02. A REVIEW

OF

SEVEN SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,

BY THE REV. JOHN WILLIAM BURGON, M.A., FELLOW OF

ORIEL COLLEGE, AND SELECT PREACHER:

WITH

SOME REMARKS UPON "THE BEGINNING OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS,"

BY THE REV. ISAAC WILLIAMS.

FORMERLY OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD.

No. I.

"I am not sure that since the days of the Arian dispute, a more important question has arisen than that which seems likely to be ere long forcing itself upon us, of the Inspiration of Holy Writ."—Sermons preached at St. Mary's, Oxford, by the Rev. P. Eden, p. 178.

1861.

130. f. 57.

At last a crisis has arrived! The trumpet has been blown; and has given no uncertain sound. The foundation of the Church—the Word of God—has, it is said, been openly attacked; the authority of the Bible, and that of the Church, have both been directly assaulted; both, it is said, will be in imminent danger, if the Essays and Reviews are allowed to prevail. A series of Seven Sermons, from the University pulpit, has accordingly been preached, addressed principally to the Undergraduates; and nothing, we think, has ever issued from the Church of England of such supreme importance on the subject of Divine Inspiration. As far, however, as regards the Inspiration and Interpretation of Scripture, Mr. Noble,* in his work on Plenary Inspiration, long since maintained the same general principles with those of Mr. Burgon. Without reference, however, to this topic, we thank Mr. Burgon for his services to the cause of Truth; although we feel that his main position is so strong, that he might have afforded to discuss the ques-

* The Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures Asserted, and the Principles of their Composition Investigated, with a view to the Refutation of all objections to their Divinity. In Six Lectures. By the Rev. S. Noble. Third Edition.

A 2 tion in a far more respectful and amicable spirit toward the Essayists and Reviewers. It is, however, but just that we should listen to his reasons for plain speaking; and accordingly the following remarks are interesting as a specimen of what has been preached from a University pulpit, and this very recently (p. 57):—

—“The record of the Apostle is express and emphatic:—

‘All Scripture (every book of the Bible) is given by inspiration of God.’ In the face of such testimony, by the way, we deem it not a little extraordinary to be assured (by an individual who has acquired considerable notoriety within the last few months) that ‘for any of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration, there is no foundation in the Gospels or Epistles.’*

“Strange to say, there is a marvellous indisposition in man to admit the notion of such a heaven-sent message. Not to dispute with those who deny Inspiration altogether, (for that would be endless,) there are many,—and we fear, a daily increasing number of persons,—who, admitting Inspiration in terms, yet so mutilate the notion of it, that their admission becomes a practical lie. ‘St. Paul was inspired, no doubt, so was Shakspeare.’ He who says this, intending no quibble, declares that in his belief St. Paul was not inspired at all.

“But this is a monstrous case, with which I will not waste your time. Far more numerous are they, who, admitting that the authors of the Bible were inspired in quite a different sense from Homer and Dante, are yet for modifying and qualifying this admission after so many strange and arbitrary fashions, that the residuum of their belief is really worth very little. One man has a mental reservation of exclusion in favour of the two Books of Chronicles, or the Book of Esther, or of Daniel.—Another is content to eliminate from

* Rev. B. Jowett, in Essays and Reviews, p. 345.

the Bible those passages which seem to him to run counter to the decrees of physical science; the history of the Six Days of Creation,—of the Flood,—of the destruction of Sodom,—and of Joshua's address to Sun and Moon.—Another regards it as self-evident that nothing is trustworthy which savors supremely of the marvellous;—as the Temptation of our first parents,—the Manna in the Wilderness,—Balaam reproved by the dumb Ass,—and the history of Jonah.—There are others who cannot tolerate the Miracles of the Old and New Testament. The more timid explain away as much of them as they dare. What remains, troubles them. The more logical sweep them away altogether. A miracle (they say) cannot be true, because it implies a violation of the fixed and immutable laws of Nature.

"And then (so strangely constituted are some men's minds), there are not a few persons who, without exactly denying the inspiration of the Bible in any of its more marvellous portions—(for that would be an inconvenient proceeding),—are yet content to regard much of it as a kind of inspired myth. This is a class of ally (?) with whom one really knows not how to deal. The man does not reason. He assumes his right to disbelieve, and yet will not allow that he is an unbeliever. The world is singularly indulgent toward persons of this unphilosophical, illogical, presumptuous class.

"Now I shall have something to say to all these different kinds of objectors, on some subsequent occasion. But I shall be rendering the younger men a far more important service if, to-day, I address my remarks to a different class of objectors altogether: that far larger body, I mean, who, without at all desiring to impugn the Inspiration of God's Oracles, yet make no secret of their belief that the Bible is full of inaccuracies and mis-statements. These men ascribe a truly liberal amount of human infirmity to the authors of the several Books of the Bible;—slips of memory, misconceptions, imperfect intelligence, partial illumination, and so forth;—and, under one or other of those heads, include whatever they are themselves disposed to reject. The writers who come in for the largest share of this indulgence, are the Evangelists; because the historians of our Lord's life having happily left us four versions of the same story, and often three versions of the same transaction, the evidence whereby they may be convicted of error is in the hands of all. Truly mankind has not been slow to avail itself of the opportunity. You will seldom hear a gospel difficulty discussed, without a quiet assumption on the part of the reverend gentleman that he knows all about the matter in question, but that the Evangelist did not. His usual method is calmly to inform us that it is useless to look for strict consistency in matters of minute detail; that general agreement between the four Evangelists there does exist, and that ought to be enough. The inevitable inference from his manner of handling the Gospels, is, that if his actual thoughts could find candid expression, we should hear him address their blessed authors somewhat as follows: 'You are four highly respectable characters, no doubt; and you mean well. But it cannot be expected that persons of your condition in life should have described so many intricate transactions so minutely without making blunders. I do not say it unkindly. I often make blunders myself,—I, who have a 'clearness of understanding,' a 'power of discrimination between different kinds of Truth,'* unknown to the Apostolic age!'. . . Of course the preacher does not say all this. He has too keen a sense of 'the dignity of the pulpit.' And so he puts it somewhat thus:—'While we are disposed to recognize substantial agreement, and general conformity in respect of details, among the synoptical witnesses in their leading external outlines, we are yet constrained to withhold our unqualified acceptance of any theory of Inspiration, which

* Dr. Temple in Essays and Reviews, p. 25.

should claim for these compilers exemption from the oscitancy, and generally from the infirmities of humanity.'... This sounds fine, you know; and is thought an ingenious way of wrapping up the charge which the reverend preacher brings against the Evangelists;—of having, in plain terms,—made blunders.

"It will be convenient that we should narrow the ground to this single issue, for the time is short. And in the remarks I am about to offer, I shall not imitate the example of those preachers who dress out an easy thought in a superfluity of inflated language, only in order that its deformity may escape detection. Be not surprised if I speak to you this morning in uncommonly plain English; for I am determined that the simplest person present shall understand at least what I mean. The dignity of the blessed Evangelists, who walked with Jesus, and whom Jesus loved,—the dignity of that Gospel which I believe to be penetrated through and through with the Holy Spirit of God,—for that, I confess to a most unbounded jealousy. As for the 'dignity of the pulpit,' I hate the very phrase! It has been made too often the shield of impiety and the cloke of dulness.

"To begin, then: Is it, I would ask you, a reasonable anticipation that the narrative of one inspired by God would prove full of inconsistencies, mis-statements, slips of memory; or, indeed, that it should contain any mis-statements, any inaccuracies at all? What, then, is the difference between an inspired and an uninspired writing—the Word of God and the word of man?"

In the sequel of the same discourse, Mr. Burgon makes some remarks on the alleged opposition between Science and Theology; and after observing that Theology is itself a Science,—nay, the queen and mistress of all other Sciences, but that the latter have become insubordinate, he observes (p. 80):—

"When Language impugns those Oracles which she was hired to decipher, and pretends to doubt the Inspiration of that Book of which, confessedly, she barely understands the grammar; when History and Chronology cry out that the annals of Theology are false, and her record of Time a fable;—that the Deluge, for instance, is an old wife's story, and the economy of times and seasons a human fabrication;—when Astronomical and Mechanical Science strut up to the throne whereon sits the Ancient of Days,—prate to Him (the first Author of Law) about the 'supremacy of law,' and tell Him to His face that His miracles are things impossible; when Physiology insinuates that mankind cannot be descended from one primæval pair, and that the lives of the Patriarchs cannot be such as they are recorded to have been; when the pretender to Natural Philosophy* gravely assures us that we ought not to pray for fair weather, because the weather depends not upon 'arbitrary changes in the will of God,' but upon laws as fixed and certain 'as the laws of gravitation,'—which, mark you, Sirs, is no longer a dry verbal speculation, but is nothing less than an invasion of that inner chamber where you or I have retired to pour out the fulness of an aching heart in prayer that God would prolong, if it may be, the life of the dearest thing we have on earth, and rudely to bid us rise from our knees and be silent, for that the health of man depends not on the will of God, but on fixed physiological laws; lastly, when the pretender to Geological skill denies the authenticity of the first chapter of Genesis,—which is to deny the Inspiration of all the rest, and therefore of the whole Bible,—and thus to rob life's weary pilgrim of that rod and staff concerning which he has many a time exclaimed 'They comfort me!'—whenever, as now, such things are spoken and printed,—not in a corner, and by insignificant persons, and in ambiguous language; but in plain English,

* See Mr. Kingsley's Sermon on "Prayer for Fair Weather."

by clergymen and scholars in authority, openly in the face of God's sun;—then it is high time, even for the humblest and least among you,—if no man of mark will speak up and speak out for God's truth,—to deliver a plain message with that freedom which Englishmen hold to be a part of their birthright. It should breed no offence, I say, if the most unworthy of God's servants, here, before you all,—before these younger men especially, who have been drawn hither by the fame of your piety and your learning, and who have been entrusted to your guardianship through the precious years of early manhood, with a well-grounded confidence that you would give them to eat not only of the Tree of Knowledge, but also largely of the fruit of the Tree of Life,—in this Holy House,* too, where he received his commission, and vowed before God and man that he would 'be ready (the Lord being his helper), with all faithful diligence to drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word:'—before such an audience, and in such a place, it must and shall be lawful for me solemnly to denounce as false and deadly, full of nothing but pernicious consequence, that system of practical Infidelity which enjoys such unhappy popularity at this hour; which, under the mask of Science, and under the specious name of Progress, is spreading like a fatal contagion through the length and breadth of the land, and which, if suffered to go unchastised and unchecked, will end by shaking both the Altar and the Throne! . . . Look well to it, Sirs, if you care for the safety of the Ark of God. For my part,—like one of old time, whose words I am not worthy to take upon my lips,—'I cannot hold my peace, because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war!'

"The case is not altered,—rather is it made worse,—if this hostility to God's truth proceeds from persons bearing

* Christ Church Cathedral.

A 3

Orders in the English Church. ("O my soul, come not thou into their secret!") The case is not altered: for the requirements of Physical Science are still the plea; and divines, in no sense, these men are, however unsuccessful they may prove in establishing their claim to the title of philosophers either. Nay, Sirs, suffer one of yourselves to ask you, whether these disgraceful developments are not the lawful result of your own incredible system, of sending forth, year by year, men to be teachers and professors of Divinity,—to whom you have yet never imparted any theological training whatever."

Mr. Burgon observes, in a note, that this complaint is a very old one, as may be seen in Bishop Pearson's Minor Works, vol. i., p. 429, where great lamentation is made over the neglected study of Theology. The answer to this has been, that Oxford is not properly a Theological University; and, besides, that the deficiency has been attempted to be supplied by Diocesan Theological Colleges—institutions however which will be of little avail, so long as Theology itself is in so unsettled a state.

There are other remarks in these Sermons expressing a strong reprobation of the teaching contained in the Essays and Reviews, but which, unhappily, are so vehement, if not personal, that although delivered from the University pulpit, we think it better not to admit them into these pages. The Essays and Reviews have their mission, say what we may against them. The writers have honestly spoken out their real sentiments, and have faithfully indicated the goal toward which modern Theology has for a long time been tending. One thing, accordingly, is obvious, that the Preacher is not one of those who look with placid indifference upon the present crisis: he is not one of those easy, let-alone divines who think that too much notice has been taken of the subject, and that it has been argued into a fictitious importance by pugnacious opponents. On the contrary, he seems to be aware of what is said to be the fact, viz., that there is, for some reason, a falling off in the supply of candidates for Orders in the Church of England, at least among young men of ability. Some have attributed this to the present unsettled state of Theology,—some to the spread of positive Infidelity. Hence one reason, doubtless, for which these Lectures on the Inspiration and Interpretation of the Bible are so earnestly addressed to Undergraduates.

We now proceed to the general principles of Inspiration and Interpretation which these Sermons advocate, and to offer some remarks upon them.

On the subject of the Plenary Inspiration of the Bible, Mr. Burgon is very explicit; and takes care to guard his readers against the popular error, that man and not God is the author of the Bible. "I invite you," says he,* "as the only intelligible view of the matter,—your only alternative, unless you resolve to run the risk of the most irrational rationalism,—to take this high view of Inspiration: to believe concerning the Bible, that it is in the most literal sense imaginable, verily and indeed the Word of God."—"We are always to remember, that the true Author of either Testament,—the real Author of every part of the Bible, is (not Man, but)

* See pages 120, 173, 116.

God!" He observes, that "the sacred writers were all, however unconsciously, held by the Ancient of Days within the hollow of His palm; and as Augustin says,—'Whatsoever He willed that we should read concerning His acts and sayings,—that He commissioned the Evangelists to write,—as though it had been Himself that wrote it.' The guidance was remote, I grant you...but, for all that, the long sequence of cause and effect existed; and the other end of that golden chain which terminated in the man, and the pen, and the ink, and the paper,—the other end of it, I say, was held fast within the Hand of God."

These principles being laid down in the most positive and uncompromising manner, lead him to adopt views of Inspiration very different from those which are commonly received. Thus (p. 76):—

"No, Sirs! The Bible (be persuaded) is the very utterance of the Eternal, as much God's Word, as if high Heaven were open, and we heard God speaking to us with human voice. . . . The Bible, from the Alpha to the Omega of it, is filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit of God: the Books of it, and the sentences of it, and the words of it, and the syllables of it,—aye, and the very letters of it. 'Nihil in Scripturis est otiosum,' (said the great Casaubon): 'non dictio, non dictionis forma, non syllaba, non litera.'"

Therefore, says Mr. Burgon (p. 89):—

. . . "This day's sermon has had for its object to remind you, that THE BIBLE is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the Throne! Every Book of it,—every Chapter of it,—every Verse of it,—every word of it,—every syllable of it,—(where are we to stop?)—every letter of it— is the direct utterance of the Most High! 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.' Well spake the HOLY GHOST, by the mouth of the many blessed men who wrote it.—The Bible is none other than the Word of God: not some part of it more, some part of it less; but all alike, the utterance of Him who sitteth upon the Throne;—absolute,—faultless,—unerring,—supreme."

Again (p. 93) :—

"Some here present may remember my repeated and unequivocal assertion that Holy Scripture is inspired from the Alpha to the Omega of it;—not some parts more, some parts less, but all equally, and all to overflowing;—that we hold it to be, not generally inspired, but particularly; that we see not how with logical consistency we can avoid believing the words as well as the sentences of it; the syllables as well as the words; the letters as well as the syllables; every 'jot' and every 'tittle' of it (to use our Lord's expression), to be divinely inspired:—and further, that until the contrary has been proved, we shall maintain that no misapprehension or mis-statement, no error or blot of any kind, can possibly exist within its pages:—that we hold the Bible to be as much the Word of God, as if God spoke to us therein with human lips;—and that, as the very utterance of the HOLY GHOST, we cannot but think that it must be absolute, faultless, unerring, supreme!"

In the sequel, however, the Preacher observes (p. 183) :—

"It is quite marvellous in how many different ways different classes of professing Christians have contrived to nullify the value of their admission that the Bible is inspired. Some would distinguish the inspiration of the Historical Book from that of those which we call Prophetical. Others profess to lay their finger on what are the proper subjects of

Inspiration and what are not. Some are for a general superintending guidance which yet did not effectually guide; while others represent the sacred writers as subject, in what they delivered, to the conditions of knowledge in the age where their lot was cast. The view of Inspiration which Scripture itself gives us,—namely, that GOD is therein speaking by human lips; so that 'holy men of God' delivered themselves as they were 'impelled,' 'borne along,' or 'lifted up' (pheromenoi) by the HOLY GHOST;*—this plain account of the matter, I say, which converts all 'Scripture' into something 'breathed into by GOD,' (theopneustos)—men are singularly slow to acknowledge. The methods which they have devised in order to escape from so plain a revealed Truth, are 'Legion.'"

Mr. Burgon further maintains that all parts of the Scripture are inspired. Thus (p. 114):—

"—While you read the Bible, read it believing that you are reading an inspired Book;—not a Book inspired in parts only, but a Book inspired in every part;—not a Book unequally inspired, but all inspired equally;—not a Book generally inspired,—the substance given by the Spirit, but the words left to the option of the writers; but the words of it, as well as the matter of it, all given by GOD. As it is written,—'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'"

Accordingly, the Preacher admits (p. 126):—

"That a Book cannot (properly) be said to be inspired, or to carry with it the authority of being GOD'S Word, if only portions come from Him, and there exists no plain and infallible sign to indicate which those portions are; and if the same Writer may give us in one verse of the Bible a revelation from the MOST HIGH, and in the next verse a blunder

* 2 St. Peter i. 21.

of his own, How can we be certain that the very texts upon which we rest our doctrines and hopes, are not the uninspired portions? What can be the meaning or nature of an Inspiration to teach Truth, which does not guarantee its recipient from error?"

Hence, Mr. Burgon observes (p. 74) :—

"Once admit the principle of fallibility into the Inspired Word, and the whole becomes a bruised and rotten reed."

Mr. Burgon strenuously maintains the doctrine of Verbal Inspiration, and refutes certain objections which are brought against it,—particularly the objection that no one can maintain that the words of Scripture are inspired, because no one can tell what the words of Scripture are; and refers to the difference between the authorship of the work and the fate of the copies. Our space will not allow us to enter into this part of the subject; we therefore proceed to the Preacher's views with respect to Interpretation, and it is easy to perceive how the principles of Inspiration which he lays down, necessarily lead him to those of Interpretation. Thus, he observes (p. 163):

"I boldly declare that the clue to all that has been advanced concerning the marvellous method of Holy Writ, is supplied by the single consideration that the Bible is the Word of God,—that Holy Scripture from the Alpha to the Omega of it, is the language of the HOLY GHOST. Incomprehensible and unmanageable on any other hypothesis, all the disclosures of inspired Interpretation, by the hearty reception of this one revealed truth, are rendered perfectly intelligible and clear. The HOLY SPIRIT may surely be assumed competent to interpret what the HOLY SPIRIT has already delivered! His disclosures, therefore, are beyond the reach of censure, however marvellous they may happen to be. But they are all a hopeless riddle to those who have blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts."

We thus see the principle upon which he answers the question which he asks in p. 148:—

"Ought Scripture to be interpreted like any other book, or not? That is the real question! Has Scripture only one meaning, or more? That is the point in dispute! Above all, What is the true principle of Scripture Interpretation? That is the only thing we have to discover!"

The Preacher, in treating of these questions, repeatedly and emphatically denies that Scripture ought to be interpreted like any other book, or that it has only a single sense; and he observes (p. 168):—

"If God made this world the particular kind of world which He is found to have made it, in order that it might in due time preach to mankind about Himself, and about His providence:—if He contrived beforehand the germination of seeds, the growth of plants, the analogies of animal life,—all, evidently, in order that they might furnish illustrations of His teaching; and that so, great Nature's self might prove one vast Parable in His Hands;—why may not the same God, by His Eternal Spirit, have so overruled the utterance of the human agents whom He employed to write the Bible, that their historical narratives, however little their authors meant or suspected it, should embody the outline of things heavenly; and, while they convey a true picture of actual events, should also, after a most mysterious fashion, yield, in the hands of His own informing Spirit, celestial Doctrine also?"

Accordingly Mr. Burgon observes (p. 174):—

"Our purpose has only been to vindicate the profundity, or rather the fulness* of Holy Writ; and to shew that under the obvious and literal meaning of the words, there lies concealed a more recondite and a profounder sense: call that sense mystical, or spiritual, or Christian, or what you will. Unerringly to elicit that hidden sense is the sublime privilege of inspired writers; and they do it by allusion, by quotation, by the importation of a short phrase, by the adoption of a single word,—to an extent which no one would suspect who had not carefully studied the subject."

Mr. Burgon afterwards states how that method of theirs is to be applied by ourselves. He then speaks (in p. 157) of the veil upon the face of Moses, signifying mystically the nation's inability to look stedfastly to the end of the dispensation, and to recognize in the Scriptures the Messiah. And he adds:—

"Now I gather from all this, and many a hint of the like kind, that the whole of Scripture is of the same marvellous texture, the Old Testament and the New, alike,—whether we have the eyes to see it or not."

Again (p. 185):—

"Under the evident, palpable signification of the words, there lies concealed something grander, and deeper, and broader; high as Heaven,—deep as Hell."

So again (p. 253):—

"The Bible, I repeat, is all severest history from the Alpha to the Omega of it. But then underneath the surface there are meanings high as Heaven, deep as Hell: and why? Because the true Author of it is not man, but God."

* "Adoro Scripturæ plenitudinem."—TERTULLIAN ado. Hermog., c. 22.

Again, and lastly (p. 184):—

"Those who are for eluding the secondary intention of Prophecy, the obviously mystical teaching of Types, the allegorical character of many a sacred narrative,—are no less dangerous enemies of God's Word than those who frame unworthy theories, in order to dwarf Inspiration to the standard of their own conceptions of its nature and office. I say it is only another way of denying the Inspiration of the Scripture, to deny what is sometimes called its mystical, sometimes its typical, sometimes its allegorical sense."

We have thus completed our quotations from these remarkable and deeply interesting Sermons. They are destined, we doubt not, to inaugurate a new era in the theological teaching of the University. The Sermons of Mr. Burgon are the first to take the field, upon this subject. He has pre-occupied the ground; and unless the other champions against the Essays and Reviews come forward and fight the battle upon the same ground, they will find themselves perplexed, embarrassed, and thrown into confusion; and the scene will be presented of theologians going forth to meet the common enemy of Infidelity, and turning their swords against each other. Mr. Burgon has, however, selected their weapons for them, as also the battle-field, and at a most opportune and critical moment. The crisis is one of the profoundest interest to those who are aware of the real importance of the question at issue.

We say this after a mature consideration of the subject. The present contest is not one of mere individual opinions within the Church, it is a contest of the Church itself with itself: of the Church Reformed with the Church before it was Reformed. For what were the opinions of the Protestant Church? Bishop Marsh tells us, at the close of the Twelfth Lecture on the Interpretation of the Bible, that in the sixteenth century, beside Erasmus, Luther, and Melancthon, we find Camerarius, Osiander, Chemnitz, Calixt, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, Beza, Isaac Casaubon, Drusius, Scaliger, all of them advocates of "a single sense," which was to be determined by a grammatical investigation of each word. That in the seventeenth century we find J. and L. Capellus, Frederic Spanheim, Louis de Dieu, Pricæus, Lightfoot, Arminius, Grotius, Episcopius, Le Clerc, and other eminent writers, who were again advocates of "a single sense" and literal interpretation. There were some few exceptions, as the Bishop admits, but "good sense," he observes, "and good taste gradually restored the Scriptures to the same mode of interpretation which is applied to classic authors;" and, with a few exceptions, the same kind of interpretation has continued to prevail.

But if the Protestant Church has advocated only a single sense of Scripture, and, in arriving at that sense, has adopted the same mode of Interpretation which has been applied to classic authors, what is this but to interpret the Bible as we would any other book; and what more has Mr. Jowett himself professed to do? Why all this outcry, when he is only faithfully carrying out those very principles of Interpretation which were introduced at the Reformation?*

* See Horne's Introduction to the Scriptures, ii., 207; Family Bible, Preface.

If these principles are wrong, the Church should blame itself and not the Professor; nay, has he not a juster reason to blame the Protestant Church for misleading him, than the Church has to blame him for carrying out its own principles?

That this is not a mere contest of individual opinions, may be further seen from the following remarks of Mr. Neale, on the other side of the question, in his Third Dissertation, which treats of the Mystical and Literal Interpretation of the Psalms, p. 377, where he says that "the Mystical principle of Interpretation is that on which the great Commentators of primitive and mediæval ages wrote, and which they would have recognized as their-own;" accordingly he adds, p. 379:—

"If Scripture has not an undercurrent of meaning, double, triple, quadruple, or even yet more manifold, I confess not only that my work is a mere waste of labor, time, and paper, which would comparatively matter little; but it also follows that all primitive and mediæval Commentators, from the first century till the Reformation, have more or less been deceiving the Church of God,—have been substituting their fancies for His immutable verities,—have adopted the system which is alike the offspring and the parent of error,—that their folios have been a hindrance to the cause of truth, and the labors of their lives an insult to the genuine principles of Interpretation."

Again, p. 377:—

"The Mystical Interpretation of Scripture, as every one will allow, is the distinguishing mark of difference between ancient and modern Commentators. To the former it was the very life, marrow, essence of God's Word,—the kernel of which the Literal exposition was the shell,—the jewel to which the outside and verbal signification formed the shrine; by the latter it has almost universally been held in equal contempt and abhorrence; it has been affirmed to be the art of involving everything in uncertainty; to take away all fixedness of meaning; to turn Scripture into a repository of human fancies; to be subversive of all exactitude, and fatal to all truth."

Hear now Dr. Henderson on The Minor Prophets, in the General Preface, who is certainly expressing the sentiments of a great part of the Church of England:—

"In no instance has the theory of a double sense been permitted to exert its influence on his (Dr. Henderson's) expositions. The author is firmly convinced, that the more this theory is impartially examined, the more it will be found that it goes to unsettle the foundations of Divine Truth, unhinge the mind of the Biblical student, invite the sneer and ridicule of unbelievers, and open the door to the extravagant vagaries of a wild and unbridled imagination. Happily the number of those who adhere to the multiform method of Interpretation is rapidly diminishing; and there cannot be a doubt that in proportion as the principles of sacred hermeneutics come to be more severely studied, and perversions of the Word of God, hereditarily kept up under the specious garb of spirituality and a more profound understanding of Scripture, are discovered and exposed, the necessity of abandoning such slippery and untenable ground will be recognized; and the plain, simple, grammatical, and natural species of interpretation adopted and followed."

Dr. Maitland, chaplain to the late Archbishop of Canterbury, has written in a similar style: also Professor Stewart, of America, in his controversy with the late Professor Bush. "No such universal rule (for allegorical or mystical interpretation, says Dr. Van Mildert, *Bampton Lectures*, p. 250) is to be found in Scripture. It is nowhere laid down as a maxim, that there is in every part of the Sacred Writings, nor even in the greater part, a hidden spiritual sense besides that which the literal interpretation conveys." Similarly writes Mr. Conybeare in his *Bampton Lectures*, p. 321, though he admits of a double sense to a much greater extent than some others. On the other hand, Mr. Isaac Williams, Mr. Keble, etc., take the opposite side of the question.

It is well for the Catholic Church that Mr. Burgon's Sermons on the one side, and the *Essays and Reviews* on the other, have contributed to bring this question to an issue. Theologians ought not to go on with this perpetual see-saw; or how are people to know what to believe? The Church, however, is at present in a transition state; and this under circumstances of great embarrassment: it formerly passed from the uncertainties of Mystical Interpretation into the certainties of Literal Interpretation, which in their turn have led the Church into the uncertainties of Scepticism, in order to avoid which the Church is going back again into the alleged uncertainties of Mystical Interpretation. Is there then no certainty in any mode of Interpretation? No certainty in the doctrine of *Analogy*, in virtue of which natural things signify spiritual? If all thought so, why should any one recommend Mystical or Spiritual Interpretation? This however is clearly what the Literalists imply, viz., that there is no certain doctrine of Analogy or Correspondence. It may, indeed, be granted that the Church has never yet been in full possession of that Doctrine; but it does not follow that in the Doctrine itself there is no certainty, or that it is incapable of supplying a certain and fixed rule of Interpretation. All Sciences, we know, begin from a state of infancy, and do not arrive at maturity at once. It was a long time before Astrology developed itself into Astronomy, and Alchemy into Chemistry. Mystical Interpretation is, in like manner, but the germ of true Spiritual Interpretation, into which it will have to develope itself by the Science of Correspondence.

And does not this Science of Correspondence furnish indications in the present day of growing into an importance it has never yet attained in the Christian Church? It has been regarded indeed hitherto principally in a merely negative form, in the way of answering objections to Christianity, as in the work of Bishop Butler: we have yet to meet it in its positive form as the method of leading with certainty to a knowledge of the Attributes of God, and of the truths of His Holy Word. There is indeed the work of Bishop Browne on Divine Analogy, as also other works in connection with it, such as Mr. Mansel's Lectures; but if that work of Bishop Browne be true, the doctrine of Analogy cannot advance us a single step in the knowledge of God or of His Word, notwithstanding what the Bishop asserts; for although he allows that there is a certainty in the doctrine, yet, according to him, it throws no heavenly light upon heavenly subjects, because it furnishes us only with the earthly sign, not with the thing signified. If this be the case, Mr. Burgon's Sermons are null and void; for we can know only one side of the Analogy, viz., the natural: we know only in part, and that part the merely natural sign. We may dignify or sanctify this natural knowledge, if we please, with the name of spiritual, because it refers to spiritual things; but what are the spiritual things to which it refers is unknown, according to Bishop Browne, and incomprehensible. This theory of course makes him the declared enemy of all Mystical Theology. "In this," says he "consists the emptiness and vanity of all Mystical Theology, that it is all a fruitless and impracticable attempt in men, to think and speak of God in some degree as He is in Himself;"* and therefore, he says, we cannot have two sets of ideas in our minds, the one of the sign, the other of the thing signified; for the sign is the natural idea or notion, the thing signified the spiritual; and of the latter we can form, it is said, no conception. What then is the use of what has been called mystical interpretation—what the use of a spiritual signification, if we cannot arrive at it? We may believe the Bible to be inspired as containing within it the thoughts of God; but if we cannot ascend a single step beyond the merely natural or Literal sense, the contest between the Essayists and Reviewers and Mr. Burgon is mere logomachy. It really matters little which side is in the right, or which in the wrong; the question, in this case, is not one which belongs to this world, and

* Divine Analogy, p. 78, 171.

can be determined only when we pass out of the natural into the spiritual.

Suppose, for instance, we adopt that view of the Scriptures which is advocated by Mr. Isaac Williams;*

"As Jesus Christ is Himself especially the Word of God, so the written (?) Scriptures are often dignified by appellations which are given even to the Son of God Himself: as if they did also in some sense, if we may so speak, partake of His Attributes, being as it were the very breath of His mouth; so that it is often doubtful which is most signified in the descriptions given, the written Word, or our Lord Himself. From the inanimate letter they pass to the Spirit contained therein: from the inanimate to the animate and intelligent;—nay, more than this, to that which is Divinely living and intelligent."

But of what use is this high doctrine of the Inspiration of the Scriptures, or even of the doctrine of Analogy in their Interpretation, if after all, according to Bishop Browne, we must rest satisfied with a belief in the representative only, without seeking to rise above it by substituting an explanation of its ulterior significance or real ground? The question, then, concerning the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures and their Interpretation, is intimately connected with this question concerning Divine Analogy—both of which are in a state woefully unsettled. And may we not here see the reason of the ever-varying interpretations of Prophecy? Take, for instance, the remarks of Mr. Birks upon this very subject:†—

* Study of the Gospels, Preface, p. 9.

† First Elements of Sacred Prophecy, p. 250.

B

"What do we mean by a Literal interpretation? One in which words have the same sense ascribed to them which they usually bear in daily life. Now this is one half of the truth needed for a right interpretation of the Scriptures. The Word of God is a revelation to man. To be useful to men it must be definite and intelligible, and in this sense literal. But it is also a revelation from God. Now to be Divine it must contain higher truth, nobler thoughts, more full and deep conceptions than such as man conveys to his fellow-men. Therefore in employing human language, it must exalt and expand the meaning of the terms which it employs. It belongs to that kingdom of God which eye hath not seen, neither hath it entered into the heart of man. Hence all its messages bear this same character," etc.

But what, according to Bishop Browne, have we to do with messages of this kind, these higher truths, and nobler thoughts, more full and deep conceptions? If the meaning or thing signified belongs only to that kingdom of heaven which eye hath not seen; if it be represented by signs of such things as it has not entered into the heart of man to conceive, we cannot affix any true signification to those signs by any interpretation,—any signification beyond the natural being inconceivable.

It is true the Apostle adds, "But God hath revealed them to us by His Spirit." But what is it that, according to Bishop Browne, the Spirit effects in such a case? He says,* that it is to "promote," "guide," and "assist" the natural operations of human reason; so that, in respect of the real nature of Divine and supernatural beings and things, we are to consider

* Divine Analogy, p. 186.

ourselves as "a scene or chamber of thick darkness, into which there is no admission of the least direct glimpse of celestial light; wherein we are trusting entirely to natural reason for all our knowledge;"* and to suppose that there are "other imperceptible inlets for darting some direct but very minute and indistinct degrees of celestial light into the soul of man," independently of the organs of sensation, and the faculty of natural reason operating on worldly ideas and conceptions, arises from an entire ignorance of the human mind, and is mere delusion!

Now any one disposed to interpret the Bible as he would any other book, would find this theory of human knowledge admirably suited to his purpose. All spiritual knowledge is at once excluded, because we can ascend no higher than the operations of natural reason upon the ideas of the senses. Such is the real wisdom of this world which explains to us truly, nevertheless, how it is that the world by wisdom knows not God. In vain will Mr. Burgon preach up the spiritual Interpretation of the Scriptures, if after all we can ascend no higher than natural reason: in vain will he tell us that the Scriptures will yield to the Christian reader "celestial doctrine," if, according to Bishop Browne, the human mind is incapable of receiving the least glimmering of celestial light. "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." What light? the light that natural reason gives, or the light that natural reason receives? Surely that which natural reason receives? From what source? Di-

* Divine Analogy, p. 188.

B 2 rectly from the Divine Essence? No, but mediately from within through the internal reason, which transmits heavenly light to the external or natural reason and transforms it; and this fully justifies the general language of the Fathers concerning this Light. For this internal light is no other than internal truth, although to the school of Bishop Browne such a light may be a mere ignis fatuus.

Let us hear now what Swedenborg says upon this subject. He saw perfectly well that it was of no use to take such exalted views of Inspiration, if, after all, we had no faculties which were adequate to the reception of spiritual truths. He says plainly, therefore,* that—"The light which illuminates the understanding is from Heaven, but that which illuminates the sight of the body is in the World. The light from Heaven is from the Lord as a Sun there, and is in its essence the Divine Truth proceeding from the Divine Good of the Lord. . . . That it is real light which illuminates minds and constitutes understanding with men, is not known in the World; although sight and light are attributed by men to the understanding, and although the Lord in the Word is very frequently called Light, and thereby is meant that He is seen by faith and its light. . . . It is called light, because the light which illuminates the internal of man is the Divine Truth proceeding from the Lord; this is the light of Heaven, thus the light by which angels and spirits see, and also by which the man who is illustrated hath perception and intelligence."

So again, Arcana Celestia, 3223:—

* Arcana Celestia, 10,569, 10,703.

"There are two lights whereby man is illuminated, the light of the World, and the light of Heaven. The light of the World is from the Sun, the light of Heaven is from the Lord. The light of the World is for the natural or external man, thus also for those things which are in him: such things, although they do not appear to appertain to that light, still do appertain to it; for nothing can be comprehended or conceived by the natural man, except by such things as exist and appear in the Solar World, and thus except they have somewhat of form from the light and shade therein. All ideas of Time and Space, which are of so much account in the natural man that he cannot think without them, appertain also to the light of the World; but the light of Heaven is for the spiritual or internal man. The interior mind of man, where are his intellectual ideas which are called immaterial, is in this light. Man is ignorant of this, although he calls his intellect sight, and ascribes light to it; the reason is, because so long as he is in worldly or corporeal things, he hath only a perception of such things as appertain to the light of the World, but not of such things as appertain to the light of Heaven. The light of Heaven is from the Lord alone, and the universal Heaven is in that light."

9051. "Man hath an exterior understanding and an interior understanding. The exterior understanding is where the thought is which comes to perception; but the interior understanding is where the thought is which doth not come to perception, but still to the perception of the angels. This latter understanding is what is illustrated by the Lord when man receives faith; for it is in the light of Heaven; and in it is the spiritual life of man, which is not so manifest to him in the world, but it is so in the other life, when man becomes an angel amongst the angels in Heaven. In the meanwhile, that life lies concealed interiorly in the thought of the exterior understanding; and produces a sanctity and veneration there for the Lord, for love and faith in Him, for the Word, and for all other things of the Church."

It is unquestionable that this language of Swedenborg harmonizes with that of the Fathers: it is unquestionable that it does not harmonize with that of the school of Bishop Browne. The Fathers, it seems, were all enthusiasts: they never properly understood their own Science of Correspondence, or they never would have used such high-swelling, hyperbolical terms concerning the Inspiration and Interpretation of the Scriptures! "Had* the supposed Dionysius or the genuine Fathers rightly understood the Doctrine of Divine Analogy, it would have prevented all that affected singularity of style, and all their lofty swelling terms, and enthusiastical reasonings upon them." The doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures, and the rule of right interpretation, would both of them have sunk to their proper level; and the Bible would have been interpreted as it was at the Reformation, that is to say, as any other book. We should no more hear of those pompous, rhapsodical, inflated notions of Inspiration and Interpretation to which Mr. Burgon has called our attention! for Di-

* Divine Analogy, p. 467.

vine light is that whereof we cannot have the least direct glimpse,—no, nor indirect either! for the natural mind reflects in its glass only the natural mind! and if nevertheless, as the Scriptures declare, Dominus illuminatio mea, yet He so illuminates our minds that they receive not even a glimmering of the light! The darkness is representative of light, and that is enough! In this case we are like Moses in the cave; we see only the back parts, the external opaque signs and representatives of Truth, such as those of the Mosaic Economy; but we know nothing of any illumination they receive from internal truth. The signs are opaque representatives of things we cannot see; they are not like the precious stones of the Ephod, which are made translucent. We may see the veil upon the face of Moses, but to wish to see the light behind the veil, is presumption.

Alas! if this be the case, what shall we say of the devotional appeal to the Divine Light, which follows?—

"In Thee,* therefore, the True Light, uncreate, co-eternal with the Father, in Thee 'the Wisdom of the Father,' I behold that Light which 'remaining in herself maketh all things new,' that light that came forth at the bidding of God, the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

Or take the case of St. Augustin;†—

"Being admonished to return to myself, I entered into my inward self, and beheld with the eye of my soul, above the same eye of my soul, the Light Unchangeable. Not this ordi-

* Beginning of Book of Genesis, p. 80.

† Ibid., p. 78. See also Dr. Wordsworth upon The Interpretation of the Bible, p. 70.

nary light, which all flesh may look upon; not such was this light, but other, yea, far other from all these. He that knows the Truth, knows what that Light is, and he that knows It, knows Eternity. Love knoweth it. O Truth, Who art Eternity, and Eternity Who art Love, Thou art my God, to Thee do I sigh night and day!"

Now is this language justifiable, or is it not? Can it be called rational? or is it all "cant and enthusiasm, jargon and nonsense?" I fear, according to the theory of Analogy sanctioned by many theologians, such must be the case. It is true that some mystics have talked of an inward light independent of all reason and excluding it: Bishop Browne, on the other hand, maintains, that as the mind can have no direct or sensitive perception of celestial light, all its light or knowledge is derived from the natural or external reason operating upon the ideas of sensation and imagination. Was this what our modern divine, or what St. Augustin, was speaking of? The mystics would exclude the natural or external reason; Bishop Browne would exclude the spiritual or internal reason, thus even the least glimmering of inward or celestial light. Hence he observes with regard to certain Mystical Divines, that they arrogate to themselves a direct and familiar intercourse with the very nature of God and spiritual things; and such an immediate view of them by an inward light from Heaven in the mind, as renders the use of all sensation and reasoning vain and unnecessary. This was the case, he says, to a much greater extent with the Gnostics. Doubtless serious errors have been committed on this subject; but, on the other hand, Bishop Browne maintains that we have no other faculties of perceiving or knowing anything Divine or human but our five senses and our Reason, meaning by Reason only the external reason, though he sometimes dignifies it with the name of the pure Intellect.

"Men's endeavoring,"* says he, "to abstract the intellect from all objects of sense, so as to take a direct view of spiritual things; and working up their minds to an opinion and belief that they have some degree of intuitive direct knowledge of them, though imperfect and obscure, hath proved a fatal delusion, and never served any real and substantial end of religion. I believe I may safely appeal to the experience of the best of men, whether they ever found any the least glimmerings of such celestial light in their most exalted contemplations? Many, who never aspired to this immediate and familiar intercourse with heavenly objects, have arrived to great degrees of habitual virtue and holiness; whereas the contrary opinion does but puff men up with spiritual pride, and too often ends in rank enthusiasm."

Such being the case, we ask, What are the operations of the external reason upon these ideas of sensation and imagination whence alone our light is to be derived? They are those, he says, of simple apprehension, comparison, abstraction, composition, transposition, illation, and so forth, whence we acquire in the natural mind a vast number of compounded ideas, simple and complex notions, etc. But all this is mere secular knowledge nevertheless! How then is this knowledge made spiritual? By any illumination from within? No: says he, but by regarding it as the sign or representative of what is spiritual,

* Procedure of the Understanding, p. 95.

B 3 and of which we know nothing beyond the sign in the external natural mind.

Now it is obvious, that if we suppose the existence of an internal reason, it has in such a case no assumed communication with the external. It is absurd to talk of the external reason being spiritualized, merely by making its conceptions the known signs of unknown things. The external reason in this case could not furnish the signs: it would be replete with all the fallacies and falses of the natural mind, which have always rejected the truth divested of fallacies. And what is the consequence of there being no communication between the internal and the external reason? The external reason ceasing to be to the internal a medium of communication, thus of external consciousness to the individual, the revelations made to the internal could not be communicated to the world except by itself; and thus the internal reason of one man would have to communicate its knowledge to the internal reason of another; which of course could not be done through the medium of language proper to the external reason, but must be done only by every man having his own distinct revelation. Thus, as Dr. Browne says, even supposing that what he calls the pure Intellect should be capable of receiving some little, obscure, and confused glimmerings of light; still it would be impossible for one man to communicate this revelation to another; and it would require the same Almighty Power after the same manner to enlighten the mind of every individual man, or he could have no sort of idea or conception of it.

Now it is remarkable, that the Mystics in question and the school of Bishop Browne agree in this, that there is no communication between the internal reason and the external: the result is, that while the former exclude external reason, the school of Bishop Browne excludes the internal; and the consequence is, fanaticism on the one side, and naturalism on the other. The advantage of Swedenborg's view of the subject is, that it points out the serious error of both, namely, that of omission; on the part of mystical Divines, the omission of external reason; on the part of Bishop Browne's school, the omission of internal reason; for otherwise this internal reason would have supplied to the external the very significations which his system of Analogy fails to supply, and not have left him in the possession of mere empty signs and representatives: it would have shewn to him what positive truth there is in the Doctrine of the Trinity, Atonement, and Intercession, as conceived by the external reason, enlightened by the internal and thus purified from fallacies: it would have tended to bring the whole external reason into correspondence with the internal; so that the whole external rational mind, including the will and affections, would itself be transformed into an image and likeness of God, perceiving good to be good, and truth to be truth, and evil to be evil, and the false to be false; and this in consequence of an influx from within into external knowledge derived from without, upon the principle that it is purity of heart which leads to clearness of vision.

The external reason would thus be made the medium of discoursing, without fallacy, of heaven and heavenly things, thus of supplying to our consciousness the signification as well as the sign.

Surely, the very fact that on this subject the language of the Fathers and that of Bishop Browne are so little in harmony, is sufficient to indicate that there is somewhere a very serious difference between the two in respect of the constitution of the human mind and the Doctrine of Divine Analogy; and it is perfectly certain, that until this question be settled, there will be no end of controversy on the subject of Inspiration and Interpretation. If the Scriptures be the Word of God, as much so as if they were spoken by God Himself; if they accordingly partake of His Divine Attributes; it is perfectly clear, that the same law of Analogy applies to both cases; and the consequence is, that the Doctrine of Analogy applied by the Fathers to the Interpretation of Scripture, and the Doctrine applied by Bishop Browne to the interpretation of the Attributes of God, must be fairly argued out, and we must be allowed to see on which side the Truth lies. Both cannot be true: the difference, we submit, lies principally in this: the faculties by which a man has a perception of spiritual things are altogether ignored by Bishop Browne, nor does he appear to be even aware of their existence. "Thinking," says he,* "is by a general mistake attributed to the pure spirit, exclusively of those material organs without which it cannot exert one thought, and in a necessary conjunction with which it performs all its operations:" as such, all our ideas

* Procedure of the Understanding, p. 147.

and conceptions are derived from *without*, and we then make them stand as representatives of spiritual things of which we have no idea or conception—and this is genuine spiritual knowledge! This theory of knowledge of Divine things, however, is amply sufficient, on the ground that our perceptions can never transcend the merely natural region of thought. Dr. Browne has ascended as far as the *external* or *natural reason* of the human mind, the region of Logic, Metaphysics, and the Sciences: but he has ignored, nay, he has denied, the existence of the *internal reason*, which receives its light not from the external reason, however learnedly full this may be of “compound ideas” or “complex notions;” but from the Divine Logos, through the ministration of angels and spirits attendant upon man. The external reason is thus altogether distinct from the internal, the relation between the two being a relation of correspondence; so that in the spiritual man, the *internal reason* is *within* the *external*, subordinating the external to it: the spiritual *within* the natural, subordinating the natural to it. The natural reason, thus receiving light from the spiritual reason, becomes the outward conscious manifestation of the spiritual; and although there be thus within us two distinct lives, yet they are not discordant. The household of our nature is not divided against itself: those feelings of love, reverence, and gratitude which move us in a lower degree towards human relatives and friends are not thrown aside, are not exchanged for any abnormal state of ecstatic contemplation; for the spiritual man is a rational man internally and externally. He purifies his external affections, but does not destroy them: he subordinates his external reason to his internal, and thus does not repudiate, but perfect it.

This is the normal state of the human mind. How far it may please the Almighty, in exceptional cases, to permit, for His own wise purposes, a consciousness of the operations of the internal reason apart from the external, or a simultaneous consciousness of the operations of the external and internal reason, it is not for Kant, or Browne, or any other mortal man to determine. We can judge of the cases only as they are faithfully presented to us, and we must take care that, in coming to a conclusion, our external reason be enlightened by our internal.

If, indeed, we can ascend no higher in the knowledge of spiritual things, than the substitution of natural ideas and conceptions, as external signs of these things which cannot enter into any region of the mind, why not apply the same principle to the will, and say; that we can ascend no higher than natural affections; and that all that we mean by having the kingdom of heaven within us, is merely the substitution of these natural affections as the signs or representatives of such as are spiritual but which we do not possess, and of which we can experience nothing, because we never can ascend above the region of mere natural affections? Surely we are thus not Christians, but only representatives of Christians, and sorry ones too! For it is admitted,* that

* Procedure of the Human Understanding, p. 472, etc.

in this case we come into possession of no new faculty of perception; that we experience scarcely any alteration of those we already have, since otherwise we must pass through the process of a second creation in an unevangelical sense; that hence all revelation made to the mind must necessarily come from without, not from within; for, in order to see the representatives of spiritual things, we must look downward and outward, where these representatives are; that from this external source therefore comes all genuine illumination; and although all this knowledge is only secular, yet inasmuch as it is the representative of what is spiritual, it is therefore spiritual!—a knowledge into which, nevertheless, not one ray of spiritual light can enter from within—no, not the smallest glimmering! This theory of Analogy furnishes us with a key to modern Theology, and with the philosophy of Literal Interpretation. We only point out to Mr. Burgon and his theological school, that as long as this theory prevails, his Lectures on Divine Inspiration and Interpretation will be regarded as mere weapons of straw against the Essays and Reviews. Dr. Browne's writings may be forgotten; but his principles live and flourish.

These very general remarks upon this part of the subject, must suffice for the present; it may be that the subject will require to be more fully considered on a future occasion. In the meantime we observe, that when Mr. Burgon, in common with other theologians, affirms that the Church has no theory of Inspiration, may we venture to suggest, that if he will have the goodness to furnish a clear and distinct idea of what Divine Inspiration is, there will be no difficulty about the theory?

The real difficulty lies in establishing a clear, definite, and systematic doctrine of Correspondence. Undoubtedly the Fathers have nowhere done this: one consequence is, that the whole doctrine has never escaped the region of doubt and uncertainty. Many regard it as incapable, from its very nature, of being satisfactorily explored, or of yielding any useful results. The only alternative, therefore, in this case has been found in adopting a single sense. This alternative has been one of sheer necessity. The result has been, the necessity also of interpreting Scripture the same as any other book; the Doctrine of its Divine Inspiration, as a matter of course, cannot be maintained, and Scepticism and Infidelity take the place of Christianity. The absolute need of the Church in the present day is a systematic doctrine of Correspondence; a doctrine essential to Theology regarded as a Science. To speak of Theology as "the Queen and Mistress of all the Sciences," and to exclude from it the one grand Science, by which natural things are seen to be connected with things spiritual and Divine, earth with heaven, and hence the Church upon earth with the Church in heaven, can result only in leaving Theology without a Church, without a Bible, and without Christianity. The desideratum in Theology, viz., a definite doctrine of Correspondence, Swedenborg has undertaken to supply; and his writings must—aye—they will be made the subject of serious enquiry and earnest investigation by all those manly, honest, and good hearts, who sincerely desire to offer a real assistance to the Church in its present crisis.

One important question, however, still remains.

Can the Preacher maintain the principles of Inspiration and Interpretation which he has maintained, and the Canon as it now stands? We predict he will find that he cannot, or that others at least will do so. Either he must lower his ideas of Inspiration in order to include all the Canonical books, or he must exclude from the Canon certain books in order that it may answer to his ideas of Inspiration. Let Mr. Burgon succeed, as we hope he will, in establishing the general principles he advocates, and immediately a controversy with regard to the Canon will be the result. Mr. Burgon is opposed not merely to the Essayists and Reviewers, but to a large amount of theological teaching in the University of Cambridge: we are only too glad, however, to find that the subject has at last fairly gained the attention of theologians, and that we may now look for many useful and important auxiliaries to the cause of Truth in the Church of England. We can well afford to listen with complacency to the observation (p. 179) that "novelties in religion never can be true"—that "we must ask for the old paths"—that "the faith was once delivered to the saints"—that "there will be no new Deposit"—that "there can be no new Doctrines"—that "there has been no fresh Revelation"—that "no new principle of guidance has been vouchsafed to man"—that "a new method of interpreting Scripture is quite impossible"—all this we may be willing to concede, if Mr. Burgon concedes, as he does, that his own views of Inspiration and Interpretation are not new. Verily they are, in the main, the same with those of Swedenborg. We will not dispute about the Truth being new or old, so long as it is the Truth, and as such Eternal. The same we may say with regard to Doctrines. If the discovery has been made that Swedenborg's principles of Inspiration and Interpretation are not new, who knows but a similar discovery may await us with regard to his Doctrines? and what does it signify, whether those Doctrines be called new or old, provided they are True?

Before dismissing this part of the subject, we would make an observation with respect to Progress. "Philosophia," says the great Bishop Pearson, speaking of Physical Science, "Philosophia quotidie progressu; Theologia nisi regressu non crescit." We are not inclined to dispute about terms even here. That Theology has been going in the wrong path Mr. Burgon admits; and as in this case the best thing it can do is to retrace its steps in order to start afresh, we are willing in this sense to admit that it is making progress. But if it be affirmed, that, having found the point from which it had mistaken the way, and seeing before it the right road, it ought to refuse to walk in it, through fear of making progress,—what shall we say? Will Mr. Burgon relieve us from the dilemma? Will he venture to say in this case—"Theologia nisi regressu non crescit," or rather, according to the old adage,—"Non progredi est regredi?" In any other sense than the one we have pointed out, the observation of Bishop Pearson is a transparent fallacy; and in the sense thus explained—the only sense in which it is free from absurdity—of what use is it to the Lecturer's argument? We, too, would go back with him to the early ages of Christianity, not for the purpose of staying there, but for the purpose of finding the entrance into the right road, and of making progress, not regress in that road,—a road which leads to the New Jerusalem.—"I am the way, the truth, and the life," saith the Lord. In that way let us walk,—not backward, but forward. It was because all they of Judah* "went backward, and not forward," that "the truth was perished and cut off from her mouth." "Oh, Jerusalem! thou hast forsaken me," saith the Lord, "thou hast gone backward." Did the Ark of the Lord, which, we are told, represents, among other things, the Christian Church, in order to reach Zion move backward or forward? or will Mr. Burgon affirm, that it is the great privilege of the Church to go forward, and of Theology to go backward? These remarks we respectfully offer to his notice; and although there are certain points on which we might seriously differ from him, yet they are comparatively subordinate to the one grand question we have been considering; and we cannot conclude this part of the subject, without once more thanking him for his important services in the renovation of Theology, and through the medium of Theology, of the state of the Church. Our only regret is, that he should have spoken of the Essayists and Reviewers as he has done. We have shewn that they are not

* Jeremiah vii. 24; xv. 6.

the original parties deserving of blame. The Essays and Reviews are only the natural results of the past and present state of Theology, and have been most highly serviceable in bringing the great questions at issue to—a crisis.

We now pass on to an unpretending but yet important work in immediate connection with our present subject, on The Beginning of the Book of Genesis, by the Rev. Isaac Williams.

This work is important as recognizing a spiritual sense in the much litigated first chapter of Genesis. Had the respected author acknowledged this spiritual sense to prevail only throughout the Mosaic ritual, or the wanderings of the Israelites in the wilderness, or throughout the Psalms, or occasionally in the prophetic and historical parts of Scripture, this recognition would after all have been only partial, and confined to the particular instances which might be specified. But to apply the principle of Analogy to the first chapter of Genesis is a different thing; because thus the principle is recognized as universal, and as extending throughout the whole visible creation. "Creation in the Mosaic account becomes thus," says Mr. I. Williams,* "a most impressive Gospel." . . . "It† is the very purpose of objects in visible Nature to suggest to us the invisible as we contemplate them." . . . "In‡ the creation we behold the Gospel as in a glass darkly. 'For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world

* The Beginning of the Book of Genesis, with Notes and Reflections, p. 19.

† Ibid., p. 64.

‡ Ibid., p. 63 are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.'" . . . "There* are wonderful correspondences in the ways of God; one thing answers to something else: and as the Wise man says, 'All things are double one against another.' So that the chief manner in which God instructs man both in Nature and grace is by Analogy." . . . "What† then if in the creation of the Heaven and the Earth we see also that new world, which, though it be on earth, is called the Kingdom of Heaven?"

Assuredly here we have a principle as universally established throughout the works of God as a principle can be; and why so? Because, as Mr. Williams says, the whole Mosaic "creation‡ of the world was through and for and by Him who is the Incarnate word of God;" . . . "and, therefore, as Augustin says,§ all things that are written, even concerning the creation of the world, may be interpreted as bearing on the signification of things future." . . . Moreover we are told that "the written Word of God in the world|| in some respects serves the same purpose as His presence beheld in the flesh;" if so, does not this give the theory of the union of the Divine and Human elements in the written Word? It¶ is not that the human element is merely the external and dead sign of the Divine, but it is that the Human is itself breathed into, or inspired by the Divine, and the Word of God is thus Divinely Human. This indeed is the privilege claimed by Roman Catholics for their Church. They believe the Church

* Ibid., p. 56. † Ibid., 56. ‡ Ibid., p. 9. § Ibid., p. 19.

|| Ibid., p. 35. ¶ Ibid., p. 39.

to be a perpetual incarnation of the Divine life; and hence speak of the Church as "Divinely human," and as constituting the presence of Christ with man. But no Church can be inspired in the same sense as the Word of God; for otherwise it would be the Incarnation of essentially Divine Wisdom, and as such would be the substitute for the Lord Himself. It is in Him and Him only, and never yet in any Church, no, not even in the Church in Heaven, that the Scriptures have been—fulfilled.

There is as much difference, therefore, between the Bible and any other book, as there is between the Humanity of our Lord and that of any other man. All that our Lord spoke and acted was Divine, because He spoke and acted from the Divinity within. Now, the thoughts of God are in the Word of God, or else his Word is not an expression of his thoughts. The thoughts of God are Divine Wisdom, and whatever does not contain this Divine Wisdom is not the Word of God. There must be no longer any evasion or equivocation upon this point: this Mr. Burgon and his theological school openly admit. "Any refinement upon this point," says Mr. Eden,* "any dilution or modification of the doctrine that the document we refer to is the Word of God, will weaken our hands, by having first weakened our hearts and convictions."

If then the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures, as the Word of God, consists in the Divine Wisdom which they interiorly contain; shall we say that part of the Word of God contains this wisdom and part

* Rev. C. P. Eden's Sermons, p. 148.

of it does not? or that all of it is Divinely inspired, and yet that there are parts which contain no Divine Wisdom? These things have been said, and are even now said by a large portion of the professing Church. Men of common sense have come to see, that if what is said to be Divinely inspired contains nothing Divine, then there is no Divine Inspiration, and so far the Scriptures are not the Word of God, and must be interpreted as any other book. Besides;—

If we admit that this Divine Wisdom is contained in some passages of the Bible and not in others, who is to be the judge of what are those in which it is contained, and what are those from which it is excluded? Are we to leave this to the "judgment," "discretion," "prudence," "sober conviction," "good taste," and so forth, of the particular commentator? If so, why find fault with those whose sober conviction, judgment, prudence, and good taste interpret the Scriptures as they would any of the classical authors? When Jerome said, Ubi materia vel turpitudinem habeat vel impossibilitatem, ad altiora transmittimur, well might a Bampton Lecturer exclaim,* "The vague and uncritical nature of a Canon, which, proscribing all that might be held unworthy or improbable in the literal sense, left that unworthiness or improbability to be decided upon by the sole pleasure of the expositor, is sufficiently evident."

But if we are not to rely upon the sole pleasure of the expositor, on whom or on what shall we rely?

Shall we rely on the laws of Divine Analogy as explained by Bishop Browne? He has laid it down

* Lectures by the Rev. J. J. Conybeare, p. 168.

as a maxim, that there can be an Analogy between mind and mind, but not between matter and mind; consequently not between the material objects of Creation and heavenly things. Hence, that when objects of the material world are made use of to signify heavenly things, it is only by way of metaphor; that metaphor, however, has no real foundation in the nature of the things compared, and therefore cannot be employed to express any real truth; that it is Analogy only which informs the understanding, while metaphor only affects the imagination. This being the case, it is obvious that the first chapter of Genesis never can be interpreted upon any principles of Analogy; for all the objects there specified are what Bishop Browne refers to "ideas of sensation," and, according to him, there is nothing in the heavenly kingdom to correspond to these objects. Upon this principle the whole of Mr. Williams' work upon Genesis is purely imaginative, inasmuch as he has been applying the principle of Analogy where Analogy does not exist; for the same reason also all those parts of Scripture in which objects of sense are specified, can be susceptible only either of a literal, or a merely figurative or metaphorical interpretation; and what is this but to adopt the very principle complained of, that the Bible must be interpreted as any other book? for, in opposition to any preordained system of allegorical or spiritual correspondences, even Mr. Conybeare* suggests the simply figurative interpretation, and accordingly observes:—"I cannot therefore but think, that

* Bampion Lectures, p. 319.

we expose ourselves to less danger, both of falling into personal error, and of throwing doubt and discredit upon the sacred text, by regarding those insulated words and expressions, which were of old esteemed the authoritative and definite, though mysterious, indications of higher things, as possessing that value and significance only, which may be fairly attached to them, without departing from the laws of interpretation generally applicable to all written or spoken composition, sacred or profane."

Put this in plain language, and what does it mean? It means, that wherever figurative language is employed in the Bible, the Bible is to be interpreted like any other book. But how are we to determine the limits of this figurative language, as distinguished from the mystical or allegorical? Mr. Conybeare says, that the earlier allegorists held the allegorical principle to exist throughout the whole vocabulary of Scripture: this also is the doctrine of Mr. Burgon, Mr. I. Williams, Mr. Neale, and others. They do not admit any mere "Oriental eloquence and poetry" in the place of "preordained allegorical and spiritual correspondency." The former they allow to be generally applicable to all written or spoken composition, sacred or profane, and for this very reason they positively exclude it from Scripture; because any other book may be interpreted literally and figuratively; but the Bible, not being like any other book, has a vocabulary of its own, founded upon "a preordained system of correspondence." Professor Jowett, being one of the "considerate and prudent critics," repudiates the preordained system of Correspondence;

C and in so doing, what else has he done than carry out the system recommended even by Mr. Conybeare? while Bishop Browne has furnished a philosophical theory upon which this may be done,—a theory founded upon a positive denial of any real correspondence between material and immaterial things, whence the necessity of a mere metaphorical interpretation of an indefinite portion of Scripture. This denial has now brought matters to a crisis! It is in vain to say, no; or to attempt to evade the momentous question at issue! If the very Inspiration of the Bible is made to consist in the existence of a spiritual sense contained within the literal, on the principle of Correspondence, then, to deny the existence of that Correspondence, is to deny the Divine Inspiration of the Bible. Now, the distinguishing characteristic of the Protestant Church has been this very denial; and therefore well may it be said, that when this essential characteristic of Inspiration is taken away, no one can tell what Divine Inspiration is; and who will be wise enough to say what advantage is gained by increasing the circulation of the Word of God, and at the same time destroying its Life-giving power? No increase in the quantity of Bibles can compensate for destroying their quality.

When, therefore, Mr. Conybeare says, that in order to shew the extreme uncertainty of analogical interpretations, it is only necessary to look to Collections or Dictionaries of Symbolical terms on which the labors of expositors have from time to time been employed, I may perhaps be entitled to reply, that in order to shew that these symbolical Interpretations have a basis of Truth, and possess a uniformity that is truly remarkable, it will be necessary only to refer to a work entitled The Spiritual Exposition of the Apocalypse, where these mystical or allegorical principles, as advocated by the Fathers, are applied to the interpretation of that book, and at the same time compared with the interpretations of Swedenborg; and I think it will be seen, that no literal or figurative interpretations ever presented to view such remarkable instances of harmony and uniformity. There stands the evidence, and it has not been and cannot be denied. I will say nothing of Mr. Conybeare's statement concerning the vague and indeterminate mysticism of Swedenborg, because I know there is an opposite charge against him, of his being far too definite and systematic.

Shall we deny, however, that fancy and imagination have been largely employed in supplying spurious allegorical or spiritual interpretations? Certainly not: we admit it to the full extent; but if this be used as an argument against spiritual interpretations, what shall be said of literal and figurative, such as those of the Apocalypse? Is it not notorious that they have failed one after another to such an extent, as to bring the whole system of prophetic interpretation into disrepute? and not only so, but that they have disgraced the cause of Christianity by making the Bible inculcate the most cruel and sanguinary principles? What the Church has wanted has been an Interpreter; one who shall comprehend the principle of Correspondence in all its bearings; for it is well observed that,*—“What is written by the Spirit of God can only be interpreted by the Spirit of God;” and that† “the things recorded in Scripture are in, and for, and by the Incarnate Word of God, and can be rightly understood only in relation to Him and His kingdom.” Therefore, again we say with Mr. Isaac Williams,—

God‡ “sends a prophetic vision which confounds the wisdom of the wise; for none can interpret until there is found a Heaven-sent Joseph or Daniel. He may write in distinct characters, visible to all men, and allowed to be of God; but none can read them except His own inspired Seer. By Moses He may give us an account of things as they occurred, while yet the fuller purport and manifold bearings of them, none but the wise in Christ in after ages can understand. . . The§ heart is enlarged by the contemplation of things in Heaven, and therefore, as filled with that wisdom, walks humbly and carefully upon earth. May not the truth of this be seen even in the inspired St. Paul, the teacher of the Gentile world? And was not this the case with St. Augustin, the great luminary of the Western Church? What marvellous intellect, what ardent affection, what holiness of life combined! And if such should again be found in one person, great may be the advance in the fuller understanding of the written Word; and treasures of wisdom and knowledge therein even yet brought to light, such as are hid in Christ.”

Humbly and heartily do we respond—Amen! But if this second Augustin should make his appearance, and offer to the Church these newly-discovered treasures of wisdom and knowledge derived from a spi-

* Beginning of the Book of Genesis, p. 9. † Ibid.

‡ Ibid., p. 22. § Ibid., p. 32.

ritual interpretation of the Word of God according to the doctrine of Correspondence, where is the Church, or where the teachers in the Church ready and waiting for the instruction? No new discoveries has so long a time been the watchword of the Church, that it has lost even the few which its ancient Commentators had made; and when some again have sought diligently and discovered the gold and silver which were lost, has not the cry of their alarmed brethren too often been,—No new discoveries? Rather let us join in the prayer, "So give now unto us that ask, let us that seek find, open the gate unto us that knock, that those secret treasures of Thy wisdom may be discovered to us by Thyself, which our own natural faculties could not of themselves discover!"

FINIS.

BEING AN

ENQUIRY INTO THEIR TRUE PRINCIPLES.

FORMERLY OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD.

No. II.

"Enquiry on these subjects has now become a necessity."—The Letter and the Spirit. Six Sermons preached before the University of Oxford in the discharge of his office of Select Preacher. By Charles P. Ohretion, M.A., Rector of Cholderton, Fellow and late Tutor of Oriol.—Preface.

1862.

"Even if it were found," says a modern writer,* "that a denial of the Plenary Inspiration of Scripture had the effect of leaving us without any fixed standard of belief, I apprehend that this difficulty would not prove that that denial must necessarily be wrong."

"I know of no work," says Mr. Swainson,† "on the subject (of the Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures) that I dare place in the hands of a student of theology. I know of none which, even to a young man of ordinary acuteness, does not suggest greater difficulties than it removes."

We are not surprised, therefore, to find this eminently candid and Christian writer addressing the University as follows:‡—

* A Brief Examination of Prevalent Opinions on the Inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. By a Lay Member of the Church of England. With an Introduction by Henry Bristow Wilson, B.D., Vicar of Great Staughton, Bampton Lecturer for 1851; p. 204.

† The Authority of the New Testament; The Conviction of Righteousness, etc. Three series of Lectures delivered before the University of Cambridge. By C. A. Swainson, M.A., Principal of the Theological College, and Prebendary of Chichester, formerly Fellow and Tutor of Christ's College, Cambridge, and Hulsean Lecturer; p. 130.

‡ Hulsean Lectures, p. 107.

A 2

"Thus it may be granted to some, even in the present day, to discover and to exhibit more of the secrets of the Christian dispensation. The emergencies of the times are driving our earnest students to examine closely the books of God's Revelation, to enquire narrowly into the truth of principles which have been held for the last hundred years without controversy, and to seek for the true mode of meeting difficulties on which the Church universal, acting under the free and unrestrained Spirit of God, has not yet come to a formal or unanimous decision; on which the explanations of our fathers do not satisfy the more thoughtful men of this generation. It may be that some who will soon assemble around these hallowed walls, may be led by the Holy Spirit to such a point on the road of truth that they may see how the country lies, and then be permitted to describe it to us. I cannot but think that God has a good and loving object in view in permitting us to be tried, as tried we are, by the enquirers of the present day. I cannot but think that these things, as all things else, will 'work together for good to those that love God.'"

It is certainly remarkable, that, while in the one University the alternative should be set before students, of Plenary Inspiration or of positive scepticism,* we should be told in the other University that no satisfactory work upon Plenary Inspiration had as yet appeared. Why not? Because it could not have appeared without coming into collision with much of modern Theology. It is a fact, as we shall have occasion to see, that various systems of Theology have prevailed irreconcilable with any doctrine of the Plenary Inspiration of by far the larger portion of Scripture; nay, further, irreconcilable with its

* See Mr. Burgon's Sermons.

Inspiration in any sense. Theology ought certainly to be dependent upon Divine Inspiration; but Divine Inspiration has been made dependent upon Theology. How this has been effected, it will not be difficult to perceive. A Theology has prevailed of which the Epistles are the foundation; the Gospels next in importance; and the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms almost superfluous additions. Let us illustrate the case.

The Law, it is said, was a shadow of good things to come; the Gospel is the substance. You can speak of the inspiration of a substance, not of the inspiration of a shadow. The shadow, the covenant of shadows has passed away; "In that he hath said a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."*—"We are false to our position, if for a single moment we make the Gospel depend upon the Law. We not unfrequently meet with the expression that the Gospel is founded upon the Law. But such language is neither according to the letter nor the spirit of Holy Scripture."—Certainly not, if to build upon the Law, were to build upon a shadow:—"'Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.'"—True! but Jesus Christ is within the Law. The Law was the outer shadow, which concealed the substance within. The substance was there, but the Jews could not see it. They could see

* This and other extracts in the sequel in inverted commas, but without reference, are taken from Sermons which have been preached before the University; the truly Christian spirit of which must be acknowledged, even while the Theology is rejected.

nothing but shadows which they mistook for the substance.

Shall we say that, to us who are Christians, the whole Five Books of Moses are but a shadow? Nay, not even this; a shadow that was, but that now is not, since it has passed away with the Dispensation. Surely until we come to regard the Law as something more than a shadow, it will be impossible for us to maintain that it is part of the Word of God. A mere shadow that appears for a time and then passes away, has never been an emblem of stability but always of vanity; and can never be the same with the Word of God, or with any part of it. When the Apostle was speaking of the Law as a shadow of good things to come, he was speaking of its externalities, types, and figures; not of the substance, or of the truths they inwardly contain. The old Dispensation has passed away, but the Law has not passed away; and yet because the Old Covenant is sometimes used to signify the Old Testament and sometimes the Old Dispensation, the Testament is identified with the Dispensation, and both are equally said to have decayed and vanished away. It is from this school of Theology principally, that has emanated the uncompromising opposition to all spiritual interpretation of the Law, the Psalms, and other parts of Scripture. God has now permitted this opposition to come to a crisis! The Church is driven to the alternative, either to admit the spiritual sense of the Old Testament, or to reject its Divine Inspiration. Any one acquainted with the state of Theology will know, that this has been always tacitly the question at issue; so that when the spiritual sense of the Old Testament has been openly denied, and its Divine Inspiration at the same time nominally acknowledged, such an account has been necessarily given of its Divine Inspiration as to make it simply worthless; for how can Truth which is everlasting, and which alone is the Word of God, pass away with the Dispensation? Yet this has long been the Theology of the greater part of the Christian community; and the Sceptic now intervenes to put an end to the rest of the Bible on the same principle as the theologian puts an end to the Law—both are said to be out of date. Let us illustrate the case.

"The glory of the Old Testament has waxed faint before the later formation and greater illumination of the New." . . . —"The volume of the Law which they (the Jews) held in their hands, was luminous while in the darkness; in the light it has itself become dark—a shadow cast backward into the ages, by 'the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.'"

Another writer, Lord Arthur Hervey,* observes that we might perhaps illustrate the relation of the whole dispensation of the Spirit under the Old Testament to the dispensation of the Spirit under the New Testament, by the familiar comparison of a chandelier which is to illuminate some spacious hall. Hence he remarks, that—

"At first when the gas is lit, it is supplied in small quantities, and emits but a feeble light. Only the nearest objects are distinguished by it, though it is sufficient for the preparatory

* The Inspiration of Holy Scripture. Five Sermons preached before the University of Cambridge. By the Rev. Lord Arthur Hervey, M.A., Rector of Ickworth with Horinger. p. 75.

work to be done, and is very different from the darkness which would prevail without it. But when the time is come for preparation to cease, and the real business to commence, then the chandelier is made to emit its full splendor, lighting up every corner of the apartment. So when God would enlighten this dark world with the light of His Holy Spirit, He first gave the dim, and partial, and preparatory light of the Old Testament, but has now given us the full light of the knowledge of His glory, in the face of Jesus Christ."

Is it then the Law, which, after giving a dim and partial twilight, bursts out into the full light of the Gospel, when Christ comes into the world? Decidedly not: the light of the Law, it is said, when viewed in the light of the Gospel, becomes dark. Seen in the dark, it was luminous; but seen in the light, it is only a shadow cast back into the ages. The use of the Old Testament was to emit this twilight; but the twilight being no longer wanted, the twilight and the Testament have both passed away; accordingly the Cambridge Preacher does not hesitate to point out—"the manner of the passing away of the Old Testament."* Now if the Old Testament has really passed away, is it not merely a waste of time to concern ourselves about its Inspiration? Indeed, says the Oxford Preacher:—

"The Law has EXPIRED after giving birth to the Gospel."

Then there is no longer life in the Law. The Law is dead, and its dead body lies embalmed in the Church. And who now will venture to say that the Law is part of the Word of God? Has the Word

* Ibid., p. 45.

of God expired, or any part of it? How can the dead Law be any part of the living Word? How can that give life which itself is dead? But does not the Apostle say, "If there had been a law given which could have given life, then verily righteousness should have come by the Law?" True: but does the Apostle here mean to say, that the Law could not give life, because there is no life in the Law? If so, "where the carcase is, there shall the eagles be gathered together." They have gathered together, and are devouring the carcase. We may strive to scare away the eagles, but that will not revive the Law. And if the Law be really dead, what is the use of scaring away the eagles? Theologians should never have deprived the Law of its life, the life of its spiritual truth; and a living Law would then of itself have sufficed to keep the eagles at bay.

But if the Law be dead, what becomes of the Psalms and the Prophets? for these all derived their life from the Law. Deprive them of the Law, and there is no temple, no worship, no sacrifice, few types or symbols of any kind; for the language of the Psalms and the prophets was founded upon the Law. When a man is employed in bringing a spiritual sense out of any particular passage, he is said to be spiritualizing away the Scripture, and turning the literal facts into nothing. Even were this the case, it would be only a partial nullification of Scripture: the other is wholesale. The Old Testament belongs to the Old Dispensation, it is said, and as a shadow has passed away with the Dispensation. Historical characters may still be serviceable in contributing to

A 3 the records of history; such as those of the patriarchs, prophets, priests, and kings of Israel; but of what use is it to record laws, ordinances, rituals, and customs in which no one takes the least interest, and from which no one derives the smallest benefit? Say that the Law is divinely inspired, and deny at the same time that it has any spiritual meaning; and of what use is it to know that, at the consecration of a priest, it was commanded—that,* "Thou shalt take of the ram the fat and the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and the right shoulder; for it is a ram of consecration?" Who would consider it worthy of the Spirit of God, or of Divine Inspiration, to give any direction concerning the taking of birds' nests? "If† a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way, in any tree or on the ground, whether they be young ones or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young; but thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young with thee; that thou mayest prolong thy days." Who is prepared to say that any spiritual truths lie concealed in these directions? or in the furniture, the taches, and boards, and bars, and pillars, and sockets, and ram's skins, and badger skins of the tent? Surely the Church takes no interest in these things now; the letter killeth, and the spirit giveth no life, because there is neither spirit nor life. Do not these things belong to by-gone ages? Are not the chosen people dispersed, the temple destroyed, the

* Exodus xxix. 22.

† Deuteronomy xxii. 6.

sacrifice abolished, the ceremonial gone? Well may we talk of the "dead Law," and the "living Gospel." Why should we seek the living among the dead? or make the futile attempt of proving the Divine Inspiration of a dead Law? Would not the effort be self-contradictory? For how could the Law be God-breathed, and yet be dead? or be inspired with the life of God, and yet be dead notwithstanding? Unless there be living breath inspired, there is no inspiration, and therefore nothing inspired. Who ever heard of the dead breathing, and yet remaining dead—Deo spirante per Scripturam, et Scriptura ipsum spirante: while all the time the dead body of the Old Testament lay in the streets of the great city?

But, say the advocates of this theology,—"We believe that Holy Scripture is inspired, when we believe that God's Holy Spirit has caused it to be written for our instruction in the things of Christ." But may not every clergyman also trust that God's Holy Spirit may cause his Sermon to be written for the instruction of his congregation in the things of Christ? would he therefore call his Sermon part of the Word of God, or place it upon a level with any portion of the Scriptures? According to the foregoing account of Inspiration, he would be entitled to do so; nay, more than this, his own Sermon might take the precedence of the Old Testament; for doubtless a living Sermon is better than a dead Law.

We are told that when the Old Testament is introduced in the New, "it is rather claimed as a witness than appealed to as an authority."

If so, the authority of the Old Testament is gone; and the New Testament is appealed to in evidence of the fact. Again:—

"The Law and its documents suggest, reflect, anticipate, imply by analogy, but do not contain the Gospel."

Then what do they contain? Whatever they contain, if they contain anything, it must be a something whose authority is gone: a something which might bear witness to authority, but which has no claim of itself to be considered an authority.

Upon this view of the character of the Old Testament, a popular system of Theology has been founded; and reciprocally this Theology has openly advocated the popular views of Inspiration. It is now a question whether or not the days of both are numbered; whether the Inspiration attributed to the Scriptures, in the sense in which we have been considering it, has any the least title to be called Divine. How can the Word of God die with the Dispensation? and how can a dead Law be the Word of the living God? "Heaven and earth," saith the Lord, "shall pass away; but My words shall not pass away."

But if we shrink from taking the highest view of the Inspiration of the Bible, and are not satisfied with the lowest, cannot we find out something intermediate? Well then, what must that be which is intermediate? A something intermediate between the Word of God, and that which is not the Word of God, but inferior to it. This doctrine is the Arianism of Divine Inspiration, and has become very popular. The Arians would call our Lord, personally, the Word of God;

but if you regarded Him as Divine in the strict sense of the term, they would deem you to be as much guilty of idolatry in respect to the personal Word, as others of Bibliolatry in respect to the written Word, if you considered it to be really Divine. There is no Divine Inspiration intermediate between Divine Inspiration and something else.

Do you then, it will be asked, maintain the Divine Inspiration of the Bible in the highest sense? If so, what do you mean by the Divine Inspiration of the record of the abominations, wars, murders, adulteries, cruelties, and curses we read of in the Scriptures? Let us take the objection as stated thus:—"As in the course of our Services we read the Psalms, we often find, following on some touching passage of sorrow or penitence, or mingling even with the voice of love, the burning words of indignation, and the cry for revenge upon enemies. Then, though our lips proceed, our thoughts pause. We repeat the words in a strong historical and personal sympathy with the man after God's own heart; and yet we feel that such language, and such thoughts and feelings, are not those of the Gospel, or ours."

Be it so: but the question is, whether, notwithstanding all this, the language is the language of the Word of God. Does the Psalm cease to be part of the Word of God, because of such language? If it does, let us fearlessly acknowledge the fact; and candidly confess that the Psalms are not all divinely inspired: and that neither does Divine Inspiration belong to those parts of Scripture which record the infirmities and iniquities of mankind. For we are not now speaking of the Inspiration of the writer, but of the thing written; and if we exclude from Divine Inspiration all those parts of Scripture to which we have referred, how exceedingly small will be the dimensions to which the Word of God will be reduced!

Such, in fact, is practically the case in the present day. It is seen that a large portion of the Scriptures, taken in the literal sense and that alone, is out of date; and if this be really the case, it is out of the power of any Church to preserve its authority. The heavens, which declare the glory of God, will have measured out the days and the years of the so-called Word of God; and if so, of the Church also which is founded upon it. If any Church will place the wisdom of the Word of God in that literal sense only which refers to Space and Time, the Word of God, like the temporal power of the Pope, must be subject to all the vicissitudes of Space and Time; and if the Word of God—much more will the Church—vanish like the baseless fabric of a vision.

After all, however, this evanescence is only the fate of a Dispensation. We cannot assign to the Word of God only the duration and authority of the Dispensation. There is indeed a real, and a mighty movement going on in the present day. The Church, we are told, is stable: it is the Scriptures which seem to be moving. Has the Church then an authority independent of the Scriptures, on the ground of its having existed before the Scriptures? If it has, can it give that authority to the Scriptures, and save them? If so, now is the time. Or if we suppose the Scriptures to be divinely inspired, and thus to be the

Word of God, are the Scriptures above the Church, or the Church above the Scriptures? Shall the Church save the Scriptures, or the Scriptures the Church? Assuredly, lower the inspiration of the Scriptures, and one of two things must follow;—either the authority of the Church must be proportionably exalted in order to maintain the authority of the Scriptures; or else, ignoring Church authority, the Scriptures must be given up to the sole pleasure of the critic or the expositor—after which—the deluge.

This is now the prospect before us! whatever of order exists, is owing to the organization of religious bodies; not to any agreement as to the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures; not to any reception of any life and light derived from its spiritual sense. That Spiritual sense is denounced;—it stands clothed in sackcloth; but, amid the coutumelies of its opponents, has nevertheless been calmly and deliberately performing its solemn duty,—of—MEASURING THE TEMPLE!

The case, however, does not end here; for we regard, as was said above, the Word of God, read in the public Services of the Church,—“as conveying thoughts and feelings which are not those of the Gospel, or ours”—“though our lips proceed, our thoughts pause.”

Does this statement really mean to intimate that, as understood in the literal sense, many portions of the Psalms are not morally fit to be read in a Christian Church; and that with our lips we utter language in our public worship, not only which we do not mean, but which we repudiate and condemn? What then is the alternative of the worshipper?—"We lay them before God in the congregation, and pray Him to put His meaning upon them!"—What meaning?—"A meaning they have in His Providential purpose, though that meaning may not be David's, or our own."—Still, what is the meaning? Let us listen to the answer. "And so we accept the utterances of the Old Testament writers, often not knowing precisely their force or import, (how can we know it when we know not who wrote them, or when, or why?) but leaving them to God, and waiting for His interpretation."*

Has then no commentator hitherto supplied it? Has the Church been hitherto unable to give any true meaning to the words? After eighteen hundred years is the congregation, or the Church, still looking to God, and waiting for His interpretation? But how can He give it save through an interpreter? Is the Church or congregation waiting for an interpreter?

"Thus from the height of the Gospel we look down upon the Law, and through the Law to the immensities beyond it."

Nay; but to the immensities within it. "Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy Law." It is only when we look at the Law from the Gospel, that we know what the Law is. To the Jew it was a shadow of good things to come: to the Christian it is the coming of the substance, though in shadows. When our Lord taught His dis-

* See a good observation of Lord Arthur Hervey on this subject in our Appendix.

ciples, He taught them from out of the Word which He was fulfilling: "then opened He their understandings that they might understand the Scriptures."

... "No wonder that His presence brought out in full relief a thousand deep and hidden meanings which we cannot recall in His absence."

Undoubtedly, if he is absent, we cannot recall them. But where is His Spirit? Is not His Spirit present? and may He not teach us by His Spirit? Why may not His Spirit bring out a thousand deep and hidden meanings, especially when He is present by His Spirit?

Nay! but the Church has denied that the thousand deep and hidden meanings are there; and if so, it would surpass even the wisdom of her Saviour or the Power of His Holy Spirit, to bring them out. 'They are not there and never were there,' has been the voice of the larger part of the modern Church.

"From the very dawn of Christianity," says Dr. Lee,* "some have been found to question the identity (of the Divine Author of the Old and New Testaments); and even to assert that the two portions of the Bible are heterogeneous, and opposed. Of such importance, however, has the exposure of this error been always deemed, that, as I have already pointed out, the Church declares by an express article of the Creed, that it was the Holy Ghost 'Who spake through the prophets.'"

Has then the Church given the interpretation of what the Holy Ghost spake? So far from it, that a

* The Inspiration of Holy Scripture, by William Lee, D.D., Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Dublin; p. 96, Second Edition.

virtual denial of the Divine Inspiration of the Old Testament has prevailed in the Church itself.

"The revival in our own day," says Dr. Lee,* "of opinions whose tendency, at least, is not dissimilar, may, to a certain extent, be inferred from the absence of any reference to the Old Testament in the great majority of modern treatises which allude to the subject of Inspiration:—an omission so remarkable, that a reader, unfamiliar with the Bible, might imagine that no Church of old had ever received 'the oracles of God;' that no prophet had ever foretold the Advent of the Messiah; that no elaborate ceremonial had ever typified the mysteries of the Kingdom of Christ. The revival of such views with respect to the Old Testament is not, however, a matter of mere inference. The opinion has been openly avowed, and eagerly defended, that the Old Testament is either totally unconnected with the New—except indeed by chance; or that its importance has passed away, and that the Gospel dispensation can tolerate no remnant of the covenant under which the Jewish nation was chosen. It is needless to enquire to what extent we are to look upon such conclusions as the result of a false conception of spiritual religion; or how far they may be traced to certain dogmatic views on points of Christian doctrine: it is more to our purpose to examine whether such sentiments have any foundation; and, if not, to expose their falsehood."

It is not needless, but, on the contrary, of the greatest importance, in our present Tract, to enquire what are the false conceptions of spiritual religion, or the dogmatic views on points of Christian doctrine, which, so far from being founded on the Divine In-

* The Inspiration of Holy Scripture, by William Lee, D.D., Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Dublin; p. 96, Second Edition.

spiration of the Old Testament, have abrogated its authority. We have already referred to the dogmatic views of one class, and that a very large one, of religionists in this country. It is a fact, that both the evangelical solifidian and the orthodox moralist have been equally opposed to anything like a spiritual interpretation of the Old Testament, and the consequence is that no such interpretation is to be found. The theological school of Bishop Horne and Jones of Nayland, never obtained more than a very partial recognition in the Church of England, and had well nigh sunk into oblivion when the Tractarian school emerged into notice. If then the doctrine of the Divine Inspiration of the Old Testament has extensively ceased to be acknowledged in the Church, is the Church in no wise responsible for the prevalence of Scepticism and Infidelity? For it is in vain to say that Inspiration is of the writer and not of the thing written; inasmuch as, when it is said in the Creed "who spake by the prophets," this would allow the prophets to be inspired, but not what the prophets wrote; and the meaning of this article, it is acknowledged, would thus be evaded.

Happily many in the Church are now beginning to awaken to the fact that the Church has been in error: that the thousand deep and hidden meanings ARE in the Old Testament: that the Law is not dead, but alive. Well has it been said, that—

... "In the historical, the didactic, the prophetical portions of the New Testament alike, we discern the Old Testament, 'the old Law, living again,' as it has been finely remarked, 'in a new and spiritual life;' not embalmed and laid with reverential care aside in the grave, but arisen from the dead, and alive evermore, like its own Divine Founder.'"*

The Law then has not EXPIRED: it is alive for evermore like its own Divine Founder; and if so, the life of the Law is itself Divine.

Here, then, we are led to the subject of the union of the Divine and human elements in Scripture—a union which is thus set before us by Adolphe Monod:—

"We find,"† says he, "the same name given to Jesus Christ and to the Holy Scriptures. Both the one and the other are called The Word of God. The one of these Words, Jesus Christ, is the living Word of God, the personal manifestation of His invisible perfections in the bosom of humanity: the other, the Holy Scripture, is the written Word of God, the verbal manifestation of these same invisible perfections given by language. The two Words are for us inseparable: for neither is Jesus Christ revealed to us except by the Scripture, nor is Scripture given to us except to reveal Jesus Christ. Thus Scripture is the written Word of God, as Jesus Christ is the living Word of God. And they who point to the human character of Scripture in order to depreciate its divinity, reason as they do who point to the human characteristics in our Lord, in order to deny to Him the title of God. They should acknowledge that the Human Nature and the Divine Nature are united in the Person of our Lord, as the Human Word and the Divine Word are united in the Scriptures. Neither is it more surprising that the

* Lee on Inspiration of Holy Scripture, p. 108; being a remark of Mr. Isaac Williams in the preface to his work on the Apocalypse.

† See The Authority of the New Testament; the Conviction of Righteousness; and the Ministry of Reconciliation. By C. A. Swainson, M.A., Principal of the Theological College, and Prebendary of Chichester, etc.; p. 145.

Scripture, regarded as the Word of God, carries with it, at the same time, so many traces of humanity, than that Jesus Christ, though God, was yet Man. As to the manner in which the two Natures in the one case, and the two Voices in the other are united, this manner is to us an object of our faith: it is part of that mystery which St. Paul calls the mystery of godliness, and fills our soul with joy and hope."

So likewise Dr. Wordsworth:*—

"In the written Word of God there is a holy union of human with divine, and we are not able to draw the line, where what is human ends and what is divine begins.

"This union of human with divine in the Written Word, bears some resemblance to the greatest Mystery of our faith, the union of Man with God in the INCARNATE WORD. The Inspiration of Scripture may be compared to the Incarnation of Christ. Jesus Christ is Emmanuel, God with us, God manifest in the flesh. The two natures of God and Man are joined together in His one Person. But who would attempt to define the limits where God's nature ends, and where Man's nature begins in the Person of Christ? The union of God and Man in the Incarnate Word is a Mystery. So is the union of the Divine element with the human in the written Word. It is a Mystery. In both cases the Mystery baffles all our powers of analysis."

That this principle of Inspiration is to a certain extent true, is admitted by Mr. Isaac Williams:†—

"The written Word of God in the world," says he, "in some respects serves the same purpose as His presence beheld in the flesh"..."although the analogy must not be

* The Inspiration of the Bible. Five Lectures delivered in Westminster Abbey. By Christopher Wordsworth, D.D., Canon of Westminster, Vicar of Stanford in the Vale.

† Beginning of the Book of Genesis, pp. 35, 39.

pressed too far, we may say that in some respects it is like the Incarnate Word, in that it is Divine and yet Human; that such union cannot be understood nor explained; that like our Lord Himself who did not usually assert His God-head, it does not so much lay claim to what is Divine as in every part implies, breathes, lives, as such."

If, then, it be asked, where in the Person of the Incarnate Word 'God's nature ends,' the answer is plain, 'It ends in the human nature:' the Humanity is thus the continent of the Divinity. If it be asked again, where in the written Word the Divine element ends; the answer is plain, It ends in the human. The human element is thus the continent of the Divine; and on this ground Swedenborg maintains the Divine inspiration of the Written Word. Accordingly, Dr. Sewell* himself admits that—

"Neither in the written Word, nor in the organic creation of God, is there a single part unmeaning, a single part superfluous, a single part without its use and object, its bearing upon some distant relation, its importance in the general harmony,—not one jot, not one tittle, not one letter."...

"No instructed Christian can read the first chapters of Genesis, without feeling assured that under those simple statements lie prophecies and mysteries of the creation of the Christian Church."

To the same effect writes Swedenborg :†—

"The Word is Divine; and to all and each of the expressions therein, which are taken from the na-

* A Letter on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture. Addressed to a Student, pp. 83, 104.

† Arcana Celestia, art. 2967, 1—4.

tural world and from the things of sense, there correspond spiritual and celestial divine things; this and no other being the true ground of the Divine Inspiration of the Word." Accordingly, he frequently repeats that it is owing to the spiritual sense that "the Word is divinely inspired, and holy in every syllable."

Swedenborg further observes upon this subject— that:—

"The first chapter of Genesis, in its internal sense, treats of the New Creation of Man, or of his Regeneration in general and of the Most Ancient Church in particular; and this in such a manner, that there is not a single syllable which does not represent and imply somewhat spiritual."

"That the Word of the Old Testament contains the mysteries of Heaven; and that all and everything therein regards the Lord, His heaven, the Church, faith, and whatever relates to faith, is inconceivable from the letter; for the letter or literal sense suggests only such things as respect the externals of the Jewish Church; when, nevertheless, there are everywhere contained therein internal things, which do not the least appear in those externals, except in the very few cases which the Lord revealed and unfolded to the Apostles; as that Sacrifices are significative of the Lord; that the land of Canaan and Jerusalem are significative of heaven, on which account we read of the heavenly Canaan and Jerusalem."

"But that all and each particular thing, yea, the most particular, not excepting the smallest jot and tittle, signify and involve spiritual and celestial things, is a truth to this day deeply hidden from the Christian world; the consequence is, that little attention is paid to the Old Testament. This truth, however, might appear plainly from this single circumstance; that the Word being of the Lord and from the Lord, could not possibly have any existence, unless in its inner ground it contained such things as relate to heaven, to the Church, and to faith. For if this be denied, how can it be called the Word of the Lord, or be said to have any life in it? For whence is life, but from such things as have relation to life? Wherefore, whatsoever doth not interiorly regard the Lord, doth not live; nay, whatsoever expression in the Word does not involve Him, or in its measure relate to Him, is not Divine."

"Without such a living principle, the Word as to the letter is dead; for it is with the Word as it is with man, who, as all Christians are taught to believe, consists of two parts, an external and an internal. The external man separated from the internal is the body, which in such a state of separation is dead. But the internal is that which lives, and causes the external to live: the internal man is the soul. Thus the Word as to the letter alone, is like a body without a soul."

Swedenborg here asserts, that in the Church but little attention is paid to the Old Testament, and the reason is also assigned, viz., the prevalent denial of the Spiritual sense. Shall we then say that there prevails in the Church of England a general denial of the Divine Inspiration of the Old Testament? How can we, it will be replied, when that Inspiration is maintained in this article of the Creed, "Who spake by the Prophets?" But, I answer, if the Divine Inspiration of the Old Testament consists in the spiritual sense; where is this spiritual sense to be found? Where is the Commentator who supplies it? I might almost say, where is the Commentator who does not deny it? The Creed gives us a profession of faith, but where is the faith to answer to it? It is useless to assert the Divine Inspiration of that which itself has become useless.

If, however, we interpret the article of the Creed as signifying the Divine Inspiration of the writing; and adopt the principle advocated by Adolphe Monod, that the Human nature and the Divine nature are united in the Person of our Lord, as the Human Word and the Divine Word are united in the Scriptures; such a view of the Divine Inspiration of Scripture would naturally give rise to the same controversies with regard to the written Word, which formerly took place with regard to the Word made flesh: it would raise the question concerning the union of the Divine and Human elements in the written Word. If the Humanity of our Lord was the same with that of any other man, then the human element in the Scripture would be the same with that of any other book. It is of no use to affirm, as is often the case, that the union of the Divine and Human elements in Scripture is a subject above our comprehension, and that as such we must not enquire into it, or hold any theory upon it. However vast the subject may be, it no more prevents our holding a specific doctrine upon it, than the mystery of the Incarnation prevents our

B holding a true doctrine of the Incarnation. When heresies arose upon this subject, the Church did not decline to enter into any theory upon it, on the ground that it surpassed our faculties; but the Church formed a distinct theory—a distinct doctrine upon the subject, known as that of the Hypostatical Union; and there is no question, that if the union of the Divine and Human elements in Scripture be the same with that which exists in the Word made flesh, the Doctrine which expresses the union in the one case, will express it in the other; in the one case the Word is made flesh, in the other it is made—writing: it cannot be otherwise if the one be the living Word, the other the written Word.

But what is the nature of this hypostatic union? What is the theory of the Church upon the subject? Does the union in any way divinize the human nature? According to many of the Fathers it does: according to modern theology it does not. You may predicate Divine properties of the Humanity; but you must not believe the Humanity to be Divine. The same destiny has befallen the Scriptures. You may call the written Word the Word of God; but if you say it is Divine, you would be considered as falling into the same error as if you called the Humanity Divine. What is the consequence? That when we offer up a worship of words to the Humanity, and call the Humanity that which we do not mean; so likewise when we speak of the written Word, we may call it the Word of God, though we do not believe it to be so. A shower of high sounding epithets falls upon the Bible—sound, and nothing more. Surely we may say—"This people draweth near the Word of God with their mouth, and with their lips do honor it, but have removed their heart far from it, and their fear toward it is taught by the precept of men."

According to Swedenborg, the Scripture is the Word of God, and its inspiration consists in its spiritual sense. The Church has denied that spiritual sense, and is now paying the penalty. Happily for the Church of England, there are some within it who have discovered the mistake; who find that no doctrine of Plenary Inspiration can be maintained, unless that Inspiration be placed in the spiritual sense; and that thus alone can they strike at the root of the evils which have begun to desolate the Church.

Now, if we really believe the language of the Word to be Divine, we are supplied not only with a definite doctrine of Inspiration, but with definite rules of Interpretation, which, in such a case, depend no more upon the sole pleasure of the expositor, than the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ upon the sole pleasure of the believer. Christ is the Wisdom of God; and in so far as the Bible contains the Wisdom of God, it is the Word of God; and all power is given to that Word in heaven and in earth. "As such," says Swedenborg, "the Bible is essentially the Word of the Lord in the heavens;" and being at once in heaven and upon earth, it has the power of bringing down the heavens to the earth, and thus of conjoining angels with men, and men with angels. It is thus, in virtue of the union between the Divine and human elements, that a union is effected between heaven and earth.

B 2

How it is that the very letter of the Word is Divinely inspired, and as such must be called Divine, Swedenborg has shewn us in the following extract:—

"'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, but the world knew Him not. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father.' He who understands these words in their interior sense, and at the same time compares them with what is written in The Doctrine of the New Jerusalem concerning the Sacred Scripture, as also with some things in The Doctrine of the New Jerusalem concerning the Lord, may see, that the Divine Truth itself in the Word which was formerly in this world, which likewise is in our Word at this day, is meant by the Word which was in the beginning with God, and which was God: not the Word regarded merely as to the words and letters of the languages in which it is written, but as seen in its essence and life, which is from within in the senses or meaning of its words and letters. From this life does the Word vivify the affections of that man's will who reads it devoutly; and from the light of its life it illuminates the thoughts of his understanding; therefore it is said in John, 'In Him (the Word) was life, and the life was the light of men.' This constitutes the Word; because the Word is from the Lord, and concerning the Lord, and thus the Lord. All thought, speech, and writing derives its essence and life from Him who thinks, speaks, and writes; the man with all that he is, being therein; but in the Word, the Lord alone is. No one, however, feels and perceives the Divine life in the Word but he who is in the spiritual affection of truth when he reads it; for he is in conjunction with the Lord through the Word; there being something intimately affecting the heart and spirit, which flows with light into the understanding and bears witness."*

What this something is we shall see in the sequel: in the meantime we observe, that here we are plainly told what is the true doctrine of Inspiration, and what the method of Interpretation depending upon it. This doctrine is thus inculcated: "In Him (the Word) was life, and the life was the light of men." This life and light constitute the Word; because the Word is from the Lord, concerning the Lord, and is the Lord. Not the paper, ink, and type; but the letter, or literal sense of the written Word as it exists in the mind, and contains within it the spiritual sense; for that spiritual sense being from the Lord is inmostly Divine, and is the Lord; whence the letter or literal sense also, as containing within it this inmost sense, is, for this reason, itself Divinely inspired; and is from the Lord. In like manner, when we read the works of Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, or any other author; so far as these works represent to us faithfully their thoughts, we may regard these thoughts as the very mind itself of these authors, hence as the authors themselves; so that in reading their works we say that we have

* The Apocalypse Revealed: art. 200.

been reading the authors; for we are thus brought into communion with their minds, as truly as if we communed with them personally.

Seeing, then, what is the true doctrine of the Divine Inspiration of the Bible; what, now, is the method of Interpretation founded upon this view of Inspiration? Let us consider the subject practically; but in so doing is there any subject so practical as that of Life? Let us then treat of spiritual interpretation in relation to spiritual life; and spiritual life reciprocally in relation to spiritual interpretation; for it is said, "In Him was LIFE, and the life was the LIGHT of men."

What then are the laws of spiritual interpretation, or are there any? This gives rise to the question, What are the laws of spiritual life, or are there any?

... "I wish to consider," says Mr. Farrar,* "the theory of the religious life, whether it is subject to laws; if so, whether we can discover them, and in that case what the method is of such enquiry, and what the chief results to which it conducts us. When we ask whether the religious life is subject to laws, the answer is so natural that the analogy of the whole of God's government, both moral and material, would suggest the presumption that the spiritual also must be directed according to a system of laws, either discoverable or inscrutable, that it might excite surprise why we should think it necessary to ask the question."

Great surprise, certainly: but why, nevertheless, is

* Science in Theology; Sermons preached in St. Mary's, Oxford, before the University; by Adam S. Farrar, M.A., F.G.S., F.R.A.S., Michel Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford, late one of the Select Preachers to the University, and Preacher to the Chapel Royal, Whitehall, p. 210, et seq.

it necessary to ask the question? One reason is, observes Mr. Farrar,—"There have been Christian thinkers who have said, that the whole of the life spiritual is subject to merely moral laws, and have resolved the Christian life into the ordinary processes unfolded by moral psychology. This view is not common in the present age; the whole tone of thought, philosophical as well as religious, has become averse to it; but in the last century it was quite a prevalent one."—Is not this statement sufficient to account for the repudiation, during the last century, of any interpretations of Scripture having reference solely to the spiritual life? for if the last century proceeded upon the principle that the spiritual life was only another name for the moral life; and that, as distinguished from the moral life, it was fancy and speculation, of course spiritual interpretation would share the same fate as spiritual life, and merely literal interpretation and moral life would go hand in hand, to the exclusion of everything higher, as heterodox. Here then we see the case in which the life determines the interpretation; an external life demanding only an external interpretation. But we are now told, that in the present century the whole tone of thought is become averse to it: the present age wants something more, and something better. A change, it seems, has come over the religious world! the discovery has been made that many of the writers of the last century, not excluding the great Bishop Butler himself and his disciples, "evince no perception of the distinctness between merely moral life heightened and purified in its aims, and the deeper, secret, mystical life which Christians may possess."—This indeed is a discovery! and announces a marvellous change! but the observation is just.

What, however, is this secret, deeper, and mystical life, which the last century ignored? Has it any laws? or are they mysterious states which come and go, no one knows either whence or whither? There has been, observes Mr. Farrar, a very prevalent opinion—"that the religious life is a thing so mysterious, so regulated by processes incomprehensible to us, that it exists without our being conscious of it; that it is a thing which we cannot express in words, cannot think of in thoughts; that it is known to God, unknown to man; not detectable in ourselves or in others. This view has been held, in whole or in part, by many persons of different schools. It is one of the greatest of the many defects in the theology created by the Genevese reformer, Calvin. His teaching had led his followers to insist that the divine life is something depending on God's election, and not on man's freedom; that its implantation in man is a mystery; that it still exists within a man, not only when he is not conscious of it, but even—(extravagant and inferior minds have implied this)—when he falls into actual sin. Nor is it merely among the Calvinistic Protestants that this doctrine appears. It arises also from the sacramental theory of the Church of Rome. Wherever a writer is found representing that a seed of grace has been implanted, opere operato, in the sacrament of baptism, which continues to exist in a man, unextinguished through years of actual sin, we have here under another form the same idea, viz., that the life spiritual is something disconnected from fact, disconnected from consciousness, disobedient to the law that religion must exclude sin; we meet here again, under another form, the notion we have just been combating in the theology of Calvin."

There is moreover a class of Mystics, says the same writer, in whose theology prevails the same idea as in Calvinistic and Catholic theology; and who from time to time assert, against the materialism of the last century, the existence in man of faculties transcending consciousness.

"According to this theory there is a certain faculty in men, an intuition, which rises above all sensible objects, and penetrates into their very essence. It sees the Infinite, the Absolute, not under the ordinary limitations which sense and thought put upon the idea; but, transcending all such bounds, it scans the universe of being, it mounts to the throne of the Eternal, and sees by a supernatural intuition absolute truth, absolute goodness, absolute beauty. The life spiritual is connected with such a power. In one sense this identification may be regarded as making it amenable to laws; but in another the idea of law is thrown aside in the contemplation of it. For law is a term applicable to subordinate forms of existence and of knowledge; but inapplicable to a form of existence and of cognition which transcends the bounds of ordinary conscious criticism.

"We have thus presented in opposition the two views of the life spiritual; the one which would make it simply natural, the other supernatural. And may we not say that there is a grain of truth in both views? Spiritual knowledge is verily an apperception of truth which is not cognizable by ordinary faculties; and spiritual life is a form of existence transcending even the highest moral life. Not all truth is

B 3 to be reduced to that which is amenable to critical investigation. There is a world of life and of thought of which we detect the traces, but cannot understand the nature. And thus far accordingly the spiritual life, be it regarded as intellectual or emotional, is supernatural; but we must be careful, on the other hand, not to disconnect the spiritual life from the human mind, nor to isolate it entirely from the ordinary facts of mental and emotional science."

So much for this important statement.

Now let any one take these different classes of religionists, who formed by far the greater part of the religious world during the last century, and ask by what possibility they could have welcomed any interpreter who should give a genuine spiritual interpretation of Scripture? The moral theologians of Bishop Butler's School could not; because there was among them (as is admitted) no distinct recognition of a life, deeper, more hidden, kindled by the direct operation of God's Spirit in man's heart; a life consisting, as we are told, in an actual union of the human spirit with the Divine. Calvinistic Theologians could not; for what was the spiritual life they recognized? A life founded upon the principle of Divine election, hence of God's sovereign power. How could religionists of this class consistently welcome any spiritual interpretation of Scripture? For the spiritual sense of Scripture proceeds from the Wisdom of God; but in the Calvinistic school salvation proceeds from the Power of God, and Power is made to supersede Wisdom, at least in theory. A spiritual life founded upon the idea of Sovereign Power employed in effecting personal election, is a very different thing from a spiritual life generated and nourished by the truths of Divine Wisdom; and indeed one who owed his spiritual life to arbitrary power, would regard a spiritual interpretation of the Word of God as needless; and the spiritual sense of Scripture being thus dispensed with, the doctrine of its Divine Inspiration, except in the case of the Epistles, would become a subject of very subordinate importance.

But could Catholics themselves consistently recognize a spiritual sense which taught the laws of the Regenerate life? Certainly not: for if we take the Sacramental theory of Regeneration by baptism, which is not peculiar to the Church of Rome, and which implies the implantation of a seed of grace opere operato, we here find implanted a spiritual life altogether inscrutable, and transcending all "the cognitions of consciousness;" so that any spiritual sense of Scripture relating to it, would itself also as necessarily transcend our consciousness as the work of Regeneration. The consequence is, that the work of Regeneration would have no relation to any known spiritual sense of Scripture, nor any spiritual sense of Scripture to it; so that in this respect any spiritual interpretation would be altogether discarded, and together with it the doctrine of Divine Inspiration itself, in so far as any interpreter maintained that the laws of the regenerate life were the subjects of its Divine contents.

As to the intuition of the Absolute, I say nothing; because it is a doctrine not pretending to be connected with any spiritual interpretation of Scripture; and even if it were, the spiritual interpretation relating to it would as much transcend our faculties as the intuition itself: to say nothing of the absurdity of pretended intuitions of this kind.

It is indeed objected, that the nature and laws of Regeneration must nevertheless necessarily transcend our consciousness, because it is said, "the wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit." But do the nature and laws of the Regenerate life so entirely transcend our consciousness, that even the Spirit of God cannot reveal them? If so, whence are we to obtain any knowledge whatever upon the subject? Shall we say, as it has been said,—'From the lives and thoughts of saints in the Bible, and from religious memoirs in general?'—No! but from the life and the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is himself the Alpha and the Omega of the Bible. In the former case, we need no spiritual interpretation of the Bible: in the latter case, we can have no knowledge of the regenerate life without it: the former opinion might be held in connection with pious meditations upon Scripture, but still without any definite doctrine of Inspiration or Interpretation: the latter could not, but must imply the highest and most definite views of both.

Now the present century, we are told, is dissatisfied with a merely moral theology, and equally so with the theology of a spiritual life which transcends all consciousness. Many in the Church are looking for something higher than the moral, even though the moral be that of Bishop Butler; and yet not so high but that it shall be within the region of distinct consciousness. This is the theology, then, of which we are about to treat: that which relates to a spiritual life subject to laws, which are at the same time laws of human thought, and which are supplied by the spiritual interpretation of Scripture.

As then the religious life thus considered, is the life spiritual in the life natural, or in other words, the supernatural life within the natural, so that the natural is the living representative of the supernatural; it follows, that the life supernatural, mystical, spiritual, call it what you will, is for this reason subject to laws; and if subject to laws, and at the same time derived from the spiritual sense of Scripture, the spiritual sense of Scripture must also itself be subject to laws of the same kind. If the spiritual sense be fanciful, the spiritual life will be visionary, and both will be spurious. If the spiritual sense be true, i. e., communicating true knowledge, the life will be genuine; for "this is life eternal, to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent;" accordingly the interpretation which reveals this knowledge will be from God. Thus in the Scripture will the deepest mysteries of the human mind, viz., those of the spiritual life, be laid open according to fixed and immutable laws: both as regards the interpretation, and the life that is founded upon it; these laws having a relation to the will and understanding, and being those of goodness and truth.

Thus we see how the life spiritual is immediately connected with light; for the truths of the spiritual sense of Scripture are themselves that light. Hence the office of interpreter or of a steward of the oracles of God, is to communicate this light from the Lord through the medium of the Scriptures: but who can discharge this office unless it be one who is himself enlightened? For how can any one shew to others what has never been shewn to him? He himself then must first be the subject of illumination or illustration. Hence no prophecy is of private interpretation. "Do not* interpretations belong to God?" Is not this as true now as it was in the time of Joseph?—"If the Holy Spirit spake in the Scriptures," says Dr. Sewell,† "no one can comprehend His voice, but the same Holy Spirit; no one, but the same Holy Spirit within our hearts can enable us to understand it."—"What is written by the Spirit of God," says Mr. Isaac Williams, "can only be interpreted by the Spirit of God."—Let us proceed upon this principle.

"The literal meaning," says Mr. Isaac Williams,‡ "for the most part, is as the body, the spiritual meaning as the soul; as the soul is united with the body, so must the literal and spiritual meaning be held together; both are necessary for the life of the Written Word. And though the latter be considered usually as the latent and interior sense, yet it is often so obvious and Scriptural, that it speaks, as it were visibly through the letter, illuminates it and gives it its character."

And this is the illumination to which the same author elsewhere refers when he says, that, "Even

* Genesis, chap. xl. 8.

† Letter on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture, p. 75.

‡ Beginning of the Book of Genesis, p. 75, 32.

to good men in the Church there is an illumination of the Spirit of God beyond the written revelation"—beyond, that is, above and within.

The spiritual sense then being within the literal, as the soul is within the body, it is within that we must look for the Divine light: and it is at this point, that branch off the two roads that lead to two different kinds of interpretation. By the one class it is said,—"Our providential position, with regard to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, taken by themselves, is marked and peculiar. We view them from without, and not from within. They belong to a Dispensation which has passed away."—But even the Jews, when they were under that Dispensation, never viewed them from within, but always from without; for the very reason that they were under an external Dispensation, and therefore did no other than view them externally. Surely, if we would explain the laws of Nature, we must study the order of Nature; and if we would explain the laws of Scriptural interpretation, we must study the order of Revelation, hence also of Divine Inspiration. It is of the first importance that an interpreter should know how to begin.

"All Scripture is written," it has been well said,* "not from without, but from within; the Word going forth from the bosom of God; the inward mystery as it were first conceived, revealing and developing itself in outward expression, creations, events, and circumstances; the spiritual sense sometimes lying under the literal, so that the things themselves described serve to convey it in the way of imagery or metaphor; sometimes being one with the literal, so that the

* Beginning of the Book of Genesis, p. 195.

latter can only be spiritually understood, as in some figurative language of the prophets; or, indeed, they may both together make one whole, branching forth one from the other, yet retaining similitudes. But oftentimes the literal, without the spiritual meaning, may be as a body without life; the Spirit of Christ gives life to the written Word, and is inseparable from every part."

This grand truth then, let us bear in mind; that all Scripture is written from within to without; and we shall then understand the narrative in the Book of Exodus, chap. xxxiii. 8—10, in which the cloudy pillar is represented as removing to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and Moses enters into the tabernacle, and from within communes with the cloudy pillar, while the people, each standing at the door of his tent, see it from without. "Here we behold," says Swedenborg,* "a representation of the act of looking at the Scriptures from within and from without." Moses accordingly, who looks from within, is spoken of as seeing God face to face, or seeing the glory within the cloud; while those who look from without, see only the cloud which conceals the glory. "It may be expedient," observes Swedenborg upon this subject, "to say what it is to see from without and what to perceive from within. They who are in illustration when they read the Word, see it from within; for their internal is open, and the internal, when open, is in the light of heaven. This light flows into man from his internal and enlightens him, although man is ignorant of it. The reason why he is ignorant of it, is, because that light flows into the

* Arcana Celestia, 10,551.

knowledges which are in man's memory, and those knowledges are in natural light; and whereas man thinks from those knowledges as from himself, he cannot apperceive the influx. Nevertheless he may know from various proofs, that he was in a state of illustration."

For the ideas of the interior thought are spiritual, and flow down thence into the ideas of exterior thought which are natural; the region of exterior thought being the region of consciousness. It does not follow that the light is not there, because we are not externally conscious of it as light; for if the light were not within, it would be absurd to talk of a state of illumination produced by that light, unless the expression were used in a metaphorical sense, and implied no corresponding reality. Neither, in like manner, does it follow that the influx does not exist, because we may not be directly conscious of it; the reason of which Swedenborg has above pointed out.

We are not conscious of the influx of the Holy Spirit into our minds; and yet, if we are Christians, we may be sure it is there. Moses, when he descended with the two tables from the mount, wist not that the skin of his face shone; and yet it shone nevertheless; and if he placed a veil over his face, it was only to indicate that it was a light which the Jews could not perceive, because of their sensuous and worldly affections.

Nay further than this; even Christians in general have no sensitive perception of the existence of this light. It may, indeed, literally illuminate their minds, while yet external ideas derived from the light of the world may be comparatively so much more vivid, that the fainter and more obscure impression is unnoticed. While on the other hand, where the spiritual truth is much more vividly impressed than the external representation (a circumstance which happens of course in only exceptional cases), there may be a direct consciousness of the existence of an internal light reflected in the external thought.

This may be illustrated by the circumstances which attended the Urim and Thummim. The precious stones, it is well known, represented Divine truths, viz., those of the Word. When consulted, they gave out light, or became explendescent. "A like explendescence," says Swedenborg,* "is also presented inwardly with those who are in truths derived from good; which dictates, and, as it were, gives responses, when truth is enquired after from affection of heart, and is loved as good. That there is such an explendescence, whereby Divine Truth from heaven is revealed in the natural man with those who are illustrated from the Word, is not perceived in the world; by reason that it is unknown that any light from heaven illustrates the intellectual principle of man. But that it is so, it hath been granted me to perceive; and also to see."

Upon such a principle we may understand these words of Mr. Isaac Williams.† "And God saw the light, that it was good."

"But what is this light which is thus declared good? It

* Arcana Celestia, 9905.

† Beginning of the Book of Genesis, p. 84.

is not a light of the sun, as it was not yet created. What is it to us to whom by the voice of God it is declared good? Whatever else it may be, it must be a sign and token of some marvellous light other than what we now behold; some illumination of the mind and of spiritual eyes within, by which we shall be enabled to see God the true light."

Will you accept this view of the subject? Or will you maintain that of Bishop Browne?* and say—

"That we have no capacities for any idea of the real nature of this light in the least degree, no more than a man born blind hath any idea of the sun or of light. Such a man of no more than four senses could not be said to have only an imperfect, glimmering, uncertain view of things, but no view at all: LIGHT would be to him as thick darkness: the sun, and moon, and stars, the firmament, and all the heavenly bodies, would be to him as imperceptible by any idea of them, as if they had no being: the word light would be to this man a term to which he could affix no direct idea or conception."

The Bishop speaks out! Let those who are opposed to the principles we are now advocating, speak out in the same candid manner. The Bishop denies the real existence of any Divine Light whatever as Divine light: he declares all light to mean simply knowledge derived from the operations of natural reason upon the ideas and conceptions of the external mind: he therefore regards the expression Divine light as properly metaphorical; and this on the ground that there can be no true analogy between material and immaterial things; the result of which is, the exclusion from Divine Inspiration of the greater part

* Divine Analogy, p. 20.

of the Old Testament, and a great part of the New: not to mention the impossibility of going beyond the mere representative, or of giving any interpretation of the doctrines of the Atonement, Intercession, or Trinity. Dr. Browne, therefore, looked from without to within; and thus, like the people before the tabernacle of the congregation, he saw nothing within but only without; he looked out on the cloud of glory from his own tent, not from the tent of the assembly. The result was, he could see nothing but a cloud; but inasmuch as he saw the cloud plainly, so that it ceased to be mysterious, he would not acknowledge the existence of any mystery; and as to any Divine light within the cloud, this light was purely metaphorical. Light was the figure, the cloud the reality—there was no real light, but there was a real cloud. As, then, it was plain that a cloud was a cloud and nothing else, at least to us, this, he thought, was clear, solid, practical knowledge; and that with this we ought to be satisfied, as we have no faculties to go farther: all which indeed is very true, so long as a man looks out from the door of his own tent; in other words, so long as he looks from without and not from within.

The order, then, of Interpretation is the same with that of Creation, Inspiration, and Revelation, viz.: from within to without. It is not the outward that enables us to understand the inward; but the inward that enables us to understand the outward.

We therefore proceed to examine what that inward light is of which we have spoken; and how it is, that, being supernatural, it exists in the natural. This is the more important, because this *internal light* is appealed to as *the evidence of the interpretation*; and we must be careful that it should not be an *ignis fatuus*, but that genuine light from the Lord which has a direct relation to *life*. Doubtless the influences of the Holy Spirit are frequently spoken of in a vague and indeterminate manner, and but few have any clear and distinct idea of what is meant by them. We propose, therefore, to furnish a very clear and distinct idea upon this subject, as derived from the writings of Swedenborg.

We are, then, speaking of a *real light* flowing into the mind: how do we know that such a light is genuine?

"To those who are in *illustration*," says Swedenborg,* "the Lord gives to understand what they believe; and they are *illustrated*, when they read the Word and understand it, who acknowledge the Lord and love to live according to His precepts; but not they who say they believe and do not live accordingly. For the Lord flows in into the *life* of man, and thence into *faith*; but not into faith separate from life."

It is important, therefore, to remember, that this *internal light* does not flow into a man's *knowledge* of the truth as he reads the Word, but into his *love* of the truth. Now to love the truth is to will it and to do it, hence to live according to it; whence it becomes literally the light of his life.

On this subject the following passage is to our purpose:—

* Arcana Celestia, 10,659.

"We* may here then consider to our infinite comfort, that in Holy Scripture, light is so often synonymous with love; so that the Disciple of divine love dwells on both alike: both pervade all he writes in his Gospel and in his Epistles: the beginning and end of all is both light and love. 'He that loveth abideth in the light.' If we are to come to the light, yet that light is love; and if at the last when we go hence, we are (oh! awful truth) to be manifested in the light, yet unspeakable is the consolation that light is love. For what is illumination but union with God? We are made, O! Lord, in Thy love, for Thy love, and in order that we may love Thee."

Now what is it to love God, but to keep His commandments; or in other words, to obey His laws, or do the truths of His Word? Even the most spiritual or internal truths are merely external, so long as they remain only in the external memory, and are not implanted in the will; for it is from the will that the intellectual principle of a man is formed. "The intellectual principle† is in no case opened," says Swedenborg, "except when man perceives and loves truths, and the perception and love of truth is from good. Hence it is, that truths from good are what constitute the intellectual principle. He who believes that he hath an intellectual principle, who can reason dexterously against the truths of the Church, is very greatly deceived; for he sees nothing within himself but without himself: to see within himself is from heaven: to see without himself is from the world; and he who sees only from the

* Beginning of the Book of Genesis, p. 86. By the Rev. Isaac Williams.

† Arcana Celestia, 10,676.

world, sees from an infatuated lumen, which becomes mere thick darkness, when light from heaven flows into it."

It is only from good, therefore, that a genuine perception of truth is derived; and for this good nothing can be a substitute, not even the authority of the Church: for to see from this authority, is to see from without, not to perceive from within: the following therefore is worthy of our attention:—

"Neither* can truth be conjoined to the good which flows in through the internal man, and which is Divine in its origin, until truth is truth in will and act. This is the good of truth. For the good which flows in through the internal man and is Divine in its origin, flows in into the will, and there meets the good of truth which was insinuated through the external man."

The principle here inculcated is stated more at large in the following remarks;—

"By† interior truths," says Swedenborg, (viz., those which constitute the spiritual sense of Scripture,) "are meant those truths which are made truths of man's life and affection, thus which appertain to him inwardly; but not the truths which are only in the memory and are not made truths of life; for these truths are called external truths respectively, since they are not inscribed on the life, but only on the memory; for they reside in the external man and not in the internal. The truths of faith which are inscribed on the life, are in the will; and those things which are in the will, are in the internal man;

* Arcana Calestia, 4337.

† Ibid., 10,199.

for it is by the truths of faith that the internal man is opened, and that communication is effected with the Heavens. Hence it is evident, that the interior truths appertaining to man are those which are derived from the good of love and charity. . . . Whether we speak of the will, or of the love, it is the same thing; for what is of man's will is of his love. Wherefore truths inscribed on the life, which are called interior truths, are those which are inscribed on the love; thus which are inscribed on the will, from which they afterwards proceed when they come into speech and into act; for Heaven, in which the internal man is who is opened, doth not flow in immediately into truth, but mediately by the good of love. But Heaven cannot enter into man when the internal man is closed, since there is not any good of love there which receives. Wherefore, with those with whom the internal man is not opened by truths received from the good of love and charity, Hell flows in with falses derived from evil; howsoever the truths of faith, even the interior truths, may reside solely in the external man, that is, in the memory."

Moreover;—

"Inasmuch* as the light of truth with man is altogether according to the state of his love, so, in proportion as his love is kindled, in the same proportion the truth shines brightly; for the good of love is the vital fire itself, and the truth of faith is the intellectual light itself, which is intelligence and wisdom. Those two principles proceed by like degrees. By intelligence and wisdom is not meant the

* Arcana Celestia, 10,201.

faculty of thinking and of reasoning on any subject; for this is given alike with the evil as with the good; but by intelligence and wisdom is meant the faculty of seeing and of perceiving the truths and goods which are of faith and charity, and which are of love to the Lord. This faculty is not given except to those who are in illustration from the Lord; and they are so far in illustration as they are in love to Him, and charity toward the neighbor. For the Lord enters by good, thus by the love and charity appertaining to man, and leads into truths corresponding to good. . . . These observations are made to the intent that it may be known, that the faith of every one is as his love; and that it may be understood how it is that truth comes into its light when love comes into its clearness."

Such are the origin and nature of that internal light which constitutes the internal evidence of the spiritual interpretations of Holy Scripture. First of all, it enters into the internal reason of man in the form of celestial fire; in which state it constitutes in man the first principle of his internal will, and his internal reason; but in which state it is out of the conditions of Time and Space, and is 'hid with Christ in God.' It is with that superior region of the mind that angels and ministering spirits are in direct communion, and from which they see and know all that is taking place in the natural mind beneath. Being, however, a region of the mind above the direct consciousness of the individual, he has no perception of the things which are there transacted. But below this supernatural region, there is another called the

C natural or external rational mind, the ideas of which are conditioned in Time and Space; and are, in the regenerate man, in such perfect correspondence with the ideas of the superior mind, that the inferior mind is the reflected image and likeness of the superior; or, to use another simile, the external mind is the body, of which the internal mind is the soul; and as the soul forms the body to its own image and likeness, so the internal reason forms to its own image and likeness the external, and is thus represented in it and by it: thus the external mind becomes the mirror of the internal.

But is the term mirror merely metaphorical, or does it express a corresponding reality?

Every one must agree that Christian principles are not represented faithfully in an evil life. What concord is there between Christ and Belial, or what fellowship hath light with darkness? There must be a harmony between the outer life and the inner principles, in order for the former to represent the latter; in other words, the external must correspond with the internal in order to represent it. "Correspondence," observes Swedenborg,* "is the appearing of the internal in the external, and its representation there. Wherefore, where there is no correspondence, there is no appearing of the internal in the external; consequently, in the latter there is no representation of the former."

Representation then is effected by correspondence, and correspondence by the regeneration of the natural mind. It is only in virtue of correspondence,

* Arcana Celestia, 5423.

that spiritual ideas flow into natural, and that the natural thus becomes a mirror, a face to the spiritual; the spiritual serving as the soul, the natural as the body; the spiritual being the active power, the natural being the passive recipient; the natural being in Time and Space, the spiritual being in the Eternal world. The life which is called mystical, and is said to be 'hid with Christ in God,' belongs thus to the supernatural or spiritual region of the mind; whence it flows down into the natural, where it manifests itself in the form of love to our neighbor; from which love or charity the natural mind passes into the perception of the corresponding truths of faith. "Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and every one that loveth, is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is love. My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him."

But how does this mystical, internal, spiritual, or supernatural life, as it is variously called, flow down into the external mind? It might be thought useless or presumptuous to enquire into such a subject; and yet if this life has its laws, these laws are those of the human mind, and the knowledge of them is the highest kind of human knowledge; for it is the knowledge of those laws according to which man is created into the image and likeness of God. And, moreover, there is this advantage in attaining to a knowledge of this kind; that it includes not only a knowledge of the rational faculties, commonly so called, but more especially of the affections, or operations of the will; a knowledge founded upon an actual discipline of the mind, thus upon a consciousness of the very affections the nature of which it is our object to ascertain. Thus, it is a philosophy of the human mind intimately connected with rules of life and conduct. The supernatural or spiritual life is actually brought down into our moral, civil, social, and domestic life; so that the highest supernatural or spiritual life is brought down into the duties of a good father or mother, a good child, and a good subject.

The way in which this is effected is indicated by St. John: "He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love." This is a truth, the knowledge of which, as existing in the memory, makes a man neither better nor worse. But if a man keeps the commandments of God, then what was only truth in the understanding becomes good in the will. The influx of the Divine love is not into the truths of a man's memory, nor into the operations of the external rational faculties, even though he were another Aristotle or Sir William Hamilton. The truths which a man knows must pass into the will, and be there transformed into good. Into this good flows good, from the Alpha and Omega of all good, through the internal man into the external; and thus the truth in the external mind becomes appropriated because it is willed. In this way only is truth implanted in the mind by the Holy Spirit.

The result of this influx of the internal mind into the external, is the elimination of a new order of truths, called *spiritual* from the emanation of the spiritual into the natural and the subservience of the natural mind to the spiritual; just as man, who is defined to be a *rational animal*, is yet called simply *rational*, from the subservience of the animal to the rational. These spiritual truths as much belong to a spiritual degree of the mind as rational truths to a rational degree; or sensuous truths, commonly called facts, to the sensuous degree of the mind. This new order of truths is intermediate between the *supernatural* and the *natural*, and thus combines the conditions of both. It becomes the medium through which, in the human mind, the supernatural holds communion with the natural—heaven with the world. Exclude it, and you have no longer a medium of communication between the two: the result of which is, nothing is known of the supernatural; the kingdom of heaven becomes a mere figure of speech; and the supernatural itself a mere hypothesis, or myth.

But if to keep the Word of the Lord, is to cease to do evil and learn to do well; the influx of Divine good into the affections makes manifest the evil of the contrary affections. Hence the fears and fights of awakened consciences, and all those wonderful varieties of state which are set before us in the Psalms. States of sorrow:—"*The sorrows of death compassed me round about, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me.*" States of joy:—"*Oh God, my heart is fixed: I will sing and give praise.*" States of fear:—"*Fearfulness and trembling are come upon me, and horror hath overwhelmed me.*" States of despair:—"*My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken* c 2 me?" States of confidence:—"Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil." States of warfare:—"His truth shall be my shield and buckler. He teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight." States of peace:—"Great peace have they which love Thy law."

Such are some of the innumerable states through which the natural mind passes, in the process of being made a representative, or mirror, of the internal mind with which angels and spirits are in communion; so that the natural subserves to man as the index of what is taking place in the supernatural region of his being; and the spiritual sense of Scripture, obtained by spiritual interpretations, consists of no other than the truths which minister to this representation. Take away from such a man the spiritual sense of Scripture, and you cut off his intercourse with heaven; you leave him to die of famine: hungry and thirsty his soul fainteth in him; you obliterate that part of the mind which is their receptacle; and, if man be designed to be the image and likeness of God, take away that which creates him into this image and likeness, and you take away his humanity; and humanity being taken away, Divinity will disappear with it. It is the son who acknowledges the existence of a father; but take away filiety, and there will be no paternity; man will become a fool, and Nature will become God.

The denial of the spiritual sense of Scripture in the interpretation of the Book of Revelation, corresponds with the denial of Divine wisdom in the interpretation of the Book of Nature. Atheism is the literalism of natural philosophy, as literalism is the atheism of Christianity. For as the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy; so the testimony of a Divine Creator is the spirit of Natural Philosophy. Carry out to its legitimate results the denial of the spiritual sense of Scripture, and there will be no more foundation for Natural than for Revealed Theology. In the end Christianity must become extinct; and in its place will prevail that outspoken Atheism which, even now, has among so many classes spread desolation.

Admit, on the other hand, the spiritual sense of the Word of God, and the Lord with His own Divine light enters by influx into the natural sense of the Word, and into the light thereof abiding in man. "In this case," observes Swedenborg,* "man acknowledges the truth from an interior perception, and afterwards sees it in his own thought; and this as often as he is in the affection of truth for truth's sake; for perception comes from affection, and thought from perception, and thence arises acknowledgment which is called faith." It is this state of mind which makes the countenance beautiful, and imparts to it its peculiarly Christian aspect.

"Beautiful," says Mr. Isaac Williams,† "is the human countenance as considered with regard to itself only, as seen in the external features; of wonderful adaption, contrivance, and form; but how much more so when lit up with the light of the soul within, that hidden mysterious light which kindles

* The Doctrine of the New Jerusalem respecting the Sacred Scriptures, art. 58.

† Beginning of the Book of Genesis, p. 125.

into life, and speaks through the outward lineaments, but only partially and faintly expresses itself through them; living, as it were, in a spiritual world of its own, which lies beyond the visible countenance."

So much for the external evidence of that spiritual light which flows first of all into the internal reason of man, in which state it is described by Swedenborg as a gentle burning flame;* and from which, in the natural mind, it enkindles the will with new affections, and thence enlightens the understanding with new light—veritable light from Him who is 'the LIGHT of the World.'

It has, however, been maintained, that the first step toward a true knowledge of the Bible is not interpretation, but Criticism; because, before we expound an author, we ought to procure the most correct text of that author; in fine, that unless we know what are the words which the author has used, we do not know what are the words we have to interpret. But it becomes a serious question whether this rule has not been woefully abused. Being regarded as first in the order of theological study, it has also come to be regarded as first in importance; and the result has been, that it has for the most part superseded every other enquiry; so that while progress has been made in the criticism of the Sacred Scriptures, no progress has been made in its Inter-

* From the Veni Creator :—

"Thou art the Comforter; the gift

Of God most high; the fire of love,

The everlasting spring of joy,

And holy wisdom from above."

pretation, and the doctrine of Inspiration has dwindled down into a mere tradition. Criticism may furnish the genuine text, but can never furnish the interpretation. It has indeed attempted to do so, because it is concerned with the meaning of words, not with the meaning of things. Hence its connection with the literal and grammatical sense, with figurative or metaphorical interpretation of words. But where the mind has been absorbed with the meaning of words only, its habitual study of the letter confines it to the letter, and makes it intensely averse to anything higher. The critical scholar, therefore, in ascertaining the meaning of words, looks for their meaning in the mind of the author; and it being assumed in the case of the Bible, that the writer is the same with the author, hence naturally flows the rule, that we are to interpret the Bible in the same manner as any other book. The doctrine of Inspiration is accordingly adapted to this view of the case. So that it has been said, 'That with the Apostles of old, Divine Inspiration supplied the place of human learning; but with the Apostles of modern times, human learning supplies the place of Divine Inspiration.' No wonder that in such a case grammarians, linguists, critics, antiquarians, and logicians should supply the place of prophets; and employ their learning in pointing out the errors of Inspiration.

Accordingly it is observed by one of these writers that—

"The labors of critics have been tending to make it more and more manifest, that the popularly received opinions regarding the strict historical accuracy of the Pentateuch are untenable; and that we must regard these venerable books, not as the homogeneous compositions of a single author, who was inspired to draw up an infallible record of primeval history, but as memorials of the past which were handed down, partly in written documents, and partly by oral tradition,—which were thus in part liable to all the alterations and legendary additions incident to the last-mentioned mode of transmission; and which, after being digested by an older writer, were eventually amplified by men who viewed the early part, in a considerable degree, through the medium supplied by later events and contemporary institutions."

"If," says the Editor of this criticism, "there are some things in the Pentateuch which we cannot piously suppose to have proceeded immediately from Jehovah Himself, nor even to be worthy of His servant Moses; it is comforting to remember how little is, or can be known, of the authorship of the books which go by His name."

"The work of Interpretation remains to be undertaken, and that work cannot be carried through, without sitting in judgment, as it has been invidiously called, upon the inspired writers."

Now, as far as mere critics have hitherto undertaken the work of Interpretation, they have shewn themselves faithful fellow-laborers in the school of Bishop Marsh, and zealously contend for a single sense: consequently, are directly opposed to any spiritual interpretation, whether of the Old or New Testament. Moreover, they cordially agree with that school of Theology which says that the Law is dead, and that the Old Testament has passed away: only they would further remind the Church, that having carried out these principles into the investigation of the Old Testament, they would investigate the New upon the same principles; and accordingly, say they,—

"If after an unprejudiced enquiry we are driven to conclude, that the Gospels have not always preserved a perfectly accurate record of the life of Christ; if his discourses, after being long handed down by oral transmission, and occasionally modified and coloured by the prepossessions and imaginations of the reporters, have not invariably maintained their original and genuine character; if we see reason to believe that the apostles made use of some reasonings which were inconclusive, entertained some opinions which were unfounded, and differed more or less from one another on points of Christian doctrine; it would seem that our range of scriptural data for the settlement of doctrinal questions may be thereby restricted."

From the statements already made in the present Tract, we must leave the reader to form his own conclusions with respect to the position which Swedenborg's writings occupy in the present controversy concerning the Inspiration and Interpretation of the Scriptures; reminding him, at the same time, of the remark of an author already quoted;* that

"Every accession to our knowledge, every new argument which throws light upon the structure—the anatomy if you will—or the meaning of Holy Scripture, every fresh particle of truth, from whatever theological school it proceeds, we ought indeed most thankfully to receive."

If, in the passages quoted from Swedenborg, there may appear to some a strangeness and novelty in the mode of expression, or in the manner of contemplating the human mind (as when speaking of various

* Sermons by Lord Arthur Hervey, p. 29.

degrees in the mind, of influx, of the internal and external mind, not to mention other expressions); it should be remembered, that the subject itself is new, viz., the laws which regulate the spiritual life, regarded as the life of the will and the life of the intellect; in other words, the laws by which the supernatural descends into the natural and becomes represented in it. Those laws are as much laws of order as any which regulate the logical processes of thought, and the life founded upon them constitutes Angelic Wisdom; for they are the laws by which the Infinite causes itself to be represented in the finite, the Divine in the human; and when that representation is accomplished, then are fulfilled upon earth those words of the Apocalypse, "And they shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads."

"With regard to such passages as are thought to breathe a cruel or vindictive spirit, unlike the spirit of the Gospel, the answer will probably be of a mixed nature, and will perhaps lead to the discovery of a peculiar class of texts, where the words are man's words with one meaning, and the words of the Spirit at the same time with another meaning. David may, in that spirit of oriental vindictiveness which had not yet been tamed by the love and pity of a crucified Redeemer, or by the Spirit of the risen and ascended Saviour,—David may have been praying for the punishment of his own inveterate enemies, and yet the Spirit may have used the very same words as prophetic of the judgments which would be brought down upon those who betrayed and crucified the Lord of glory."—The Inspiration of Holy Scripture. Five Sermons. By the Rev. Lord Arthur Hervey, M.A., etc.; p. 73.

FINIS.

BRING AN