purposes. The development and growth of living beings are things entirely different. Development is the appearance of an organ in an amorphous material, susceptible of organization. Growth is the increase in volume and weight of an organ already developed. Development is the punctum saliens, the starting-point of natural form. Growth is a mere provision for the extension of that form. The former is evidently a much more wonderful phenomenon than the latter. Recent physiological researches have shown that every organized being is developed from a primary cell, ovule, or vesicle. St. Hilaire and Serres, two of the greatest names in medical literature, promulgated the law of centripetal formation, viz.: that the exterior organs are formed first, and the most internal last. We translate verbatim a brief summary of their extended labors from Marchessaux' General Anatomy, a French work of standard value: "At this stage of development we notice a fact which confirms with irresistible power the doctrine of the centripetal succession of organs. Every germinating vesicle consists of three concentric layers or laminæ, differing in nature. Of these the external or serous always begins to organize first, and from it arise successively the spinal cord, brain, vertebræ cranium, the organs of sense and their dependences. When the external lamina has thus sketched out the forms of the organs of animal life, the middle or vascular lamina commences in its turn, and in a similar manner marks the outlines of the peripheral vessels, venæ, cavæ, aorta, and heart. Up to this period the internal or mucus lamina has been inactive, but now its movements begin, and we see it successively delineate the alimentary canal, the lungs, the glandular system, liver, spleen, pancreas, &c. This order is invariable: not only upon one occasion but universally does nature proceed in this manner." Professor Jackson, of Philadelphia, thinks that this view is confirmed by an appearance in some malformations of the nervous system. Although the central portions may be imperfect or even absent, the peripheral expansions are normally developed, showing that after the periphery was formed, an arrest of development took place.

We might here point out the centripetal formation of the planets of our solar system, from Le Verrier or Neptune, to Mercury, as plausibly maintained by the nebular hypothesis. We might show that the geological strata of the earth were successively formed at its surface, were ruptured and deposited according to their specific gravities. We might prove that the human or vegetable mould we tread on has been concentrated from the atmosphere above us. We might refer to the progress of crystallization from the surface towards the centre of mineral solution. But we forbear a minute consideration of these subjects from a fear that more cautious and philosophic minds might regard the analogies as remote, unwarranted, or fanciful. But whether the theories merely suggested be tenable or not, the general truth of the centripetal development of organized beings enunciated in this proposition is incontrovertible.

Collecting under one expression, the attraction of gravitation, attraction of cohesion, chemical affinity, conatus of crystallization, veg

etative force, vital principle, &c., and denominating them the tendencies of nature, and giving to undulatory motions the provisional term of forces of nature, we may boldly lay down the principle-that the forces of nature are centrifugal, and the tendencies of nature centripetal. A beautiful equilibrium between these powers retains perpetually the earth in its orbit, the sun in its station, and the whole Universe in a chain of sublime connection. From the Divine Being all things proceed to the Divine Being all things tend: God is All in All.

By a survey of such striking analogies, the New Churchman is enabled to render a reason of the faith which is within him. Or if he prefer to avoid disputation, and to concentrate his attention on the sublime articles of his creed, his mind will subside into that calm and dignified philosophy, whose enchantment no scoffer can break, indisposed to assail the opinions of others, but immutable in its own.

Many generous and gifted spirits during the middle ages spent their lives in the chemical laboratory in quest of a fabulous stone which could transmute the baser inetals into coveted gold. But the receiver of New Church Theology is possessed of a talisman, far more potent, far more wonderful, which the more he uses the more powerful it becomes; a talisman which can convert the commonest objects of lifethe pebble at his feet, the snail in his path, the dew-drop on the flower; into spiritual truths, which will nourish his spiritual body, enlighten his understanding, and purify his heart. Madison, Ind.

W. H. H.

ARTICLE III.

For the N. C. Repository.

INTERPOLATION IN THE DICTIONARY OF CORRESPONDENCES.

MR. EDITOR,

Under the article "Eighth Day," in the "Dictionary of Correspondences" (Bost. Ed. 1841), we read as follows:

"EIGHTH DAY (the), denotes every beginning, consequently continuation. This is one reason why the Sabbath was changed from the seventh day to the first, that is, by way of continuation, the eighth day, which denotes the beginning of a new Christian Church, at the end of the Jewish Church."-A. C. 2633.

Having some curiosity to learn what Swedenborg really taught on this subject, and not recollecting to have met with any such passage as the above in my reading of the Arcana, I turned with special interest to the number referred to, and to my surprise found only the following ;

"A son of eight days." That it signifies beginning and continuation appears from the signification of the eighth day, on which they were circumcised, as denoting every beginning, thus continuation, concerning which, n. 2044.

Here evidently is nothing touching the change of the Sabbath day from the seventh to the first. Nor is there anything more explicit in the number here referred to, 2044. He says indeed that "as the eighth day is the first day of the week following, it signifies every beginning;" but this carries with it no intimation that the Sabbath is this first or eighth day of the week. In fact, though I have scanned the writings of Swedenborg very carefully to see if any hint could be met with which seemed to recognise the change of day which has obtained in the Christian world, the search has thus far been fruitless. On the contrary, it would seem from the language of Swedenborg in the following extracts that it was not the time, but simply the character, of the day that was changed.

"The Sabbath, among the sons of Israel, was the sanctity of sanctities because it represented the Lord; the six days, his labors and combats with the hells; and the seventh, his victory over them, and thus rest; and because that day was the representative of the close of the whole redemption of the Lord, therefore it was holiness itself. But when the Lord came into the world, and thence the representations of Him ceased, that day became a day of instruction in divine things, and thus also a day of rest from labors, and of meditation on such things as are of salvation and eternal life; as also a day of love towards the neighbor. That it became a day of instruction in divine things, is manifest from this, that the Lord on that day taught in the temple and synagogues, (Mark vi. 2; Luke iv. 16, 31, 32; xiii. 10;) and that he said to the man who was healed, Take up thy bed and walk; and to the Pharisees, That it was lawful for the disciples on the Sabbath day to gather the ears of corn and to eat, (Matt. xii. 1 to 9; Mark ii. 23 to the end; Luke vi. 1 to 6; John v. 9 to 19;) by which particulars, in the spiritual sense, is signified, to be instructed in doctrinals. That that day became also a day of love towards the neighbor, is evident from those things which the Lord did and taught on the day of the Sabbath, (Matt. xii. 10 to 14; Mark iii. 1 to 9; Luke vi. 6 to 12; xiii. 10 to 18; xiv. 1 to 7; John v. 9 to 19; vii. 21, 23; ix. 14, 16.) From these and the former passages, it is manifest why the Lord said, that He is Lord also of the Sabbath, (Matt. xii. 8; Mark ii. 28; Luke vi. 5;) and because He said this, it follows that that day was representative of Him."-T. C. R. 301.

So again elsewhere.

"The Lord when he was in the world and united His Human to the Divine itself, abrogated the Sabbath as to representative worship, or as to the worship which prevailed amongst the Israelitish people, and made the Sabbath day a day of instruction in the doctrine of faith and love."—A. C. 10,360.

Here is no hint of a change of the day, but only of its uses. Indeed, as the Sabbath denotes spiritually the state of rest consequent upon the labors and conflicts of the six days of regeneration, it constitutes a problem how, under the new dispensation, the Sabbath, which signifies the repose and tranquillity of the last day of the spiritual week, should properly stand at the commencement of that week. Would not this imply that conjunction came before combat ?--victory before temptation?

I do not, however, propound this matter for the sake of argument. Perhaps the time may come when the whole subject will demand at the hands of New Churchmen a more thorough-going and radical canvassing than it has ever, in modern times, received. But at present my object is simply to bring to notice the foregoing palpable in

terpolation in the Dictionary of Correspondences. I would ask upon what authority such a sentence as the above has found its way into the work in question? It may be replied that it is copied verbatim from Nicholson, whose work is the basis of the Dictionary. But what authority had Nicholson so to mix up his own opinions with the statements of Swedenborg as to mislead the reader by making him think that Swedenborg had said what he never did say? As a general fact I have found Nicholson very fair in representing his author, but the present is plainly an exception, and though both his work and the Dictionary of Correspondences founded upon it, are very useful manuals, yet it is to be hoped that the passage in question, if it be not expunged from future editions, may at least be known to receive no countenance from anything advanced by Swedenborg.

SCRUTATOR.

ARTICLE IV.

For the N. C. Repository.

MISCORRECTION OF A SUPPOSED ERRONEOUS TRANSLATION
IN THE ARCANA.

MR. EDITOR,

I notice in No. 7 of your Repository, page 444, an intended correction of a supposed erroneous translation, which it is unnecessary for me to quote in detail, as those who are interested in it will turn to it. The translator had rendered "diluculum," earliest dawn; and the corrector proposes to render it twilight. What the corrector means by twilight, whether morning twilight or evening twilight, he does not say; but the inference naturally is that he means the latter. If so, he is in error, and the translator is right. Diluculum signifies morning twilight, or dawn: whereas evening twilight is expressed in the Latin language by crepusculum.

REMARKS.

T. B. H.

We are satisfied, upon examination, that our correspondent T. B. H. is right in his remarks on the correction proposed, and yet the mistake is one that would so easily and naturally be made, without a close inspection of Swedenborg's usage of terms, that we are not at all surprised that it was made. The following is the original article which has drawn out the critique of T. B. H.

"In a recent reading of A. C. 10,135, we noticed the following passage,'From these considerations it may now be manifest what is signified by morning and what by evening; but, let it be observed, that this morning involves also mid-day, and that evening involves also the earliest dawn (diluculum).' This should evidently be rendered twilight, as it is in the sentence immediately

following; For when mention is made in the Word of morning and evening, in such case the whole day is meant, thus by morning also mid-day, and by evening also night or twilight (diluculum). The error is so obvious, that we trust it may be corrected in future editions."

Here it is evident that the same original term is rendered in one case earliest dawn, and in the other twilight, and we have recently noticed that in the Manchester edition of the Arcana, printed in 1820, the phrase earliest dawn does not occur at all, but diluculum is uniformly rendered by twilight--a term which in ordinary parlance denotes, as is well known, the evening twilight. Without a special recurrence to the original Latin of Swedenborg, the impression would undoubtedly be that by twilight was meant the obscure light of the evening, both here and in the following passage.

"The reason why morning denotes a state of love and of light thence derived in the internal man is, because in the heavens with the angels the states vary as to love and the faith thence derived, as in the world with men times vary as to heat and at the same time light; those times are, as is well known, morning, mid-day, evening and night; hence in the Word by morning is signified a state of love, by mid-day a state of light in clearness, by evening a state of light in obscurity, and by night or twilight a state of love in obscurity." -A. C. 10,134.

In this passage, however, the original is diluculum as before, and by a strict comparison of several parallel places it appears unquestionable that the meaning attached by our author to the word is uniformly that of the early dawn just preceding the mane or morning. The usage is very distinctly set forth in the ensuing extracts.

"These states also are meant by morning, mid-day, evening, and night or twilight in the Word; in like manner states of the Church, the first state of which is also called morning in the Word, the second state mid-day, the third evening, and the fourth or last night; but when the Church is in its night, in which it is when no longer in love to God and in faith, then morning commences from the earliest dawn (diluculum) with another nation, where a new Church is established."-A. C. 10,134.

"It is from this ground that it was said, that he (Peter) should thrice deny; that this was done in the early dawn (diluculum) when morning was about to come, is manifest from John, chap. xviii. 28; and that cock-crowing and early dawn (diluculum) denote the same thing is evident from Mark, 'Watch ye, for ye know not when the Lord of the house is about to come; in the evening, or at midnight, or at cock-crowing, or in the morning' (xiii. 35.)"—Ibid.

The general subject here treated of is the variation or vicissitude of states in the spiritual world.

"For the states of love and of light vary with the angels, as in the world the states of the times of the day vary, which are morning, mid-day, evening, night or the earliest dawn (diluculum), and again morning; when the angels are in a state of love, then it is morning to them, and then the Lord appears to them as the rising sun; when they are in a state of light, then it is mid-day to them; but when they are in a state of light in obscurity, then it is evening to them and afterwards when they are in a state of love in obscurity or in some degree of cold, then it is night to them or rather the early dawn (diluculum) to them; such states succeed continually with the angels, and by them they are continually perfecting; but those variations do not exist from the sun there, its rising and setting, but from the state of the interiors of the