contradicted by the discoveries of geology, but on the contrary, receive from them a remarkable confirmation. And we shall come at once to the point, by stating and seeking to prove, that remains of the animals which we commonly call fierce, malignant, and noxious, such as hyænas, tigers, wolves, rats, mice, and others of a similar character, are not found in any of the ancient strata of rocks;-in fact, are not found in general imbedded in rocks at all, but lie near the surface, very commonly in caverns, and often mingled with human remains, which are apparently of the same age. Such fossiliferous caverns have been discovered in England, France, Bavaria, and North America. "In general," says Richardson, "they (the caverns) contain the bones and teeth of bears, tigers, hyænas,-also of elephants, mastodons, and various other herbivora on which they preyed. These organic remains are usually found imbedded in a deposite of stalagmite earth, which forms the flooring of the cave."* Frequent discoveries," says Dr. Buckland, "have been made of human bones and rude works of art, in natural caverns, sometimes enclosed in stalactite, at others in beds of earthy materials, which are interspersed with bones of extinct species of quadrupeds." "Several accounts have been published within the last few years of human remains discovered in caverns in France, and in the province of Liege, which are described as being of the same antiquity with the bones of hyenas, and other extinct quadrupeds that accompany them."† 66 66 Indeed, it is a fact generally admitted by geologists that the present races of animals are, for the most part, no older than man. "It may be proper to observe," says Dr. Pye Smith, that it is only in the newest and latest kinds of formation that any remains of man and his cotemporary animals are to be found." "Geology decides," says Dr. Hitchcock," that the species now living, since they are not found in the rocks any lower down than man is (with a few exceptions), could not have been cotemporaneous with those in the rocks, but must have been created when man was."§ Is there not here remarkable confirmation of what Swedenborg affirms? Geology decides, say these writers, that among the innumerable fossils discovered in the rocks, no remains of the present species of animals, including, consequently, all those commonly called fierce and noxious, as bears, tigers, wolves, &c., are found in the rocks any lower down than man is. Dr. Hitchcock, indeed, slightly modifies *Geology for Beginners, chap. ix. + Bridgewater Treatise, chap. xi. Supplementary Note A. § Religion of Geology. Lecture II. his general statement by the words, "with a few exceptions; " but he does not mention what those exceptions are, and he gives no ground for supposing them to be remains of fierce animals. But Dr. Pye Smith states in broad terms that "it is only in the recent and latest kinds of formation that any remains of man and his cotemporary animals are to be found." But not only have we this negative proof that no remains of the present fierce and noxious animals are found in the rocks, but there is also positive proof as to the nature of the animals that did exist and rove upon the earth before man was created, viz., that though of vast size and strength, these were, like the elephant now, harmless and herbivorous. The megatherium, deinotherium, mastodon, mammoth, as is plain from their structure and inferred habits,—were not fierce or carnivorous, but gentle and herbivorous, feeding on roots and the leaves and branches of trees. Everyone who has visited the British Museum must remember the skeleton of the megatherium, which stands in the middle of one of the halls, in the attitude of drawing down a young tree with his vast paw (or forearm, which it more resembles). It appears to belong to the sloth species, an animal that feeds on the leaves of trees, and is quite harmless. And of a like inoffensive character must have been all the land animals, the remains of which have been discovered. But how, it may be asked, allowing that this was the general character of the land animals,—does not geology produce proofs of the existence of sea animals that were carnivorous-as the ichthyosaurus and others,-whose mouths were armed with long rows of sharp teeth, somewhat resembling those of the crocodile? We reply, undoubtedly it does. But it is to be observed, that carnivorousness does not necessarily imply fierceness or cruelty of nature, or in other words, evil; and from not making this distinction, the error has probably arisen of supposing that evil animals existed before man. Fierce animals, indeed, are for the most part carnivorous, but all carnivorous animals are not therefore fierce. This is particularly true of animals whose dwelling is the sea. The whale, for instance, is an inoffensive and even timorous animal, and yet he engulphs whole shoals of herring and other fish in his capacious maw. And it is well and necessary that he should do so, otherwise the sea would be soon overstocked and filled with fish, till the land would be flooded with the overflowing waters. Swedenborg directly refers to this point, and states it as a wise provision of the Creator that the animals of the deep should feed upon each other; for otherwise, he says, so enormous is their increase, the ocean would be entirely filled, and the waters crowded out upon the land. His words are as follows (he is shewing the infinity of the Creator, as exemplified in the vast multiplication of seed, both in the vegetable and animal creation):-"Take, for example, the fishes of the sea, which, if they should multiply according to the abundance of their seed, would, in twenty or thirty years, fill the ocean, so that it would consist of fish alone, in consequence of which the waters would overflow, and destroy all the land; but lest this should take place, it was provided by God that one fish should be food for another."* From this passage it is plain that Swedenborg did not consider that carnivorousness (at least, so far as regards sea animals) was synonymous with evil, for he declares this to be a necessary provision of the good Creator, and nothing that He directly provides and ordains is evil. Thus, then, the fact that carnivorous sea animals existed before the creation of man, is no proof that what are properly fierce, cruel, or noxious animals existed. And as to land animals, we have shown above, from the express statements of geologists, that no remains of those commonly called fierce or noxious, as tigers, hyænas, wolves, and the like—nor, indeed, any of the present races of animals—are found any lower down in the rocks than the remains of man, thus proving that they had no existence before man. Instead, therefore, of Swedenborg's statements conflicting with the facts of geology, they receive from them, as before observed, a remarkable confirmation. But even if instances be found in geology, or may hereafter be produced, which seem to militate against the above law laid down by Swedenborg, what is the New Churchman to do? Is he at once to abandon his great principle, so consonant as it is with reason and Scripture, and a right view of the good Creator, and with the whole philosophy of the New Church? By no means: of the two alternatives, it is more reasonable to presume that there may be an error in the case supposed,- -errors which time and further discoveries will remove. The science of Geology, it is to be remembered, is as yet comparatively in its infancy; and its facts, moreover, have yet to be viewed with new eyes, and reviewed under the bright light of the New Church philosophy. We know that appearances—and all sensual facts are appearances-depend greatly for their character on the standpoint from which they are viewed. For instance, fossil remains, which an old-school geologist might pronounce the remains of a crocodile, a New Church geologist might see to be perfectly capable of being classed with the harmless species of sauriens: and so in other cases. We are * Universal Theology, n. 32. sure that the great principle announced by Swedenborg is the truth, and if so, all facts will be found, sooner or later, to harmonize with it. O. P. H., Glasgow. P.S. Since the above was written we have chanced to light upon certain geological facts strikingly confirmatory of the statements above given. They are contained in Phillips's Manual of Geology. The author remarks, p. 57,-" Insects, birds, land reptiles, and mammalia (animals which suckle their young), are the rarest of fossils." Again he says "The remains of terrestrial animals embosomed in the earth are very few." (p. 71.) And, to shew the fewness, compared with those at present living, he has a table of the numbers of species, living and fossil, contrasted, of which the following form a part (p. 62.):— And as to plants, he remarks" The general proportion is about 100 living plants to one fossil one." And, moreover, to shew how entirely distinct those ancient species were from those at present existing, he remarks" Except in the superficial and comparatively modern accumulations, from fresh-water lakes, floods, or tides, and in the most recent of all the strata, scarcely one specimen of all the thousands of existing kinds of plants or animals is found buried in the earth.” (p. 63.) He adds "The ancient waters nourished saurians, but they were not our crocodiles." O. P. H. ASSYRIA AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN THE WORD OF GOD, LECTURE III. (Continued from page 63.) HAVING had our attention directed, in the two former lectures, to the subject of Assyria in general, as a representative used in the Book of Divine Revelation, and the evidences afforded by the sculptures seeming much to confirm the idea that Assyria is used in that sacred Book to represent the rational faculty both in its healthy and its [Enl. Series.-No. 64, vol. vi.] L perverted conditions, we will now pass from this more general view of the subject to observe more minutely some of the details belonging to it, for the purpose of adding to our knowledge of the science of correspondences, and of strengthening our conviction of its truthfulness. The animals of Assyria named in the Word, and depicted in the sculptures and the emblematical figures, will afford us ample material for this lecture, reserving the significations of the animals in a bad sense for our next. The Holy Word being so written throughout as that every expression contains an internal sense, it follows that every animal named therein must have a spiritual signification. Our present purpose, in reference to the animals, will be to notice those passages of the Word treating of Assyria in which any animals are named, describe the Assyrian sculptures of them as far as our resources will allow, and by interpreting them in their connexion with that people, endeavour to gain instruction respecting that principle so essential to our existence as men, namely, the RATIONAL, a well ordered development of which is indispensable in the constitution of a true church, both individually and universally considered. In As Assyria is not mentioned in the history of Israel until towards the close of the Second Book of Kings, the historical part of the Word affords but a few instances of animals named in connexion therewith. The more frequent occurrence of such instances is in the prophets. In searching through these Books, I have found forty-seven passages relating to Assyria in which animals of some kind are named. Ezek. xxxi., in which Assyria is called a "Cedar in Lebanon with fair branches and of a high stature,” it says " All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young." As there is a correspondence between all things of the natural world and all things of the spiritual, therefore the classing of species as to genera and the larger divisions of nature must answer to similar arrangements of spiritual things. Birds in general must correspond to some large department of spiritual things, as must also be the case with beasts. Looking at universal nature as the exponent of the universal spirit, we see that the subjects of life in the natural world must take precedence of inanimate things in representing; and again, that among the living subjects those whose organic structures, forms, and natures approximate the nearest to the human, stand first in order as correspondences to principles of the spirit. Beasts have, therefore, a higher signification than birds, and birds than fishes. The human organism, with all its proportions and conditions preserved, is Creation's perfect work,-it is the completed image of the Creator him |