16. DOCTRINE OF THE NEW JERUSALEM CONCERNING THE SACRED SCRIPTURE
I. That Sacred Scripture, or the Word, is Divine Truth itself.—II. That there is in the Word a Spiritual Sense, which has been hitherto unknown.—III. That the Literal Sense of the Word is the Basis, the Continent, and the Firmament of its Spiritual and Celestial Senses.—IV. That Divine Truth in the Literal Sense of the Word is in its Fulness, in its Sanctity, and in its Power.—V. That the Doctrine of the Church must be drawn from the Literal Sense of the Word, and must be confirmed by it.—VI. That by means of the Literal Sense of the Word, Man has conjunction with the Lord, and Conscription with the Angels.—VII. That the Word is in all the Heavens, and that the Wisdom of Angels is derived from it.—VIII. That the Church derives its Existence from the Word, and that its Quality is according to its Understanding of the Word.—IX. That in all the several particulars of the Word there is the Marriage of the Lord and the Church, and from it the Marriage of Goodness and Truth.—X. That Heretical Notions may be drawn from the Word, but that it is hurtful to confirm them.—XI. That the Lord came into the World to fulfil all things belonging to the Word, and by this means to become Divine Truth, or the Word in ultimates also.—XII. That before the Word which exists at the present day in the world, there was a Word which is lost.—XIII. That by means of the Word they also have light who are out of the Church, and not in possession of the Word.—XIV. That if the Word did not exist, Man would have no Knowledge of God, of Heaven and Hell, or of a Life after Death, and would be still further from any Knowledge of the Lord.
FINIS.
G
PAGE 3.—Perrone observes: “Passim Ecclesiam societstem nuncupavimus a Christo institutam. Hæc porro societatis notio in nobis excitat ideam corporis moralis, seu moralis personæ, quæ ad instar hominis, seu individui humani viventis, agat atque operetur.”—Tractatus de Locis Theologicis, Pars i., caput ii.
Albertus Magnus observes: “Sicut homo habet triplicem statum suæ ætatis, infantiæ scilicet, virilitatis, et senectutis; sic Ecclesia in principio fuit quasi in statu infantiæ, postea in statu ætatis robustæ, in fine erit in statu quasi senectutis et debilitatis magnæ.”—Prologus in Apocalypsin.
Cornelius a Lapide makes a similar observation in his Prolegomena to the Canticles, chap. iv. Vattel speaks of a nation as a moral person in his Preliminaries to the Law of Nations.
PAGE 7.—On this subject a remarkable work was published in Latin, by Peyrere, or Pereira, A.D. 1655, entitled, Præadamitæ sive Exercitatio super versibus duodecimo, decimotertio, et decimo quarto, capitis quinti Epistolæ D. Pauli ad Romanos. Quibus inducuntur Primi Homines ante Adamum conditi.
Calmet, in his Literal Commentary on Gen. ii. 7, takes the following notice of this book:—
“La Peirere n’est pas le premier qui ait soutenu le système des Préadamites. On trouve dans le livre Cozai composé, dit on, par le prétendu Roi de Cozar, qu’il y avoit chez les Indiens des édifices de cent mille ans. Il parle aussi de quelques anciens livres, où il étoit fait mention de Jambuzar, Zagrit, et de Roane qui vivoient avant Adam. Jambuzar étoit, disoit on, le precepteur d'Adam. Le Rabi Abrar assure que Giafar, Iman des Turks, qui vivoit vers l'an 770, étoit Preadamite, puis qu'il soûtenoit qu'il y avoit eu trois Adam avant celui dont parle Môise, et qu'il y en auroit encore 17, parce qu'il devoit arriver encore dans le monde 17 revolutions, qui seroient suivies d'une nouvelle race d'hommes, crez a l'imitation d'Adam et de ses descendans qui nous sont connus. Mais laissons toutes ces visions; il suffit de les exposer, pour en fair sentir tout le foible, et tout le ridicule. Si la retractation de la Peirere, si la singularitè de son sentiment contraire à une tradition de plus cinq mille ans, contraire a l'Ecriture et a tout l'Antiquite; si les Ecrits qu'on a fait contre son système, ne sont pas capables d'arrêter le cours des mauvais effets qu'il peut produire; en vain nous efforcerions-nous de le refuter, nous ne pouvons rien dire de nouveau contre lui, il faut le laisser vieillir, et alors on en aura honte. Nous ne laisserons pas en passant de montrer la foiblesse de quelques-uns de ses raisonnemens."
The most recent notice of this work is to be found in the Anthropological Review for May, 1864, p. 109, in the article entitled "Peyrerius and Theological Criticism." The following are the introductory remarks:—
"After two centuries of neglect and oblivion, the name of Isaac de la Peyrère is once more received and honored, as that of the first scholar who broke through the meshes of a groundless traditional prejudice, and proved that even in Scripture there are no decisive evidences of man's descent from a single pair; nay more, that there are distinct indications of non-Adamite races.
"The theory of La Peyrère, derived partly from Genesis and partly from the Epiatle to the Romans, was, that there had been two separate creations of man; one on the sixth day along with the beasts, at the mere fiat of God, and the other many thousand years afterwards. The first was the creation of the Gentiles. In the first creation, man and woman are created simultaneously, and no names are given them. In the second, Adam is created out of the dust, the breath of God is breathed into his nostrils, and Eve is subsequently created out of his rib. Peyrère saw how many difficulties would thus be obviated, though these were in his time far less numerous and far less formidable than they have become, in consequence of the progress of science.
"His system was, however, mainly founded on Rom. v. 12—14, from which he deduced that there were two classes of men. One of these—viz., the Jews, were descended from Adam, who, at his creation, had received a law, the violation of which brought death among his race. The other class—viz., Gentiles, could only commit natural sins, because they had received no law; nevertheless, they too were subjected to the natural consequences of death—so that 'death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression.'
"Peyrère was two centuries before his time; and whether we accept or reject his special theories, it is impossible not to admire his acumen, his candour, and his courage."
PAGE 11.—Cornelius a Lapide acknowledges the connection between this dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the tradition of Hesiod concerning the several ages of the world; but he seems unaccountably to place Daniel before Hesiod; for he says, "From this vision of Daniel the heathens derived their story concerning the first or Golden Age, the second or Silver Age, the third or Brazen Age, the fourth or Iron Age." Swedenborg's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream connects it immediately with the heathen tradition which probably formed a part of ancient Chaldean literature, and as such was not altogether unknown to Nebuchadnezzar. Mr. Faber notices the parallel in his Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, vol. ii., chap. i. He says the golden head is positively declared to be Nebuchadnezzar himself, in his quality of Sovereign of the First Empire: "THOU art this head of gold." This statement leads him off into a political explanation of the prophecy; whereas Nebuchadnezzar was addressed by Daniel not in his individual and political capacity, but in his representative or prophetic and spiritual character; thus as residing in a prophetic region, viz., in Babylon on the Huphrates, which was traditionally a boundary of Paradise, the first scene of the Golden Age, and where mankind were first desirous of adopting the Babylonian principle, and becoming as God, or as gods.
PAGE 19.—"The natural man of himself is in no agreement with the spiritual man, but in such a state of disagreement as to be altogether opposite. For the natural man regards and loves himself and the world, whereas the spiritual man does not regard himself and the world, except so far as is conducive to promote uses, etc. . . . The state of the natural man and of the spiritual are opposite to each other in respect of the ends which they regard: but still the two may be conjoined, and conjunction has place when the things of the external man are made subordinate and subservient to the ends regarded by the internal man. Therefore in order that man may become spiritual, it is necessary that the things of the external man be reduced to compliance, and that thus selfish and worldly ends of life be put off, and the latter put on; but this cannot be done except by mediums. . . . The first medium is affirming or affirmative of internal truth, viz., that so it is. When there is this affirmative principle, then man is in the beginning of regeneration: good operates from the internal man, and causeth affirmation. This good cannot flow into a negative principle nor even into a doubting one, and hath no reception until this affirmative principle hath place. This good afterwards manifests itself by affection; viz., by this, that man is affected with truth, or begins to be delighted with it; at first in that he knows it, and next in that he acts according to it. . . . Good is continually flowing in from the Lord; but where there is not an affirmative principle, it is not received. An affirmative principle therefore is the first medium, and as it were the first habitation of good flowing in from the Lord." . . .—Arcana Celestia, art. 3913.
These remarks arise out of the psychology which is founded upon the distinction between the outer and inner man. Bishop Ellicott, in his Sermon on The Threefold Nature of Man, justly remarks that,—"The ignorance of the Scripture aspects of this question, and the complete disregard which the whole subject of Biblical psychology has experienced, is no less startling than demonstrable. In but few of our recent Commentaries, or theological treatises, is there any attempt to distinguish between the characteristics of our psychic and spiritual natures."—Destiny of the Creature, p. 101.
PAGE 41.—When love is placed before truth, or charity before faith, the Scripture is interpreted upon this principle. When truth is placed before love, and faith before charity, the order is inverted, and the interpretations of Scripture become inverted; for that is placed before which ought to be behind, and that is placed behind which ought to be before.—"Such persons altogether invert the Word; setting that above which is beneath; or, what is the same thing, setting that before or in front, which is behind or in the rear. For they establish it as a principle that faith is the essential of the Church, and that the things appertaining to love to the Lord and charity towards our neighbor, are the fruits of faith. When yet the real case is this: if love to the Lord be compared to the Tree of Life in the Paradise of Eden, charity and its works are the fruits thence derived, whereas faith and all things appertaining thereto are merely leaves. Since therefore they so invert the Word as to deduce the origin of fruits not from the tree but from the leaves, it is not to be wondered at that they deny the internal sense of the Word and acknowledge only its literal sense; for from the literal sense (separated from the spiritual) any doctrinal tenet, even the most heretical, may be confirmed."—Arcana Celestia, 3427. "There are degrees, like the steps of a ladder, which unite the intellectual with the sensual part of man, and by which he is enabled to ascend from the light of the world into the light of heaven."—Ibid., 5114, 514½, etc. See also Tract No. IV. of this Series, p. 54.