the words as translated by Luther, give this spiritual meaning: As the church was moving towards the Lord, who is represented by the East, they came into the state of evil represented by Shinar.

In the fortieth chapter of Genesis, in the 16th verse, we read, in the story of Pharaoh's baker, these words: "I also was in my dream, and behold I had three white baskets upon my head." Instead of white the translation ought to have been perforated, or full of holes, which is a marginal reading. Now, the whole spiritual lesson of this dream. hinges upon the fact of the baskets being perforated, and by substituting white instead, it is impossible for the internal sense to be evolved out of the literal sense. You will be able to see this very easily yourselves, upon being informed that by the three baskets are represented the three degrees of the human mind, and by the head of the baker on which they rested is meant man's sensual degree, where all his evils are contained; when the degrees of the mind are properly organized of goods and truths, and not perforated, then the life of the Lord flowing into man is received in one of these degrees, and does not flow into man's own, or his proprium, represented by the baker's head; but when the intermediate degrees are not organized, when thus there are no planes of conscience in man, then the degrees of a man's mind are said to be perforated, and then the life from the Lord flows into man's proprium, and is there turned into evil and falsity. Wherefore also we read that Pharaoh's baker was condemned and hanged. Now the whole of this spiritual lesson is removed out of the letter of the Word when the word white is substituted for perforated. And so it is in a great number of other cases in our received English version of the Scripture.

In the 1st Book of Kings, vi. 7, we read in the common English version: "And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither,"—while the real translation, which is warranted by the internal sense, reads thus: "As to the house itself, while it was being built, it was built of unhewn stone, just as it was brought thither." The very lesson which is intended to be taught in this passage of Scripture is lost as soon as it is intimated that the chisel passed in any wise over the surface of the stones, whether in the quarry or in the house of the Lord. For building the house of the Lord of hewn stones, or moving the chisel over it, is descriptive of building the Church of truths furnished by man's self-derived intelligence, which is an abomination.

Again, there is that well-known passage in the 127th Psalm :

"For so He giveth His beloved sleep,;" which ought to read thus: "for He giveth it to His beloved in sleep," i.e. the Lord gives good to His beloved, when they do not know anything about it. In the 133rd Psalm again, the 3rd verse in a genuine translation reads thus: "As the dew of Hermon that descendeth upon the mountain of Zion." By Hermon, which is the highest mountain in Galilee, is here meant heaven, and by the dew of Hermon descending upon the mountain of Zion, is meant that the truth of peace descends out of heaven into the hearts of those who are in the genuine love to the Lord. As mount Hermon and the mountain of Zion, however, are in nature many hundred miles apart, and as in a natural sense the dew of Hermon can never descend on the mountain of Zion, the English translators thought it necessary to render this passage thus: "As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountain of Zion."

In the lovely 23rd Psalm this passage occurs in the common English version: "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow OF DEATH, I will fear no evil," as if it was descriptive of man's passage by death from this world into the other, when yet the real translation is simply, "Yea, though I walk through the valley of shade," or darkness, which means: Though I should be in severe temptation, I shall not be afraid of the powers of hell. By the valley of the shadow of death, would be meant a state of spiritual death, or of spiritual damnation, which is evidently not meant here by the Psalmist.

In the New Testament I shall only call to your attention the 3rd verse in the 1st chapter of John, where we read in the common English version: "All things were made by Him," i.e., by God; when yet it ought to read: All things were made by it, or by the same, i.e., by the Word, which is the meaning required by the internal sense.

It would have been easy for us to fill hundreds of pages with inaccurate and incorrect renderings in the authorized English version of the Scriptures, out of which it is impossible to evolve the spiritual sense either in this or in the other world. Yet these few instances I think are sufficient to show to you that in order to make a genuine translation of the Word of God, it is absolutely necessary that the translators should be acquainted with the internal sense of the passages which they are translating, and of course that they should have a sufficient acquaintance with the doctrine of correspondences.

This knowledge was possessed in a supereminent degree by Emanuel

Swedenborg, but it was not possessed by the English translators who were employed in the translation which is known as King James's version, nor is it possessed by those scholars who are now engaged in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster, in revising King James's version. But as neither of these companies have been or are acquainted with the internal sense of the Sacred Scripture, and as not one of their number had or has a knowledge of correspondences which can in any way be compared with that of Swedenborg, so neither can their version of the Scripture compare with Swedenborg's version. His translation was made with a single eye to the interior spiritual meaning of the Word of God, and therefore his version of Scripture, as it is scattered over his voluminous writings, ought to remain for ever the standard of our translation of the Scripture.

It is true his version is in Latin, and not in English; yet it is a comparatively easy work to prepare an English translation from the Latin. For Latin words have generally only one meaning, while in Hebrew we have sometimes to decide among a half-dozen different meanings, all of which, from a philological point of view, are equally plausible and orthodox. Swedenborg himself uses on this subject the following language: "From this chapter and other prophetical writings of that time it may appear sufficiently clear, that very many things are not expressed in the letter, which yet are inmostly contained in its words. The reason is that the spirit who pronounces the Word, beholds quite a number of things which cannot be expressed by [human] words; and these things then fall into such expressions [as we find in the various prophetical writings]; these expressions, however, are different with one prophet from what they are with another. I can testify, how many things are contained in thought and speech when they are spiritual; and that they can never be expressed [in natural language], and if expressed they would appear unconnected. For often one single spiritual idea requires a long exposition. The contents of the prophetical writing can, therefore, never be explained by any spirit nor by any man, but only by God Messiah who has spoken through the angels. As the words of Scripture, therefore, have such a wonderful origin, in order to make out some sense one translator construes the sentence differently from another translator. So that in a single verse as many meanings may be discovered, as there are translators; the real meaning of the letter, however, appears from the inmost; and, consequently, from the connection of what precedes and follows." (Adversaria, iv., p. 66.)

As the Word of God may be translated in so many fashions, we must be cautious therefore in placing our faith in any one, or in a whole company of translators, who lack that view "from the inmost" which Swedenborg declares is indispensable for making a genuine translation of the letter of the Word.

But as Swedenborg, on the contrary, has enjoyed this view of the Word of God "from the inmost," we have every reason to rest our faith upon him, and to regard his Latin translation of the Sacred Scripture, which is scattered over his theological writings, as our standard version of the Word of God. And we must condemn in the strongest possible language, the practice which prevails with some of Swedenborg's translators, and which is sanctioned by the publishing society which bears his name, to supersede his version of the Bible, in his own works, by the common English version of the Scripture. In the Scripture those who are on the roof of the house are warned not to come down to take anything out of the house. But those who exchange a version of the Scripture which has been prepared with the complete knowledge of the internal sense, for one which has been prepared in a state of utter ignorance of that sense, certainly violate this injunction of the Lord in its spiritual signification.

In conclusion, let us strive to be consistent Christians of the New Church, and let us never rest until we have in the English language a real New Church version of the Sacred Scripture, which furnishes a genuine vessel for the spiritual sense of the Word.

This work is one of paramount importance for the New Church at the present day; for it is only by the letter of the Word that conjunction can be effected between heaven and earth, and not by the doctrines of the internal sense, independently of the letter. And not until we have a genuine translation of the letter of the Word will the New Jerusalem Church be able to be conjoined in fulness with the new heaven, out of which all its strength, its life and its light descend.

THE PRESIDENT ON THE NEW LITURGY AND THE NEW VERSION OF THE BOOK OF PSALMS.

HAVING had to give the order for the third edition of THREE THOUSANDS each of the New Liturgy, because six thousands had already been called for; I cannot but congratulate the various societies of the Church and the members of the Conference on this very gratifying circumstance.

It is an evidence that a genuine want has been supplied; and an evidence also of great harmony of feeling in the Church. Perhaps it may not be unseasonable to place before any friends who may not be aware of them, all the reasons which have been urged in Conference for the change, and which are realized in this Liturgy. Some of the most cogent and pressing of these are calculated to induce the very general adoption of the Liturgy to become an universal one in the Church.

First, then, in having services for FIVE Sundays, it provides the variety that tends to prevent the use of a liturgy becoming a mere repetition of a set form of words, having little thoughts and little feeling.

The Liturgies of Rome and the Church of England have often been complained of in this respect, and large numbers of pious people avoid the use of a liturgy altogether from regarding it as tending to monotony and deadness of worship. The Church of England seeks to remove the objection by the use of variety in the collects, but this is much better done by variety in the entire service of each day, while there is perfect harmony in sense and feeling.

Persons not familiar with the rather complicated use of the collects often find the prayer is over before they have found the place.

The feeling that variety is required has induced several societies in the past to form liturgies of their own, which have been very excellent in their way, but have destroyed that sweet feeling of unanimity which is very agreeable when one goes into the several societies of the same body, and one finds the same wants expressed in the same loved forms of prayer.

Secondly, Each service is compact and complete in itself. You have not to skip over brackets. You have not to find the Commandments in another part of the book. You simply go right on. Το strangers this must be a very great help. It will prevent that interruption of the attention which is felt when one sees people perplexed and embarrassed. Once begin a service, and one goes straight through with nothing to look for elsewhere.

Thirdly, There are no words of a peculiar and technical character, not intelligible to ordinary people. Such words are often needful in doctrinal treatises, but are quite out of place in the expressions of devotion.

Fourthly, There are a sufficient proportion of responsive parts to keep up the attention of the people, and enable them to feel that they are expected to take part in the service, not simply to be present while the minister performs it.