the form of nourishment, and it is after they have been received and suitably prepared that the soul of the organic being forms them into living seed. But there is this difference between the primitive creation of seed and its formation in the course of generation, namely, that in the former case there is a sudden and de novo wedding, as it were, between the spiritual and the natural, whereas in the latter case the spiritual is already present in the blood or sap, and there gathers together and forms the matters and substances which are to perpetuate its existence on earth. In the one case there is the sudden creation and appearance of something new upon the earth; in the other there is the perpetuation of life already present and active in the sphere of nature.

THE HOMININE-ANIMAL THEORY

A correspondent who thinks we have done scant justice to the hominine-animal theory, and who is himself strongly inclined to accept that theory, writes to us in a private letter : "I do not find the 'Mother Nature Theory' in the theological works of Swedenborg. Two great facts are recognized by you and by all New Church students of the subject: (I) The fact of the spontaneous generation of higher forms in lower forms as in a womb or matrix, so that higher forms come forth after and by means of the lower, even if not from them; and (2) the fact that the matrix must be in a state of fitness and adaptation to the embryo. If it is true, as you contend and I agree (he continues), that the seed of the vegetable world were generated in the soils as in the womb of a common mother, and the seed of the animal kingdom in the womb of vegetation, why would not the same reasoning call for a new and higher matrix for the reception of human seed?

"From a New Church standpoint, man is not an animal. Swedenborg never thus classifies him. Man is a kingdom in himself. The gap which separates man from animals is even greater than that which separates animals from soils. And if animal forms 'cannot rest on the bosom of the mineral kingdom,' how much less can human forms 'rest on the bosom' of the vegetable kingdom! Surely if there is anything in this line of reasoning at all, the womb of an anthropoid ape or similar creature seems by far the more fitting and responsive organism in which to mould the human form. Is not milk a better food for infants than fruit juices? Unless the primitive babe was entirely different from the modern, there is no evidence that he could live at all on fruit juices, much less thrive. And if as helpless then as now, by what means would he be brought to the source of his nourishment? While it is possible to imagine all sorts of conditions as existing in those prehistoric ages, yet all the known facts and observations of infant life are in favor of the animal mother rather than the vegetable mother, and to my mind the spiritual gap between all animals and man rules out entirely the thought that they can rest on the same 'bosom.'"

Our correspondent then suggests that we have "overlooked the one great demonstration of the whole principle, namely, the conception and birth of the Lord's Human. The finite womb of Mary (he says) did receive the seed of the Divine Human. Could the animal creation have mothered the Lord? How, then, could the vegetable mother the rational man? The Divine Human was the last link in the chain which linked ultimates with firsts. The soils received the seed of vegetation; vegetation received the seed of animals; animals received the seed of rational man; rational man received the seed of the Divine Man. "This idea, he continues, "seems to have everything in its support, rather than nothing." With the exception of the WORSHIP AND LOVE OF GOD, he "knows of no doctrine or fact that it contradicts, and it is eminently beautiful and consistent." And he concludes that the only alternative is "to regard the soils as the matrix of every form of life, including animals and man"; which theory, however, seems to him "to violate common sense; to be out of harmony with the great law of use by which one thing becomes necessary to another's existence and welfare; and to leave the incarnation as an anomaly."

Our correspondent has not, we think, given sufficient weight to the objection to the hominine-animal theory which we stated on pages 88-9 of our article. Quite apart from any courtesy or lack of courtesy in the treatment of that theory, we think the objection is a weighty one, and if not controverted must remain as an insuperable objection to the whole theory. An animal is an organic form of a particular affection. Into the ovum of an animal must therefore be gathered the whole quintessence of the substances and matters that are suited to form this one particular affection. Taking, then, the doctrine that influx is according to reception, it would necessarily follow that if man were born in the womb of an animal he would be born, as to his external, a form of one particular affection, an affection already formed for him by a preceding animal existence, and with ability, or at any rate an over-powering tendency, to develop that affection only. He would be born, not internally a man and externally an animal—for this, in fact, is what man actually is—but he would be born internally a man and externally one particular kind of an animal; one particular kind of affection with the instinctive knowledge belonging to that affection. Yet the very essence of human life is that man shall be born without any affection and without any science, in order that he may be capable of receiving, developing and forming all kinds of affections; in other words, that he shall have the possibility of becoming any kind of an animal, savage as a tiger, mild as a dove. Therefore "man is not born into any love, nor into any science, in order that he may receive love and wisdom from God, but yet as if of himself" (Conjugial Love 136).

In a preceding paragraph we have already alluded to what we regard as the inconsistency of the hominine-animal theory in putting forth a different law of creation with respect to the creation of man than obtains in respect to the creation of the lower forms of the animal kingdom. But let us suppose this inconsistency to be removed, and that the theory contemplates that all animals were born in the same way as man, namely, by the immediate creation of seed in the womb of a lower animal. The general objection we have noted above with regard to man would still apply. For every animal is born one particular and distinct kind of affection, and this result could not be obtained if the body from inmosts to outmosts were the form of an already existing affection with all the science belonging thereto.

These objections are entirely removed if we consider that the whole of the animal kingdom was born in the womb of the vegetable kingdom; for the vegetable kingdom is not a kingdom of active affections with the definite sciences belonging thereto, but it is a kingdom of uses, whose inmost conatus and effort is to clothe all affections. This is evidenced at this day by the fact that the vegetable kingdom is the common nourisher of the whole of the animal kingdom from the lowest brute to man; thus nature is the nurse and mother, as it were, of all affections.

MAN AN ANIMAL

But our correspondent feels that man is not an animal; that the Writings nowhere call him an animal; that there is as wide a gap between man and animal as there is between animals and soils. Consequently, while he accepts as true the theory that animals were born from wombs provided by the vegetable kingdom, he contends that this could not be the case with man; and that the theory itself demands that for the creation of man a womb of higher form must be provided and this, he thinks, was provided in some "anthropoid ape or similar creature."

We must take issue with the statement that man is not an animal. Man as to his natural mind and body is an animal; this is universally recognized. Man has all the appetites and desires of an animal; all the senses of an animal; the laws of his body are the same as the laws of the animal body. The fact that he has a rational mind does, indeed, distinguish him from all other animals, but nevertheless, as to his body and the lower mind, he is still an animal, though he is to be called a rational animal: It is the frequent teaching of the Writings that man as to his natural, or as to the sensual and corporeal man, is "merely an animal" (True Christian Religion 566); we read that he has all his natural affections in common with brute animals (Arcana Coelestia 3020); that "he is altogether animal, not differing from a brute animal, except in being able to speak and reason" (T. C. R. 296); and that "he is distinguished from animals, not by his body, but by the fact that he has a spiritual mind" (Doctrine of Life 86). "There are only two universal forms produced out of the earth, namely, the animal kingdom and the vegetable," says Swedenborg in DIVINE LOVE AND WISDOM, n. 346; and in elaborating this teaching, he declares that "by animal forms are meant animals of every kind, and also men and angels" (Divine Love XXI). In other words, man being born natural, is born an animal; but he may become a man by virtue of having a human soul which implants in the body the faculties of rationality and liberty (D. L. W. 270). These faculties are, as it were, the seed placed in the womb of animal man, to the end that the rational man may be born. It is, indeed, of the very essence of man's nature that he shall be born in ignorance, in order that he may become rational; or that he shall be born merely with the faculty of rationality and liberty, in order that he may acquire as if from himself the actual gifts of rationality and liberty.

Now, if man, as to his sensual and corporeal nature, is an animal, there is no intrinsic reason why he should be created differently from other animals; and this thought is confirmed by the fact that man is now born and nourished in exactly the same way as all mammalian animals, and according to exactly the same laws.

Yet in our correspondent's reasoning with respect to the ascent from animals to rational man, and from rational man to the Divine Human, we recognize a truth. But this truth is not at all weakened by the doctrine of the first origin of man from the vegetable kingdom; nay, it is rather strengthened thereby. The truth to which I refer is that from the mineral kingdom comes the vegetable; in the womb of the vegetable kingdom is created the animal, including man; and in the womb or cerebrum of the noblest animal or man is formed by the human soul the rational mind or man. It was this human mind that the Lord took upon Himself and glorified in Himself.

This doctrine of ascent, far from being strengthened, is, in fact, weakened by the supposition that the animal body of man was created from a member of the animal kingdom. The rational man can be born only in the most perfect manner. Life proceeding from God as the human soul can produce this most perfect animal man only from the collected riches of all the world. Such a perfect production would not be possible from the ovum of any particular animal, that is to say, from the ovum of any particular form of affection. It would be possible only from the wealth of the whole world, and by a medium to which each kingdom and all the least part of the kingdom could contribute their quota for the building up of the noblest work of animal creation. This gathering together of the riches of the world could be effected only in the most noble product of the vegetable kingdom, which can produce a form of use enriched and ennobled by the spheres of all organic forms, animal and vegetable, with which the atmospheres are enfilled.

THE TEACHING OF THE THEOLOGICAL WORKS

Our correspondent affirms that the Mother Nature Theory is not to be found in the theological works of Swedenborg. This, indeed, is true as regards the specific mention of the theory or its detailed application. The theological works give only the general principles of creation; the particular manner in which those principles operate is not described.*

We are, however, told that in the beginning creation commenced with the production of seeds (D. L. W. 312); and it is plainly indicated that these seeds were produced by immediate influx from the spiritual world into the things of nature. In the spiritual world, we read, all things are created by God immediately, in correspondence with the affections and perceptions of the angels. In the natural world "they were created in like manner in the beginning, but it was provided that they should be perpetually renewed by generations of the one from the other" (T. C. R. 78). This doctrine that influx from the spiritual world first created seeds, and this at first immediately—and we think the doctrine must be applied to every individual species of the organic kingdoms—this doctrine neither affirms nor denies the Mother Nature Theory. It is certainly in agreement with that theory as developed by Swedenborg in the WORSHIP AND LOVE OF GOD, as will be indicated. But it might be claimed as being also not opposed to the hominine-animal theory, provided that theory were extended to include the creation of all animals by means of seeds created in the ova of lower animal forms;  though in this case we would still be at a loss to understand how the first animal forms were created. Aside from this, however, we have certain indications that Swedenborg never abandoned his doctrine as laid down in the WORSHIP AND LOVE OF GOD. We have certainly the negative evidence that he nowhere even remotely suggests the repudiation of this theory; and this negative evidence is in itself of great weight, inasmuch as Swedenborg himself published the WORSHIP AND LOVE OF GOD, and must have been well aware that it would be regarded as in agreement with his later teaching, unless either specifically denied or repudiated by implication. And when, in view of this negative evidence, we note that all his theological teaching with respect to the mode of creation is in agreement with the WORSHIP AND LOVE OF GOD, it would require some very weighty reason to abandon the teaching of that work as inconsistent with the theological writings.

In addition to this, we have also some positive evidence, namely, the fact that in the ADVERSARIA, which was written after Swedenborg's spiritual eyes were opened, he distinctly and unqualifiedly affirms that his book on the WORSHIP AND LOVE OF GOD is in agreement with the Divine Word (History of Creation, n. 9).

THE FOOD OF THE FIRST BEGOTTEN

Our correspondent further raises the question as to the food of the primitive infant, his question being that while it would be a simple matter to account for the feeding of the first man (We may here note that the Writings very frequently lay down the general principles of a science, without going into detailed particulars. Witness, for instance, their teachings on the subject of the creation of the universe; of the formation of the heart and lungs; of the opening of the latter and their functions; of the offices of the cortical glands and animal spirit. And in all such cases that have come to our notice, we have found not only that the necessary and illuminating details have been given in Swedenborg's earlier works, but that they are to be found in no other writings, except in one or two cases, in a very fragmentary way. This indeed is no more than is to be expected in view of Swedenborg's statement that he was prepared by the Lord to receive the doctrines of the New Church in his understanding.  (T. C. R. 779) if he were born of an anthropoid ape or some similar animal, such would not be the case if man were born of the vegetable kingdom, seeing that "fruit juices" are not suitable for infant diet.

Here we note that while our correspondent admits that all other animals except man were born from the vegetable kingdom, he does not appear to see that the question as to food would apply equally to them as to man. Moreover, if we grant the descent of every species of animal from a preceding species, the question of diet would still come up in the case of the first of the mammals.

Of course, as our correspondent suggests, primitive man was very different in many respects from an infant as now born. According to the Writings, he was born into the order of his life and thus with instincts which would naturally lead him to the choice of suitable food. Moreover, we are not to suppose that nature acted blindly in relation to man's creation. The whole series of creation is under the most particular auspices of the Divine Providence, and all nature concurred, not only to the birth of the first man, but also to his nourishment and protection.

Consider the many ways in which nature now provides food for the animal kingdom, especially in the temperate zone nearer to the equator where Swedenborg places his paradise. What, then, shall we say of the possibilities of nature's food in that perpetual spring which witnessed the birth of the first man! We speak merely of the fruits of the vegetable kingdom; but it must not be forgotten that animal milk also existed in the world long before the creation of man. When we, in our cold climate, think of "fruit juices," at once there comes to our mind the more or less acid fruits—apples, pears, peaches, berries, etc.—and instantly we think, surely these are unsuited for infant food! But in warmer and richer climates how different are the fruits of nature. Nay, she provides even milk; and in her woods she lays up stores of saps, as it were, which serve for rich and nutritious food—as in the case of the sugar cane, and other woods that provide nourishment for man by the mere sticking of them. Moreover, does our present knowledge of the edible fruits of nature exhaust all the fruits that nature actually now provides, to say nothing of the fruits that she may have provided in past ages and under different conditions? By no means impossible or even improbable is the existence of trees whose fruits were, as it were, paps hanging downwards and giving nourishment to the sucking mouth. And how poor is our standard of judgment as to the assimilative powers of the first begotten—born into the very order of their life—when we necessarily base that judgment on the infant of today, so prone to disease and death at the least exposure!

When we reflect on the varied and marvelous ways in which nature provides food for animals; when we consider how wonderful are the many devices by which animals procure their food, and after procuring assimilate it, can it be wonderful to us that nature would provide for the first born, even if such provision were made in ways not now familiar to us? The soul knows how to make use of such provision. It is the soul where the ends of life reside; and the soul, which has formed all the parts of man's body, knows also how to direct its movements for its sustenance and the building up of the mind. We have a remarkable illustration of this in the use of the umbilical cord, as given by Swedenborg in his work on GENERATION. He there explains that the reason why the cord is wrapped around the neck of the infant is in order that the soul by the motion of its head and neck may augment or decrease the supply of maternal blood according to need. If the soul does this and infinitely more marvelous things for the formation of its body, will it not do like marvelous things and instill like marvelous instincts when the body is born? And if we, in human providence, provide all the means necessary to the securing of our ends, how much more would Divine Providence provide the means exactly adapted to the end of creation. Divine Providence does, indeed, act according to laws, but the laws of Providence are not blind laws; they are laws which directly look to the securing of the Divine end. We may suppose, therefore, not only that the first-born man was born into the order of his life, and thus with instincts such as animals now have, but also that wise provision was made for his nourishment. This is the teaching of Swedenborg in his WORSHIP AND LOVE OF GOD.

There, after speaking of brute animals, at birth, and showing how at this day man is born comparatively imperfect, he continues: "It was altogether otherwise in our first begotten, whose intellectual mind was not to be instructed and perfected from the senses but from the soul itself, while the sensories were only subservient. For he was born into a state of the greatest integrity; *wherefore full power must have been given to his soul from the first moment of life, enabling it to operate upon the muscles and sensories of the body without the mediation of the secondary mind or will. That the case is otherwise now is a most evident sign of imperfection" (W. L. G. 43, note).

The same teaching is found in the theological works, as, for instance, in the ARCANA CEOLESTIA, where we read: It may be asked how this teaching squares with the theological teaching that the pre-adamites were born in gross ignorance. The answer is that the integrity here spoken of, is the integrity of the body and the instincts of the natural mind, or the integrity resulting from the complete rule of the soul without the opposition of depraved appetites.

"If man were not imbued with hereditary evil, the rational would be born immediately from the marriage of the celestial things of his internal man with its spiritual things; and by the rational, would be born the scientific. Thus man would have all the rational and all the scientific as soon as he came into the world, for this would be according to the order of influx. This may be concluded from the fact that all animals are born into all the scientific that is necessary and profitable for them in respect to their food, protection, habitation and procreation; for their nature is according to order. What then would not be the case with men, if order had not been destroyed with him! for he alone is born into no science" (A. C. 1902).

As to the nourishment of the first begotten, Swedenborg says: "When all things were prepared and the moment came for the birth of the infant, the parturient branch, inclining itself gradually toward the ground, at last deposited its burden on the couch underneath. And when the months were completed, the infant, perfectly conscious of what was decreed, himself broke through the bands and barriers of his enclosure, and raised himself by his own exertions into this world and its paradise, to immediately draw in with his nostrils and lungs the air, which he saluted with a light kiss and which pressed in by its force, as a new vital guest and spirit,—the guest and spirit which is meant by the words ‘God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.’ The choicest flowers encompassing this bedchamber now exhaled their odors; that thereby, they might penetrate and exhilarate all the blood of the infant, flowing from the heart and now meeting the air, with rich and delicious gifts. Whatsoever was in the kingdoms of nature, excited by a kind of festivity, favored and greeted this birth.

"He was naked, but encompassed with the mildest spring as with a bath. The soul incited its little body, like a sort of active force, directing its powers to all things which were to be done; and she taught it the manner in which to incline itself to the paps, several of which were extended forth by the maternal branch; to press them with its fingers; to suck the milk with its mouth; to roll it about with the tongue and palate, to lie down after taking a proper quantity; and several other operations which were inspired into this infant, born without a nurse into the essential order of life and nature. Thus he lived wholly and entirely as a soul under the image of an infant clothed with a body. Wherefore, in the first twinkling of his sight, the little infant crept from his couch and with his fingers laid hold of whatever came in his way,—but only on such things as were suitable; and he brought them to his little lips, and then again betook himself to his couch by creeping. The ruling mind sometimes also laid him on his back, where drops of milk fell straight into his little mouth. Wheresoever fragrant flowers grew, thither he stretched his hands, and moved these flowers to his nostrils, that he might excite his organ of smell. In like manner he pricked up his ears to the singing of birds; nor was anything grateful to the use of his senses, which was not conducive to the uses of his body. Although the soul transcribed herself into the form of a body, the type of herself, yet residing in her supreme and inmost principles, she was always endeavoring to elevate that type to herself, and so continually inspiring all the fibres of the tender body drawn downwards by the accessory powers of inertia, to take a direction upwards. For the infant as yet crept, and differed nothing from the wild beasts in his manner of moving; which, being observed by the soul, she used all her endeavors to elevate him on high and to set him erect on his feet. She bended his eyes to most beautiful fruits hanging from branches aloft; and she incited a desire that he should lay hold of them with his fingers, adding also strength to his muscles; and thus allured him to raise his countenance upwards from the ground." (Ibid., Nos. 38-44.)

Again we have the same teaching in the theological works, though with less detail. In the DIVINE PROVIDENCE we read: "If man were born into the love into which he was created, he would not be in any evil, nay, he would not know what evil is. He would not be born into the darkness of ignorance as he is now born, but into a kind of light of science and hence of intelligence, and into these he would shortly come. Indeed he would first creep like four footed animals, but with an implanted conatus of erecting himself upon his feet; for though a quadruped, still he would not cast his face downwards to the earth, but forwards to heaven, and would erect himself that he might look upwards also" (D. P. 275).

The language of the WORSHIP AND LOVE OF GOD is the language of poetry, but it is the poetry of exact truth, a mirror in which we see reflected the Divine Love and Wisdom, acting not as blind force, but as the power of God-Man, for the feeding of the first-born and the beginning of the establishment of an angelic race from men.

THE TERM EVOLUTION

A friendly critic has questioned whether we have been quite fair in our treatment of the doctrine of evolution. To his mind our paper will be taken by most readers as a condemnation of evolution in toto, whereas, in his opinion, a close reading will show that the paper itself upholds the doctrine, in the sense that it upholds the existence of a concatenated and connected series of causes and effects from protoplasm to man.

The whole question here turns upon the meaning of the word evolution. If by that word is meant merely that there is a connected chain from the first thing of creation to man, and that each posterior link of this chain depends upon the preceding link, then, of course, every New Churchman must accept the term evolution as expressive of the universal truth of creation. But in this cause it would be necessary to clearly define the sense in which the word is used. The sense in which we have just defined it is not, we contend, the meaning of the word either etymological or as used by the learned or by the generality of men. The latter, by evolution, are very apt to understand what is called the Darwinian Theory of Descent, namely, that a higher species was descended directly from a lower one by external and accidental modifications, and that man was descended from an ape. The learned usage of the term does not essentially differ from this; but the learned are becoming more and more doubtful and even skeptical of every explanation that has been so often offered as to the causes and modes of the descent. To both the learned and the unlearned the essential meaning of the term is that in some way or other, known or unknown, a higher species was developed directly from a lower species by the operation either of extraneous natural causes or of causes inherent in the lower species themselves, or of both causes together. This is in agreement with the definition of evolution as given by WEBSTER, who explains it as meaning: "The development, not of an individual organism but of a race, species, or other group; in general, the history of the steps by which any living organism or group of organs has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; hence the theory that the various types of animals and plants have developed by descent with modification from other pre-existing types, as opposed to the old theory of the separate creation of each species. This theory involves also the descent of man from the lower animals. Modern theories of evolution differ only in regard to the various factors influencing it, their relative importance, and the ways in which they act."

In the biological world investigation has more and more tended to the rejection of all the theories by which the process of evolution has hitherto been explained. "It is impossible (said Professor William Bateson, in an address delivered last December before the American Association for the Advancement of Science), it is impossible for scientists any longer to agree with Charles Darwin's theory of the origin of species." And, in the preceding September, Dr. D. H. Scott, in an address before the British Association for the Advancement of Science, remarked that "the Darwinian period is passed; all again is in the melting pot." In these words is voiced the fact—which is becoming more generally known—that, under critical examination, every theory by which the doctrine of evolution has hitherto been explained has been found wanting. Yet, in common with almost all biologists, the speakers whom we have just cited insist (to quote the language of Dr. Scott) that nevertheless "evolution remains, for there is no alternative, and the evidence of paleontology is unshaken." In other words, as an editorial writer in the London Times observed in commenting on Dr. Scott's address, "the mode by which existing plants and animals have arisen is descent with modifications from one or more simple primitive forms. That was the theory which Darwin set out to prove in opposition to current doctrines. He did succeed in convincing the thinking world of its truth, and the subsequent progress of knowledge has widened the basis of that conviction until there is no part of the order of nature on which there is higher certainty."

Now it is evolution as thus defined—and etymologically the definition is a just one—that we had in mind when condemning the doctrine of evolution. The doctrine condemned is essentially that all the future development of the universe is locked up in the protoplasm, and must be drawn cut or evolved therefrom in order to come forth to view. That this is clearly involved is manifest from the history of the doctrine as developed by biologists. Darwin and Lamarck sought to account for variation and change of species by external influences, either direct, such as protective coloring, sharper sense, environment and so forth, or indirect, such as hereditary transmission. Investigation has overwhelmingly shown, however, that purely external causes do not suffice to account for the development of new organic forms of life. Of the many other causes for evolutionary variation that have since been put forward, there are two that seem to have had most weight, and these are directly based on the assumption that all the possibilities of life are enclosed in the protoplasm, and have but to be unfolded or evolved, like the unwinding of a spring, for creation to stand forth in its present perfection. We refer to De Vries' theory of sudden spurts or leaps arising from some innate tendency, the source of which is not yet known; and to Weismann's theory, that there are innumerable undeveloped germs within every organic form of life, and that evolution is simply the manifestation and development of some one of these germs; according to the neo-Darwinists, one of the germs being developed and not another, because it is placed in a more fortunate position; or because it prevails in the "struggle for existence" from some other reasons; or even from some inherent cause. In theories such as these the term evolution is used in its true etymological sense as meaning the evolving or drawing forth of that which is latent within.

These two phases of the evolutionary theory—the one seeking the causes of evolution in external modifications, and the other seeking those causes in latent forces residing within organic forms, and the evolution of which bring out new species—these two phases of the theory are both included in a statement in DIVINE LOVE AND WISDOM, where Swedenborg declares: He who does not know that there is a spiritual world, and that it is distinct from the natural world, like the prior and the posterior, cannot know anything about the influx of the spiritual world into the natural. This is the reason why those who have written about the origin of vegetables and animals could not do other than deduce that origin from nature; and if they deduce it from God, they can do no other than think that God has from the beginning implanted in nature the force of producing these things; not knowing that there is no force implanted in nature; for nature is in itself dead and contributes no more to the production of these things than an instrument contributes to the work of a mechanic, which, if it is to do anything, must be continually moved. It is the spiritual, drawing its origin from the sun where the Lord is, and proceeding to the ultimates of nature, which produces the forms of vegetables and animals, and presents the marvels that exist in both kingdoms, closely surrounding them with matters from the earth that these forms may be fixed and constant (D. L. W. 340).

If by evolution is meant simply that there is a concatenated series in the progress and development of creation, then, as we have said, the term cannot be objected to; but, then, the word needs some special explanation. For evolution properly means the evolving or calling out of something latent within; and, as we have noted, accumulated investigations have led the latter-day defenders of the theory to the root meaning of the word, and they have assumed that all development from a lower form of life is actually a consequence of causes (germs) enclosed within lower forms. This, we hold, is contrary to the doctrine as put forth by Swedenborg, both in his theological works and in his scientific.

Now, if the term evolution is used in any other than its true etymological sense; if, for instance, it is used to describe the theory that every organic form serves to invest or clothe a higher use flowing in from God the Creator, then, as we have already said, this alien meaning should be specifically set forth. To our mind, however, it is clear that evolution is not a suitable word for the defining any such theory. More suitable would be the word Investiture, Investment, or some other word involving the same idea. Some such word is, moreover, indicated in those numerous passages where the doctrine is given that "Nature was created solely that it may invest the spiritual" (Heaven and Hell 102)," as the skin invests the body, the bark the tree, the meninges the brains, the tunics the nerves, and so forth" (T. C. R. 78).

Yet there is a true use of the term evolution in the work of creation; but this use of the word has in view the whole universe as one Grand Man, of which Divine Love and Wisdom is the soul. This Grand Man is, as it were, enswathed with matters, and it is as these matters are unswathed or rolled away, so the uses flowing from God-Man come to view. It is thus that creation has ascended step by step from mere matter to the angelic heavens. One after another of the coverings of life have been laid aside or died, as it were, in order that the universal uses of life may stand forth. We see an image of the same process in the growth and regeneration of man. From natural he must become spiritual, and the ascent is made just so far as the natural is put aside or dies that the spiritual may be born—even as our body must die that the spirit may live. We say "die," but the word is not used in an exact literal sense. Indeed, the body itself never entirely dies; for always man retains the finest things of nature as an ultimate and cutaneous receptacle of life. But in the ascent of creation a thing may be said to die and to rise again when it comes into the use for which it was created. The pleasures of the flesh die, as it were, when they cease to dominate man and become the servants by which the spiritual mind is opened. Sciences likewise die when they cease to become the dominating things in the mind and enter into their use which is to clothe and confirm spiritual truths. In all these cases the higher does not evolve from the lower, but the lower serves as the womb for the birth of the higher. There is no evolution in the sense of the higher being evolved from the lower; but there is an evolution in the sense that, in the microcosm as in the macrocosm, the soul gradually unswathes itself or rolls away its coverings that itself may be revealed.

The doctrine for which we would contend is that all influx is one and unchangeable. The First Proceeding from God-Man contains within itself all things of the created universe. From this First Proceeding are created posterior atmospheres, one after the other, until their activity ceases in "substances and matters at rest" (D. L. W. 302). These substances and matters do not contain within themselves either the vegetable, the animal or the human soul. They are the ultimate forms of creation, whose purpose, and whose sole purpose, is to clothe the living uses which proceed as atmospheres from God-Man. And because this is the origin and end of their creation, therefore they have an inmost conatus to clothe uses.

This conatus is manifested in the internal activities of the things of the mineral kingdom, and consequently in the spheres which they constantly give off. When, by the interaction of the members of the mineral kingdom and by their spheres of active substances, new forms or new combinations are produced, they at once serve as vessels for the reception of the uses that flow as atmospheres from God-Man. The uses themselves exist, not latently in the mineral kingdom, but in the atmospheres which are prior to and above the mineral kingdom; but it is only as suitable vessels or suitable forms were provided that these uses could be clothed as vegetable seed; and according to the variety of the forms thus produced by the mineral kingdom, such was the variety of the seeds of the vegetable kingdom that were thence created. In the Lord, and consequently in the Divine Proceeding as atmosphere, exist all uses; but they are born upon the earth and thus come to view as actual uses, only so far as suitable vessels are present for their reception. This is the law by which evil uses became present on the earth as evil forms of the vegetable and animal kingdoms. There is nothing latently concealed in the foul or rotting substances of nature which will of itself give rise to evil plants or evil vegetables. For, necessarily, rotting substances existed before the creation of man, and still more before the fall. But they produced no evil forms of life until active spheres of evil lusts were generated by man. It is these spheres, and not the putrid and foul substances of nature, that furnish the origin to evil organic forms; though they could not actually produce such forms unless there were present in nature corresponding substances capable of receiving and inmostly investing them.

The mineral kingdom, therefore, has no intrinsic power or property of producing the forms of the vegetable kingdom; but in the things of the mineral kingdom resides an intrinsic conatus to clothe the uses of the vegetable kingdom, to provide forms receptive of the vegetable soul. The evidence of this conatus is seen in the outlines of vegetable forms that are daily produced in the mineral kingdom, as, for instance, in the frost on the glass and so forth; where we also see that this conatus alone can produce only lifeless forms, forms which will ever remain lifeless until vivified by the influx of the vegetable soul.

A manifest sign of the same law is also evidenced in the vegetable kingdom, in which there is an inmost conatus to serve for the clothing of the animal kingdom. It is this conatus that inspires them to put forth flowers which by their forms and colors, emulative of the forms and colors of the great universe, may gladden the eyes of man, and by their sweet odors may fill his bosom with delight. It is this that leads them to produce their fruits and to adorn them with beautiful vestments, and set forth their attractions by exhilarating odors, that so they may induce man, as it were, to partake of their bounty, and may thus fulfill their hidden conatus to use. From and by means of the vegetable kingdom new and more complex forms can be produced, which are suitable for clothing those higher uses from God-Man, which when so clothed produce the seeds of the animal kingdom. And so from the contribution of all the riches of all the kingdoms of nature can be produced that most wonderful form into which can flow the human soul. It is not that the human soul was then created; for life from God-Man, which is the soul of man—this life with its end of creating the human race and thus the angelic heaven—exists in the first proceeding of creation, and this proceeding is everywhere incumbent upon the earth; but it can manifest itself, it can present itself to view as human seed and finally as a human soul in a human body, only when the choicest materials, the "finest things of nature" are at hand to serve its purpose and be bent to its will.

This order of creation is expressed in the law that things first flow into things last, and there, and there only, produce intermediates, which are the actual existence of the ends that reside in firsts, and intermediates are produced not from ultimates, but from firsts by means of ultimates as receptive vessels. The law is seen in the creation of the macrocosm. Here the Divine proceeds by means of atmospheres to the very ultimates of matter, that in these ultimates its uses may be clothed and thus formed in actuality (D. L. W. 302 seq.). It is also imaged forth as in a type in the microcosm, both in its leasts and in its greatests. In its leasts it is seen in the fact that the soul, at every step in its formation of the body, first forms ultimates and then intermediates. Thus, according to Swedenborg, the first thing in the formation of a muscle is the laying down of a cutaneous envelope or web; within this the muscle itself is then formed or created by the soul (Periosteunm, n. 5). And in DIVINE LOVE AND WISDOM, speaking of the primitive formation of man, Swedenborg says that even at the very first there appeared "a delicate delineation of something like a face in front" (I). The same law is seen in man as a whole, in the formation of his mind. The soul flows no more fully into the body in the case of an old and wise man than it did in the same man when he was an infant; but as, by means of the senses and education, the man takes in new knowledges, new forms, new habits, so the interior substances of the mind become newly formed and fashioned, and the incumbent soul, ever in the effort to create, to give itself, will vivify these forms, and thus create the world of spiritual objects, which are loves, affections, thoughts and perceptions. The knowledges that come by way of the senses have nothing intrinsic in themselves for the production of these spiritual creations; these spiritual creations were not evolved from them—the spiritual from the natural; but they do have, as it were, a conatus for clothing higher, or spiritual and formative uses. It is thus by means of what we call "investiture" or investing, rather than by evolution, that man is developed from being an animal to being a truly rational man and angelic mind; and it is by the same means that the primitive forms of the organic kingdoms of nature, both vegetable and animal, came into existence and now perpetually exist.

If one cares to call this theory evolution, well and good; but he must be careful to define this unusual use of the term, a use not justified by its etymology, and certainly not in common vogue. We do not doubt that among the learned of the world there are some who believe in the Divine Love and Wisdom of God the Creator, and who, in searching for the proof of the doctrine of evolution, do not eliminate this factor; who believe that in some way or other all the development of creation is due not simply to an evolution from nature, but to the power of the Divine. Such thought, however, has no appreciable influence on the modern scientific world; no influence which is in any way commanding in the university centers of learning. And in any case, without a knowledge of the spiritual world and its relation to the natural, the thought of such Christian philosophers (as indicated in a passage we have already quoted) will find its expression rather in a belief that life and its possibilities of development was Divinely implanted in nature from the beginning, than in any doctrine that influx from the spiritual world is the direct cause of the creation of organic forms, and of their perpetual existence.

It is the theory of "investiture," if we may so call it, that Swedenborg describes in his WORSHIP AND LOVE OF GOD, in treating of the formation of the seed of the first man: "In a paradisiacal grove (he says) was a fruit tree, which bore a small egg, the most precious of all others, in which, as in a jewel, nature concealed herself with her highest powers and stores, to become the initiaments of the most consummate body; this fruit tree was hence called the Tree of Life. But this little egg was not as yet fecundated, although nature had collected into it, as into a sacred ark, her most distinguished treasures and valuables, and had provided it with noble furniture such as a bride prepares for her bedchamber when she expects the coming of the bridegroom. When nature had thus completed her work and collected her circumferences, as it were, into this egg as into a center, then the Supreme Mind came to meet her, and with concentrated rays, from Itself as the very Sun of Life, conceived the supra-celestial form or soul, which was life, and was capable of containing what is infinite by means of the Infinite Itself. This form or soul the Supreme Mind infused into this treasure or little egg. As soon as she was first breathed into her little egg, the soul instantly began with pure ideas to look to ends, and to represent to herself the universe,—not only the universe of nature, as the souls of brutes do, but also the universe of heaven, with its loves and intelligences. She began, therefore, from a kind of sacred fire, to inwardly desire that she might be conveyed from the highest citadel in which she was, to the lowest things of the world, or to the birthplace of her egg; and therefore she looked about for means and instruments by which she might enjoy her wishes. And lo! nature, with her aids enclosed in the same little egg, was at hand and made a tender of herself and her powers, to be called forth at the least intimation of her purpose, and to afford every assistance that might be desired " (W. L. G., n. 32-34).