preachings there" (H. & H. 225); and also concerning the preachings of the third heaven, he says: "The doctrine of the inmost heaven is more full of wisdom than the doctrine of the middle heaven, and this more full of intelligence than the doctrine of the last heaven." - H. & H. 227.

How can the above statements be reconciled, unless we suppose that the separation between the celestial and spiritual kingdoms of the heavens is not so marked as that which exists between the second and third heavens. The passage quoted by S. R., teaching the separation of the kingdoms of the heavens from each other, is not nearly as emphatic as those above, which teach the distinction between the third and second heavens.

4. Another objection to the position of S. R. is that it is contrary to the order of influx, so often taught by Swedenborg. According to this new interpretation, the third heaven flows directly into the first, without the intervention of the second, or (in such case improperly termed) middle, heaven. Yet Swedenborg says:

"The natural principle never receives any life except from the spiritual, nor the spiritual but from the celestial. Such is the nature of influx."-A. C. 880.

"From the Lord proceeds whatever is celestial, from this all that is spiritual, and, from what is spiritual, all that is natural. This is the order of all created existences, and hence is derived the order of influx. . . . Where the celestial principle is wanting, nothing spiritual can exist, because all that is spiritual is derived from the Lord through the intervention of what is celestial . . . The case is similar also with respect to what is natural, for all that is good enters by influx, according to the same order."— A. C. 1096. See also 775, and especially 1494; H. & H. 100, and in other places.

...

5. The doctrine of degrees, as taught throughout the writings, and especially in "Divine Love and Wisdom," seems to me opposed to the interpretation which S. R. has given this doctrine. The three heavens are three discrete degrees in man's mind, through which he ascends in his regeneration. Does Swedenborg anywhere define the celes

tial and spiritual kingdoms as referring to degrees of regeneration? Is not the superiority of the celestial over the spiritual kingdom one of genius, rather than of development? We are taught —

"There are three degrees of the interiors with every one, as well angel as spirit, and also with man. Those with whom the third degree is opened are in the inmost heaven; those with whom the second, or only the first, is open, are in the middle, or ultimate, heaven. The interiors are open by the reception of divine good and truth." II. & II. 33.

Read in this connection, also, T. C. R. 34, where the same doctrine is more fully taught. That man has the third degree of his mind opened by his course of regeneration, Swedenborg very clearly teaches in A. C. 83, 86, 87, 91, etc., where he describes the progress of man through the spiritual into the celestial degree of the mind.

Take now the above quotation, especially the final sentence, and we learn that man enters heaven according to the degree in which he receives divine good and truth, but by a former quotation (H. & H. 133) we learn that he is of the celestial, or spiritual, kingdom, as he receives divine good more, or divine truth more. According to these passages, the kingdoms are distinguished according to the preponderance of goodness or truth, the heavens according to the interior character of their reception.

From these passages can we conclude otherwise than, first, that there is a celestial and spiritual genius, in which the voluntary and intellectual of man respectively predominate, and into which he is born (H. & H. 333, A. C. 2300 & 2301); second, that in general the celestial kingdom consists of those who possess a celestial genius, and the spiritual of those who are of a spiritual disposition; third, that there is a celestial and a spiritual degree of regeneration, corresponding respectively to the third and second heaven.

If the above were all the teachings we had upon this subject, we might rest here, but we should fully recognize the force of the passages adduced by S. R., and modify our

VOL. XLIV. 8

views accordingly. From them, indeed, taken in connection with the above, I have been led to the conclusion, first, that the third degree of regeneration, in which man, by virtue of the interior opening of his mind, regards good first and truth afterwards, is in greater sympathy with men of celestial genius, in whom good holds the first place by virtue of their disposition, than it is with those of a spiritual genius. In the third heaven, the character of the regeneration is such as to make its celestial kingdom the dominant masculine element of that heaven; second, that in the second heaven the character of that degree of regeneration is in sympathy with, and calls into a ruling position, those of a spiritual genius. In the second heaven the plane of its opening is such as to make its spiritual kingdom the dominant power of that heaven; third, that the natural heaven, being from the character of its regeneration in no special sympathy with men of either genius, is, in a most marked manner, divided into two kingdoms. The celestial-natural heaven must be connected through the negative side of the second into the positive side of the third heaven, while the spiritual-natural heaven is conjoined most intimately with the positive side of the second heaven and the negative of the third. Might not this last view lead Swedenborg to express himself as S. R. has shown he does?

The above views are crudely and obscurely expressed; but will they not, or something like them, more nearly embody all that Swedenborg says upon this interesting subject than either of the other theories? I should rejoice most heartily to have this subject exhaustively treated, and cleared of its obscurity and doubt.

C. H. M.

GEORGE MACDONALD.

[IN the Congregationalist of May 18, there is a very interesting letter, giving quite a full report of a sermon delivered by Mr. MacDonald in the church at Canonbury. As very few, probably, of our readers ever see the Congregationalist, and as the

letter contains statements tending to correct some erroneous impressions in regard to Mr. MacDonald's early religious connections, and also of some of his religious opinions, it has seemed advisable to us to lay the whole letter before our readers. It cannot fail to interest all who read it.]

LONDON, April 29, 1871.

The name of George MacDonald has, of late, attracted a good deal of attention in literary American circles, and he is eminently a rising man with the pen, both there and here. It is not generally known that he was bred a Congregational minister, is a graduate of a Congregational college, and was, for some years, pastor of a Congregational church in Sussex. I am not quite sure how his connection with that pulpit terminated, but it is my impression that some of his utterances excited so much dislike for their apparent, and possibly their actual, leaning in the direction of Universalism, as to make him uncomfortable, and lead to his withdrawal to a sort of Independent platform. I am only sure of two things that his name no longer appears upon the official, accredited yearly list of Congregational ministers of England and Wales, and that he never alienated the confidence of some of the best men of the Congregational body, who like Rev. Henry Allon, for example — have been in the habit of inviting him occasionally to their pulpits, and who have strong confidence both in his essential personal goodness, and theological integrity. No longer a pastor, I take him to be now mainly a man of letters, yet who does not refuse, upon occasion, to preach the gospel. Hearing that he was, on Sabbath evening last, to officiate for Mr. Allon, at Canonbury, I took the opportunity of hearing him.

The large audience-room was very full. Mr. MacDonald wore no gown nor bands-as Congregational ministers are quite apt to do here, and as is the usual custom in that pulpit-and had nothing in any way distinctively clerical in his look or manner. He is of a little more than medium height, with a full and flowing dark beard and moustache,

and quite long hair; an eminently handsome man, with a general look which suggests the scholar, if not - I do not know that he writes poetry - the poet. His voice is rather husky; I fancied a little abnormally so, and he seemed to have a cold. His reading was, to me, very impressive — not that it was faultless, or in any vocal respect near perfection, but that the Scriptures selected were striking, and their rendering somehow singularly earnest. From the Old Testament he read the 5th of Amos, and from the New a portion of the Revelation of John, including the description, in the 14th chapter, of the treading of the great wine-press of the wrath of God, when the blood came out "even unto the horse's bridles," etc., and there was something in his emphatic tones, his Scotch pronunciation— decided, but not amounting to a "brogue "— and his hirsute front, which gave him a weird seeming, something as if from among the herdmen of Tekoah, or the Isle that is called Patmos, one of the old prophets were come again to warn the wicked.

His sermon was founded upon 2 Peter, iii. 8: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Having read the text, he closed the Bible, and, leaning over upon it, began a discourse purely extempore, so far as visible notes were concerned, speaking somewhat thus: The metaphysicians tell us, though I could never quite make sure that I understood it, while I have had an occasional glimmer of an idea what they mean by it, that there is no such thing as what we call time or space, to the Infinite. But this I can comprehend must be true, that in God's eyes a thousand years and a single day must be alike in that He can see, with one glance, all that goes to fill up and make out the one, as easily as the other; that, as one might say, it is no harder for Him to cognize the one than the other. Well, if this be so, I think it must follow thence that God is never in a hurry. It comes of our unbelief in Him that we are so apt to be in such a hurry. "He that believeth shall not make haste." If we look at