now made at any period previous to their announcement, than it was prepared for the Lord's first advent at any time prior to his appearing upon earth. And inasmuch as men were not prepared for this revelation before, it could not have been understood or rationally received, and therefore would not have been useful. "Many an honest seeker after truth has often found himself embarrassed with questions of this sort. And if, in his perplexed state of mind, he undertakes to examine the sacred volume for himself with a desire of learning whether it be the Word of God, and what it really teaches, is he then relieved from all embarrassment? Does he not find that some parts of the word appear to contradict others? That some parts appear to contradict true science? That some appear to countenance immorality? That some appear unimportant and trivial, aud wholly unworthy the Divine mind? And does he not find many passages from which he can extract no intelligible meaning whatever? And if, according to the acknowledged principles of interpretation in the Old Church, the obvious or apparent meaning of Scripture be its true and only meaning, how can he reconcile all the things he there finds, with the idea that the bible is really what it purports to be the Word of God? "Upon this subject we learn from the writings of Swedenborg, that as there is a natural and a spiritual world united by correspondence, or as there is a natural and a spiritual a body and a soul-appertaining to man, so there exists in the Sacred Scriptures a natural and a spiritual, or an external and an internal sense. And as the soul and body of man are united in one person, and perfectly correspond with each other, the soul flowing into and filling every part of the body, so the spiritual and literal senses of the Word are united and form one by correspondence; the latter being filled and pervaded with the spirit. And as the body of man hath no life in itself, and dies when separated from the spirit, so the letter of the Word hath no life in itself, and, separate from the spiritual sense, is dead. The literal sense is natural, treating for the most part of objects and events which belong to the natural world, and is therefore adapted to the states of natural men and children: the spiritual sense is above the natural, and treats of things which belong to the spiritual world, or to the human mind; of the infinitely various states of human life; and consequently is adapted to the state of angels and spiritual men. The literal sense is Divine Truth in obscurity, and hence it is as a cloud; the spiritual sense is Divine Truth in its brightness and true glory. The literal sense is as the clothing of man, while the spiritual is as the man himself. And as those parts of the body which man has occasion to use most frequently-those in which all his senses are ultimated, viz: his face and hands-are usually left naked, so those parts of the Word which are most needed for spiritual use, are, as it were, naked: i. e. the cloud of the letter is so thin as scarcely to veil the internal sense. To quote the language of Swedenborg : "Divine truths in the literal sense are rarely found naked, but clothed; in which state they are called the appearances of truth, and are more accommodated to the apprehension of the simple, who are not used to any elevation of their thoughts above visible objects. The word in that (the literal) sense, is like a man clothed, whose face and hands are naked. All things necessary to the life of man, and consequently to his salvation, are naked; but the rest are clothed, and in many places where they are clothed, they shine through the clothing, as the face shines through a veil of thin silk.-(Doctrine of the Sacred Scriptures, n. 51, 55.) "These few remarks will convey some idea of what is to be understood by the internal sense of the Sacred Scriptures. But this subject will be more fully explained and illus rated in succeeding lectures. "In order to show the absolute necessity of admitting the existence of a spiritual sense of the Word, we proceed now to notice some of the difficulties to be encountered, upon the supposition that the Word does not contain any such sense; or that the obvious and literal meaning of Scripture is its true and only meaning. First, let us see if there be not statements in different parts of the Word, which, if understood according to the literal sense, manifestly contradict each other. We shall notice only a few of these. 6 "In Numbers xxiii. 19, it is written, 'God is not a man that He should lie; neither the son of man that He should repent.' Again, in 1 Sam. xv. 29, "For He is not a man that He should repent.' Likewise in Ps. cx. 4, it is said, 'The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent;' and in Jer. iv. 28, Because I have spoken, I have purposed, and will not repent.' But in the same prophecy (xviii. 8,) it is written, If that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.' Also, in 1 Sam. xv. 35,' And the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.' Again in Jonah, "God repented of the evil that He had said He would do unto them (the Ninevites ;) and He did it not.' (iii. 10.) "Now inasmuch as it is affirmed with equal distinctness in the letter of the Word, that the Lord does repent and does not repent, it is manifest that one of its assertions must be false, if the texts in which they occur have no other than a literal sense; because they contradict each other. 6 "It is written in Psalms that God is angry (with the wicked) every day,' (vii. 11.) And in Isaiah, Because they have cast away the law of Jehovah of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel; therefore is the anger of Jehovah kindled against his people,' (v. 24, 25.) There are also many more passages wherein anger and wrath are predicated of the Lord according to the letter of the text. Can these passages be literally true? If so, how are they to be reconciled with others which forbid anger and enjoin love to all, even to our enemies ?-as in Psalms, Cease from anger and forsake wrath,' (xxxvii. 8;) and in Matthew, 'Love your enemies, &c. (v. 44.) For if anger be a good quality or emotion, why should men be forbidden to exercise it? But if, on the other hand, it be an emotion originating in evil, why should it be predicated of the Lord, as is often the case, unless there be some way of understanding such texts different from their obvious and literal meaning? "It is said again in Exodus, that, for a certain evil deed there mentioned, thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for E* burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe, (xxi. 23, 24, "In Matthew's Gospel, where the purchase of the potter's field with the money that Judas received as the reward of his treachery, is spoken of, we find it thus written: 'Then was fulfilled that which was written by Jeremy the Prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me,' (xxvii. 9, 10.) Now, although this text is not contradicted by any other, yet we find nothing like it in the prophecy of Jeremiah, where it is said to occur. The only passage in the Old Testament which bears any resemblance to it, is found in Zachariah, (xi. 12, 13;) a fact which it is not easy to explain (if there be no internal sense to the Word,) without admitting (what indeed some commentators have not hesitated to do) that the inspired penman was here mistaken! But when the internal sense of the Word as now revealed, is seen and acknowledged, the difficulty which here exists, according to the literal sense, finds an easy solution without any such dangerous admission or presumptuous conclusion as this. For, according to Swedenborg, all proper names used in Scripture have an internal sense, and denote some peculiar mental quality or state of life, and the text above quoted, is one of that character or quality, which is denoted by the prophet Jeremiah. Hence it is said to be spoken by him, although in the literal sense it is not. 6 "In another passage of the same Evangelist, which describes the cruel and insulting treatment of the Lord at the hour of his crucifixion, it is written, And the thieves (o Anora)-also which were crucified with Him, cast the same in his teeth.' But Luke says only one of them was guilty of this brutality, and that he was rebuked for it by the other, who, instead of mocking, 'said unto Jesus, Lord remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.' "Such are some of the discrepancies and contradictory statements which occur in the literal sense of the Word.Others of a similar character might be adduced, were it necessary. But it is sufficient here to remark that, in the internal sense these statements are seen to be neither discrepant nor contradictory, but in perfect agreement, and that the writers made no mistake. "There are other passages of Scripture, which if taken in their strictly literal sense, manifestly contradict the teachings of true science. Take, for example, the chapter with which the Bible commences, and which contains what is commonly called the Mosaic account of the creation of the world. It is abundantly proved by facts which geological research has brought to light within the last few years, that this account of the creation given in Genesis cannot be literally true. So convincing indeed is the evidence furnished by the science of Geology, that the best biblical scholars of all denominations no longer think of adhering to the literal sense of the word day in this chapter, but understand it to signify an indefinite period of time. In this way they endeavor to harmonize this chapter with geological facts. And although this signification of day, which it is now generally supposed to have, is merely natural, since it conveys an idea of time which belongs to the natural world, still it is a departure from the strict sense of the letter, and may therefore be regarded as an approximation towards the truth-an approximation which theologians have been compelled to make, by the indubitable testimony of modern science. "But there is a piece of evidence upon this point, of a different kind and of quite recent discovery, which is, if possible, even more conclusive than that furnished by geological research. This evidence is contained in the following extract from a number of a French periodical just received. * "We read in a report rendered of the doings of the Academy of Sciences, at its session of Oct. 5: "M: Thilorier submitted to the Academy a work of peculiar interest in relation to Chronology. Two texts serve See La Nouvelle Jerusalem Revue, Sept. 1840. |