04. THE WORD OF GOD

FORMERLY OF EASTER COLLEGE, OXFORD.

No. III.

"My Lord, I do not know that a more important controversy than this has engaged the attention of the Church for three hundred years; and that it will be decided, is as sure as that there is a God in heaven."—Defence of the Rev. Rowland Williams, D.D., in the Court of Arches; p. 319.

1862.

HAVE the words of Scripture more than one meaning—a spiritual as well as a literal? If so, to what books of Scripture, or what passages, does this principle of Interpretation apply; and what are the rules of its application? This is the question now agitated by theologians;—a question which is destined to put the Church of England,—nay, the whole Catholic Church, upon its trial.

"Here* we find ourselves, as might have been foreseen," say the Aids to Faith, "in undisguised conflict with the Sceptical writers of our own time. That Scripture has one meaning, and one meaning only, is their fundamental axiom: it is seen to be and felt to be one of the keys of their position."

How came these writers into possession of this key? Has not Bishop Marsh shewn that it was in the hands of the Church, before it was in the hands of the Sceptics? Did the Church hand over the key to the Sceptics? So say the Sceptics: 'We are only adhering,' they affirm, 'to the principles maintained at the Reformation, and from thence down to the present time, viz., that, as a general rule, Scrip-

* Aids to Faith, p. 392.

A 2 ture has one meaning, and one meaning only.' Now, as that one meaning is the literal, and the literal meaning is the human element: so the literal meaning only is the human element only, and as such excludes the Divine, consequently Divine Inspiration. The greater part of the Bible, therefore, as interpreted upon this principle, is not the Word of God, nor is it divinely inspired, in the strict sense of the terms. It relates to matters of history and science, and contains a certain amount of poetry; but the human element contemplated apart from the Divine being fallible, it ought to excite no surprise, say the sceptics, if in matters of history and science the Bible should be wrong, and even some of its poetry be more than indifferent.

"Great* disquiet has been excited of late years in the minds of pious persons, by the fact that the advancing discoveries of Geology have appeared to conflict with the statements of Genesis regarding the formation of the world, and its various constituent elements; and strenuous efforts have been made to reconcile these discrepancies."—Now if discrepancies exist on one subject, why not, it is asked, upon others? If because discrepancies exist, it be argued that the Almighty did not intend that Revelation should give us a correct account of Geological facts; why must we suppose He intended to give us a correct account of historical facts? Accordingly it is maintained, that "the labors of critics have been tending to make it more and more manifest, that the

* Brief Examination of Prevalent Opinions on Inspiration, by a Layman; p. 144. Edited by the Rev. H. B. Wilson.

popularly received opinions regarding the strict historical accuracy of the Pentateuch, are untenable."

Is it the fact, then, that in the first chapter of Genesis, any such statement is made as to oblige us, in all candor and honesty, to admit that the narrative is nothing more than an ancient legend? In answering this question, what have they to say who have undertaken to defend the narrative? One says, it is a series of visions; another, it is a parable; another, an unfulfilled plan; another, a Psalm.

The mere fact of this dissidence among the defenders of the faith is regarded by others as a very serious matter:—

"To* urge such suppositions is not to defend the ark of God, but to abandon it to the enemy. If the first chapter of Genesis be poetry, or vision, or parable, it is not historic truth, which is just what objectors assert. . . . Are we to believe that Divine revelation begins with an unscientific misstatement of physical truth? If the first chapter be the offspring of human error, where does Divine truth begin?"

Accordingly, the first chapter of Genesis is to be understood, says Dr. Sewell, in the strictly literal sense, although not in that alone:†—

"There is an account given us by Moses, who, unless the whole history of the Pentateuch, and of the Jews, and of our Saviour and of His Church, be one monstrous imposture, and delusion, and blasphemy, must have been authorized by God to write what he has written—there is an account very brief,

* Aids to Faith, p. 198, 199.

† A Letter on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture, addressed to a Student, by W. Sewell, D.D., late Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Oxford; p. 42.

but very simple and positive, perfectly divested of all appearance of poetry, or fiction, or legendary romance, or philosophic theory; an account so simple, so historical in its form and character, that if it be not intended to be taken literally, the form of it must act as a deception, and that deception sanctioned and warranted by all the later Prophets and Apostles, our Lord Himself included, who have subsequently referred to and adopted it as true;—there is an account that God in six days made the heavens and the earth, and all the living things in the earth, in a certain order. And all the testimony which declares to us the inspiration of Scripture, declares it to us, including the Book of Genesis. The very name of the book proves this."

Dr. Sewell seems, however, aware of the signs of the times in relation to this subject :*—

"There is," says he, "at this moment, especially in younger minds, a fevered anxious looking for some possible contingency, some new discovery of Science, some keener criticism, some development of intellect, which may shake and shatter to fragments the whole fabric of our Christian belief. It is this coming era of new enlightenment, which forms the boast of the infidel and the alarm of the weak believer; and the vague prospect and menace of which seem almost to paralyze the arms even of the bravest defenders of their faith. We are advancing, it is said, each day: Progress, the spread of knowledge, sound criticism, all is bearing us onward upon a course, of which none can see the end; only we can discern that we are slipping from our moorings; and the land on which we once stood firm, the solid, clearly discerned ground of objective Gospel truth, is shifting before us. Are we quitting it for ever? Must we abandon it?"

"God† only knows how rapidly is coming upon us, rising

* Ibid., p. 31.

† Ibid., p. 63.

out of a little cloud no bigger than a man's hand, the storm of whirlwind and tempest, which will destroy the very principles of faith from the face of the earth."

In the *Replies* to the Essayists are presentiments of a similar future:*—

"As the revival of literature in the sixteenth century produced the Reformation, so the growth of the critical spirit, and the change that has come over mental science, and the mere increase of knowledge of all kinds, threaten now a *revolution* less external, but not less *profound*."

In like manner, what says the Critic?†—

"It does not, however, fall within the scope of this treatise to make any attempt to foretell what may be the dogmatical results of the admission of a *fallible* element in the Scriptures. And a very little consideration will suffice to shew, that it would be quite impossible to predict, with any approach to exactness, the form which the Theology of the future will assume. For that *it must undergo some change*, appears—if we may judge from the history of the past—to be inevitable."

So again the *Defence of Dr. Williams* in the Court of Arches:‡—

"My Lord, I do not know that a more important controversy than this has engaged the attention of the Church for three hundred years, and that it will be decided, is as sure as that there is a God in heaven."

In this controversy there are two questions at issue: the one, whether in matters of science and history the Bible be occasionally wrong: the other,

* *Replies to Essays and Reviews*, p. 348.

† *Brief Examination of Prevalent Opinions on Inspiration*, by a Layman; p. 242.

‡ *Defence of Dr. Williams*, p. 319.

whether, even supposing it to be right, it can always lay claim to being *Divinely inspired*, by having always a Divine element within the human; thus whether it can lay claim to be called the Word of God. These are two distinct questions. The latter is the only one with which we are at present concerned, because it is the only one which directly involves the subject of Divine Inspiration; for even granting the Bible to be right in matters of science and history, this would not prove it to be *Divinely inspired*. We have already said, that the Divine Inspiration consists in a spiritual sense being contained within the literal, a Divine element within the human. But the sceptics affirm that "Scripture has one meaning, and one meaning only: this is seen and felt to be one of the keys of their position." How has this been answered? By alleging its spiritual sense? Let us take the evidence of a modern Church Periodical:*—

"The infidel could not proceed a step in discrediting the Bible as the vehicle of Inspiration and truth, without Professor Jowett's theory that every passage of Scripture is to be tied down to one literal meaning; we are thankful therefore to find that this subject is submitted to *the most searching enquiry*. It is obvious, and yet we have not seen it remarked, that all the cavils against the inspiration of the first chapter of Genesis, are based on this fallacy."

What fallacy? That the Scripture is tied down to one literal meaning in the first chapter of Genesis. Where then is its spiritual meaning? In the *Aids to Faith*? In the *Seven Replies*? In the answers entitled *Faith and Peace*? In any other of the

* Literary Churchman, Feb. 15, 1862.

innumerable answers? Point it out, if any one can; if he cannot, what is the cause of this omission? The general principle of a spiritual sense has indeed been acknowledged; as by Mr. Isaac Williams in his Beginning of the Book of Genesis, and in the Types of Genesis by Mr. A. Jukes. These works, however, have but recently been published: they are comparatively unknown; and the former is rather a collection of devotional meditations, than the result of any formal system of interpretation; the reason of which we shall see in the sequel. In the meantime, the controversy is fast developing itself into a battle between the spiritual and merely literal systems of interpretation—the battle of THE WORD OF GOD. Upon the issue of this contest will depend the future of the Church, and the Church of the Future. It has now come to be acknowledged that*—"a mere literalist, no doubt, can scarcely be said to believe in any Inspiration at all. He has limited himself to the one human writer, to the exclusion of the Inspiring Spirit."

Well, then, let us endeavor to find out by "a most searching enquiry," what is the reason that the first Chapter of Genesis has been tied down to one literal meaning, to the exclusion of the spiritual; or rather, what is the reason that this method of Interpretation has been applied to nearly the whole Word of God. We are thankful, says a Church Periodical, to find that this subject is submitted to "a most searching enquiry."—"Enquiry upon these subjects," we are assured, "has become a necessity;"—

* Guardian, March 5, 1862.

A 3

"Infidelity* is assailing us afresh, and with a power and under circumstances sufficiently new to invest its assault with a character of special danger. It is no longer the coarse and shallow and unsatisfying infidelity of last century. It appeals, on the contrary, to the deepest and highest faculties in human nature, and it is equipped for the conflict with an array of profound and extensive historical and philological criticism. It claims, more than ever, to speak in the interests of knowledge, morality, and truth, against a theology irreconcilable with them."

Are there, then, certain Sacred Books entitled to be received as the Word of God in the strictest sense of the terms, in virtue of their having a Divine element within the human? Are we, in fine, in possession of any Word of God at all? We maintain that there are certain books entitled to this claim. The question, it is said, is not whether the books called the Word of God constitute the Bible, but whether they are contained in the Bible. No: the question first of all is, What do we mean by the Word of God? When this is once settled, we may proceed to consider whether these books constitute the canon or are contained in the canon. The former is a question which relates to Inspiration, the latter more properly to canonicity.

Our argument is directed not so much against Scepticism as against the causes of Scepticism.—What, then, do we mean by the Word of God? for upon the meaning of this expression will depend the doctrine of Divine Inspiration. The meaning is thus laid down by the Church of England, in the Book of Homilies.

* Replies to the Essays and Reviews, p. 348.

"Consider* that the Scripture, in what strange form soever it be pronounced, is the Word of the living God; let that always come to your remembrance, which is so oft repeated of the prophet Esaias: 'The mouth of the Lord,' saith he, 'hath spoken it; the Almighty and Everlasting God, who with his only word created heaven and earth, hath decreed it: the Lord of Hosts, whose ways are in the seas, whose paths are in the deep waters; that Lord and God, by whose word all things in heaven and in earth are created, governed, and preserved, hath so provided it. The God of gods, and Lord of all lords, yea, God that is God alone, incomprehensible, almighty, and everlasting, he hath spoken it, it is his word.' It cannot, therefore, be but truth, which proceedeth from the God of all truth; it cannot but be wisely and prudently commanded what Almighty God hath devised, how vainly soever, through want of grace, we miserable wretches do imagine and judge of his most holy Word."

'This,' it is said by opponents, 'is, nevertheless, an opinion and not a doctrine: the authors of the Homilies had a right to give their opinion in a work designed to consist of mere popular harangues; but it is nowhere laid down by the Church of England as her doctrine.' Now I shall not refer to the Westminster Confession, but to another work not alluded to on either side—The Doctrine of the New Jerusalem respecting the Sacred Scripture, by Emanuel Swedenborg. The first article is, "That the Sacred Scripture or the Word is Divine Truth itself." Accordingly Swedenborg observes;—

"It is universally confessed that the Word is from God, is divinely inspired, and consequently Holy; but still it has remained a secret to this day in what

* Second Tome: Homily 10: An Information, etc., 2nd Part.

part of the Word its Divinity resides; inasmuch as in the letter it appears like a common writing, composed in a strange style, neither so sublime nor so elegant as that which distinguishes the best secular compositions. Hence it is, that whosoever worships Nature instead of God, or in preference to God, and in consequence of such worship makes himself and his own *proprium* the centre and fountain of his thoughts, instead of deriving them out of heaven from the Lord, may easily fall into error concerning the Word, and into contempt for it; and say within himself whilst he reads it, 'What is the meaning of this passage? What the meaning of that? Is it possible that this should be Divine? Is it possible that God, whose wisdom is infinite, should speak in such a manner? Where is its holiness? Or whence can it be derived but from superstition and credulity?'

"He however who reasons thus, does not reflect that Jehovah the Lord, who is God of heaven and earth, spake the Word by Moses and the prophets; and that consequently it must be Divine Truth; inasmuch as what Jehovah the Lord himself speaks can be nothing else. Nor does such a one consider that the Lord, who is the same with Jehovah, spake the Word written by the Evangelists, many parts from his own mouth, and the rest from the Spirit of his mouth, which is the Holy Spirit. Hence it is, as He Himself declares, that in His words there is life; and that He is the Light which enlightens, and that He is the Truth."

In conformity with the same view of the subject Dr. Wordsworth observes;—

"Not* only are the writers of Holy Scripture moved by the Holy Ghost; but the writing itself, every part of the whole writing, is described by St. Paul as filled with the breath of God. The Book is inspired, and therefore the Scriptures are called living oracles, and are represented as speaking, and as endued with foreknowledge. The Spirit of God animates them. They are saturated and bathed with the Divine Light. They become Light. 'Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my paths.'"

Thus far concerning the Divinity of the Word of God. But the Bible, we are told,† in whatever light we regard it, presents to us two distinct elements, the Divine and the Human. On the one hand, God has granted a Revelation; on the other, human language has been made a channel to convey, and men have been chosen as the agents to record it. From this point all theories on the subject of Inspiration take their rise; and all the varieties of opinion respecting it, have sprung from the manner in which the fact referred to has been taken into the account.

There are two leading systems in this department of Theology: the one suggested by the prominence assigned to the Divine element: the other by the prominence assigned to the human. The former of these systems practically ignores the human element of the Bible: the latter, the Divine, and is (we are told) the characteristic of the great majority of modern theories of Inspiration.

* The Inspiration of the Bible. Five Lectures delivered in Westminster Abbey. By C. Wordsworth, D.D., etc., p. 10.

† The Inspiration of Holy Scripture, etc. By W. Lee, D.D., Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Dublin; and Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Dublin. Second Edition, p. 18.

The whole difficulty, in regard to Divine Inspiration, lies in adjusting the relation between the Divine and human elements;—

"The difficulty," says Professor Browne,* "of enunciating a definite theory of Inspiration consists exactly in this—in assigning the due weight respectively to the Divine and human elements. . . . It seems pretty generally agreed among thoughtful men at present, that definite theories of Inspiration are doubtful and dangerous. The existence of a human element, and the existence of a Divine element, are generally acknowledged; but the exact relation of the one to the other it may be difficult to define."

The reason, here stated, for which no definite theory of Inspiration can be given, is, because it is difficult to assign any definite relation between the Divine and human elements. A similar reason is assigned by Dr. Wordsworth,† "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." For who, says Dr. Wordsworth, would attempt to define the limits where God's nature ends, and where man's nature begins, in the Person of Christ?

"The almost unanimous voice of Christendom," says Mr. Swainson,‡ "rejects the thought that the Books are merely human: but yet the considerations I laid before you on

* Aids to Faith, p. 318, 303.

† The Inspiration of the Bible. Five Lectures delivered in Westminster Abbey. Page 7.

‡ The Authority of the New Testament, etc. By C. A. Swainson, M.A., Principal of the Theological College and Prebendary of Chichester, etc.; p. 143, 144.

Sunday, as clearly shew that they are not all purely divine.—

What then is my object now in drawing your attention to this? It is chiefly, I may say, only to help you to see that the precise point wherein the difficulty lies is the point of union of these two principles; and there to leave it. I cannot solve the difficulty and I am not attempting to do it. . . .

Any mode of reconciling these facts I cannot give to you;

nor do I think that one exists. And so, my brethren, as a book we leave it. . . It stands unique; it stands alone. We cannot therefore consider it as coming under any law, it cannot be understood by any analogy: law, that is, of other writings; analogy, that is, of other books. It is human: it is Divine."

The grand difficulty, therefore, which perplexes theologians with regard to the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures, lies in the union of the Divine and human elements. But as the Bible is the "written

Word of God," and our Lord the "living Word of

God," the origin of the difficulty lies in the prior and corresponding union of the Divine and human natures in the Person of our Lord Himself. Hence, the language of Dr. Hey in regard to the union of the two natures in the living Word, is much the same with that of Mr. Swainson in regard to the union of the two elements in the written Word.

"I confess I do not understand," says he,* "how the Divine and human natures are joined in Him."

"I own this connection with humanity, and enjoying rewards, to be above my comprehension; and I believe it to be above the comprehension of every man."

What is the reason of this? "We own," says Dr.

* Lectures in Divinity delivered to the University of Cambridge, book iv., art. ii., sec. xxvi., xxxii. Ibid., art. iv., sec. xx.

Hey, "that we cannot reconcile Christ's Divine qualities with his human."—How then does the case stand? The qualities of the Divine nature cannot be conceived as reconciled with those of the human nature; and yet we are to believe that "the Divine and human natures united in Christ are never to be divided; are inseparabiliter conjunctæ." The difficulty lies, then, in conceiving how two things which cannot, in our thoughts, be reconciled with each other, are nevertheless to be conceived as inseparably conjoined; how, in fine, the Bridegroom can be inseparably conjoined to the Bride, while the two remain unreconciled to each other. In ordinary life such an inseparable connection is commonly spoken of as an unhappy marriage: there is a nominal union, but a real disunion; an external inseparability, but an internal separation: such a state being anything but a state of sabbatical peace. No wonder therefore that, in this case, as there is no real marriage-union between the Divine and human natures, the analogy should be regarded as having no foundation, and consequently as visionary. Therefore, as Dr. Hey says, "this part seems little attended to by Commentators;" as is very natural with what is above the comprehension of every man: and why should not Commentators attend as little to the union of the Divine and human elements in the written Word, as to the union of the Divine and human natures in the living Word?

Upon this subject, however, we are prudently warned that Scylla and Charybdis are both to be avoided.

If we give undue prominence to the Divine, we fall into the error of the Apollinarians and Eutychians.

If we give undue prominence to the human, we fall into the error of the Socinians. If we assign too great a difference between the Divine and human natures, we fall into the error of the Nestorians. The difference between the controversies in the early Church and those in the present day is this, that in the former case, the doctrine of the union of the Divine with the Human had reference to the Personal Word and not the Written; in the present day, it has reference both to the Written Word and to the Personal. In this lies the magnitude of the contest.

Now the doctrine of a Plenary Inspiration of Scripture is opposed to that of its *partial* inspiration; and the doctrine of its *partial* inspiration is that which has been most generally received. "All *parts* are not of equal necessity or weight," says Baxter; and Bishop Warburton says, "Thus* we see the advantages resulting from a *partial* inspiration..."—This doctrine of the *partial* inspiration of the written Word has its counterpart in the doctrine of the *partial* union of the human and Divine in the Person of the living Word. "Were the question asked," says Mr. Mansel,† "in the form which the context of my words fairly suggests,—namely, is the Church of England prepared to say that the Human Nature of Christ is but a *partial* not a *complete*, a relative not an absolute manifestation of God? Every moderately well-informed theologian would at once reply in the affirmative." For,‡ "The essence of Deity is one

* Defence of Dr. Williams, p. 132, 142.

† Second Letter to Professor Goldwyn Smith, p. 62.

‡ The Inspiration of Holy Scripture, p. 26.

thing; the essence of humanity is another. Were it not so, the Apollinarian or the Eutychian heresy would be the true Catholic Faith."

Thus for example: Dr. Lee, when speaking of the Inspiration of the written Word of God, observes,—

"In short the Divine and human elements, mutually interpenetrating and combined, form one vital, organic whole;—not mechanically, still less ideally, but, as it has been termed, dynamically united"—

"words," says Mr. Swainson,* "which might almost have been taken from the error of Eutyches as to the two natures blended into one."

Thus a plenary union instead of a partial, is Eutychianism!

If now the difficulties concerning the union of the Divine and human elements in the Written Word, may be traced up to corresponding difficulties concerning the union of the Divine and human natures in the Personal Word; so we may, finally, trace up the difficulties concerning the latter to the doctrines which are held concerning the miraculous conception.

For instance; when it is said that Mary was the mother of God, or that it was the Divinity which was the Son of God, and not the humanity, in this case the prominence is given to the Divine Nature. When the miraculous conception is denied or ignored, and hence the Divinity of the Messiah, the prominence is given to the human nature. When each nature is regarded as so different the one from the other, that the one is united to the other not by the influx of the Divine into the human, but simply by a co-

* Authority of the New Testament, etc., p. 147.

existence of the two in one Person, as in the doctrine of Pre-established harmony (which is in reality the prevailing doctrine), there is no real but only a nominal union.

And if the union of the Divine and human natures ceases to be real, for the same reason there can be no real union of heaven with earth; no real union of the Church in heaven with the Church upon earth; no real union of the spiritual world with the natural, or of the supernatural with the natural; whence an entire disbelief in angelic appearances, a denial of miracles altogether, and of the exercise of Divine Power in the creation of the world. Thus, for instance,* it is said :—

"Of course, if Professor Baden Powell's theory be true, that the physical and spiritual worlds are so separate that they can never come into contact, then all this is impossible. But then all creation is impossible. The spiritual could never have created the material. Indeed, the union of soul and body must be impossible; at all events, all religious knowledge must be impossible. It can be founded on no evidence, and can result only from certain convictions of the mind, wholly incapable of being tested as to their truth."

Thus a partial union or no union in the one case, leads to a partial union or no union in the others. When, therefore, we consider the nature and extent of the relation between the Divine and Human elements in Scripture, what vast and momentous subjects do they involve! They involve the union of the Divine and Human natures at the Incarnation; the process of perfecting that union by the glorification

* Aids to Faith, p. 305.

of the Humanity; the union of Christ with his Church; the union of the Divine and human elements in the written Word of God, thus the doctrine of Divine Inspiration; the union of the spiritual world with the natural, thus of the Church in heaven with the Church upon earth, as also the appearance of angels from the Church in heaven to the Church upon earth; and, lastly, the union of the soul with the body. All these subjects are inseparably connected with each other; and no one can be treated of effectually, without comprehending them all. This is the principle upon which Swedenborg has proceeded in his wonderful treatises upon these subjects.

Let us, however, for a moment suppose that all these things are past man's comprehension; that to attempt to know them is only an attempt to be wise above what is written; that all that Swedenborg has written is mere speculation and conjecture about that which has not been revealed; that theories of Inspiration are what scepticism is ever craving for; that explanations of the union of the Divine and human elements in the Word of God, have not been vouchsafed, and as such that it is vain and unbecoming to demand them.

This is the position which the Church has held with respect to these subjects during the last century: this position it holds now, but under a marvellous change of circumstances. Enquiry has commenced; the controversy is not only of the Church with sceptics, but of the Church with herself; and the question is, what direction shall Theology take; shall it be toward the system of naturalism indicated by the

Essayists and Reviewers, or toward a system of supernaturalism, such as has been indicated by Swedenborg's writings? The intermediate course hitherto pursued, of discouraging enquiry and placing the controversy out of reach, has become no longer possible. The position is untenable, as we proceed to shew. Let the case be stated by the Aids to Faith.

"But* it may be asked, how do we conceive that this Inspiration took place? What is our theory of the process? What do we conceive to be the modus agendi of the Holy Spirit in the heart of man? This we plainly refuse to answer. We know not, and do not presume to enquire into the manner; we recognize and believe in the fact. Individual writers may have speculated; imagery, suitable or unsuitable, may have been introduced as illustrative by a few thinkers in early ages; but the Catholic Church has never put forward a theory. On this subject she has always maintained a solemn reserve: she declares to us that in the Scripture the Holy Ghost speaks to us by the mouths of men; she permits us to recognize a Divine and a human element; but, in reference to the nature, extent, and special circumstances of the union, she warns us not to seek to be wise above what has been written, not to endanger our faith with speculations and conjectures about that which has not been revealed."

Now these, it will be granted, are opinions and not doctrines; and as such fairly open to investigation. Accordingly, as soon as we begin to enquire, they assume the character of dissolving views. There are three principal subjects which are here referred to: First, the modus agendi of the Holy Spirit on the heart of man;—

* Aids to Faith, p. 413.

"The theory of human life," says Mr. Swainson,* "is a mystery; the theory of our ordinary life in God is still more a mystery: the theory of that extraordinary life in God which at times apostles and prophets lived, must ever remain a mystery insoluble. Some of its characteristics we may discover: some of its properties we learn; but as it is in itself we can never know it."

Can we ever know anything as it is in itself?—However, the laws of the life that is hid with Christ in God; the laws by which the Holy Spirit takes up his abode in our spirit, and thenceforth works upon us, leading us upwards and onwards, formed the principal subject of our last Tract; where it was seen, that the spiritual life is subject to laws, that those laws are the laws of goodness and truth, and as such constitute the spiritual sense of Scripture. The spiritual life, therefore, was seen to be, what it has been admitted to be, not only a legitimate but a most useful and important subject of investigation.

Secondly, as to the nature of Inspiration, we shall find that enquiry into it is strongly recommended. For instance:—

"With reference," says Dr. Lee,† "to the nature of Inspiration itself, and to the possibility of reconciling the unquestionable stamp of humanity impressed upon every page of the Bible, with that undoubting belief in its perfection and infallibility which is the Christian's most precious inheritance,—it may safely be maintained that in English theology almost nothing has been done; and that no effort has hitherto been made to grapple directly with the difficulties of the subject. At least I am unacquainted with any works in our language

* Authority of the New Testament, etc., p. 133.

† The Inspiration of Holy Scripture, Preface to First Edition, p. 16.

(with the exception of Mr. Westcott's Gospel Harmony, where some valuable but brief remarks are thrown out incidentally, and the treatise of Mr. Morell, to which I shall presently revert) that even profess to entertain the question."*

Now why is it that nothing has been done with regard to enquiry into the nature of the Inspiration of Scripture? Is it because such an investigation would be presumptuous or unprofitable? Not in the least; for it seems that as soon as enquiry is commenced in earnest:†—

"Valuable hints, casting light upon the nature of Inspiration, are being continually suggested; conclusive evidence in reply to the cavils of objectors is gradually accumulating; many positive arguments in support of the Church's belief in the divine influence under which the Bible was composed, repeatedly present themselves in the writings of theologians; but the information thus existing is only to be discovered after diligent and patient toil."

On the other hand, what is the consequence of neglecting this enquiry into the nature of Inspiration?—

"There has gradually sprung up a want of definiteness, and an absence of consistency in the language used when speaking of Inspiration; owing to which, those who are most sincere in maintaining the Divine character of the Bible, have not unfrequently been betrayed into concessions fatal to its supreme authority.—And not only is there a vagueness in the language which most writers employ when approaching this topic, there is also a want of completeness in the method usually adopted when discussing it."

* The works of Swedenborg, all of which are translated into English, and have passed through numerous editions, are full of the subject.

† Dr. Lee on Inspiration, etc., Preface, p. 17.

But do the consequences of this neglect end here?

By no means; for here the Sceptics take up the subject:—

"Here we find ourselves, as might have been foreseen, in undisguised conflict with the sceptical writers of our own time.

That Scripture has one meaning and one meaning only is their fundamental axiom; it is seen to be and felt to be one of the keys of their position."

But who are the sceptical writers? Ought it to surprise us that many of them are Clergymen of the Church of England?*—

"They tell us in language of unrestrained confidence, that no man of candour can fail to acknowledge the existence not only of mistakes as to matters of minor importance, but of such positive 'patches of human passion and error,' such 'weakness of memory,' or such 'mingling of it with imagination,' such 'feebleness of inference, such confusion of illustration with argument,' and such variations in judgment and opinion, that in the study of Scripture we must continually have recourse to 'a rectifying or verifying faculty,' that we may properly be enabled to separate the Divine from the human,'—what is true, real, and unprejudiced, from what is perverted, mistaken, and false."

Now, observes Dr. Williams,† "I say the Church has left open every question as to the nature and mode of Inspiration in general; and also in particular the question as to the particular kind of Inspiration to be ascribed to a given passage."

"Is‡ it credible, that if the Church had held any broad, intelligible doctrine on the subject of the Inspiration, the criticism, or the Interpretation of the Bible, that declaration

* Aids to Faith, p. 414.

† See his Defence, p. 171.

‡ Ibid., p. 63.

should be absent from the Thirty-nine Articles, the three Creeds, and the Catechism?"

So much for the state of the Church with regard to the nature of Inspiration. What has she to say concerning the extent of Divine Inspiration in the Scripture, or what are called the "proportions" of the Divine and Human elements?

"Theories* of inspiration is what scepticism is ever craving for; it is the voice of hapless unbelief that is ever loudest in its call for explanation of the manner of the assumed union of the Divine with the human, or of the proportions in which each element is to be admitted and recognised. Such explanations have not been vouchsafed, and it is as vain and unbecoming to demand them, as it is to require a theory of the union of the Divinity and Humanity in the person of Christ, or an estimate of the proportions in which the two perfect natures are to be conceived to co-exist."

But has not this position become equally untenable with the former? For suppose the Church of England to hold no definite doctrine upon the "proportion" of the Divine and Human elements in Scripture, it is of course an open question; and the "proportions of the Spirit to the letter" will depend entirely upon the theological school of the expositor. Hence they who believe that the Law has expired, that it is dead, that the Old Testament was identified with the Old Dispensation, and as such has passed away, may reduce those proportions—ad libitum.

"Thus† there is no impropriety in saying of the Sacred Volume, that it is all sacred, yet not all equally sacred. The

* Aids to Faith, p. 413.

† The Letter and the Spirit, by Charles P. Chretien, M.A., p. 142.

B consecrating Spirit is in it everywhere, and yet not everywhere in the same way. No one here present, I suppose, doubts that the proportion of Spirit to letter, of outward visible sign to inward spiritual grace, of type and thing typified, of ceremonial law and spiritual freedom, is different under the Christian and under the Jewish Dispensation. And the difference which exists between the Dispensations is morally sure to leave its traces in the Record."

Now, it is the spirit which giveth life; but what is the proportion of the Spirit to the letter in a dead Law? Well may we say with Baxter, that "We have great cause to take heed of overvaluing its use to us!" Well may Dr. Williams exclaim; "God's Word written proves nothing for the prosecutors; it may mean pars pro toto; it may mean Scripture in so far as it is the Word of God:" for the proportion in which the Divine and human elements are to be recognized, is left by the Church undetermined. Here then, as is admitted, enquiry is absolutely necessary. For how can you have an indefinite doctrine of Inspiration, and a definite rule of Interpretation; particularly when the interpretation depends upon those relations of the Divine and human elements into which we must not inquire? Will not the interpretations themselves be as indefinite as the rule; and the rule as indefinite as the doctrine; and the doctrine as indefinite as the theory, if there be any? If, in this case, the Christian should seek for spiritual interpretations, what rule is there to guide him? The answer is—what might be expected;—

"On* such a subject, then, no rule can be laid down; this

* Aids to Faith, p. 452.

only may be said, that he who reads Scripture under the persuasion that it often contains depths not yet sounded, and meanings not yet ascertained, will certainly read it with far greater spiritual profit to himself, than he who believes he has fully arrived at the mind of Scripture, when he has made out the mere outward meaning of the letter."

Accordingly, we are told that sevenfold, eightfold, and if we chose to press the words of Erigena,* infinite senses of Scripture were admitted by medieval interpreters. In the present day, Mr. Neale goes so far as to admit quadruple or even yet more manifold senses; and Mr. Isaac Williams observes;† "As with the works so is it with the words of men, they have one signification, and that limited: it is not so with the words of God; they unfold their meanings according to men, times, and circumstances." And this, says Augustin, is not the uncertainty but the fecundity of Scripture. "In determining the extent of this species of interpretation," says Dr. Van Mildert,‡ "there is considerable difficulty;" and in respect to the parables,—"great judgment is often necessary, neither to do too little, nor to attempt too much."

Truly, then, may it be said, that, in these cases, no rule can be laid down!

It is in this state of Theology that the trumpet sounds, and the Church is called to do battle with the Sceptics:—

"That Scripture has one meaning and one meaning only, is their fundamental axiom; it is seen to be and felt to be

* Ibid., p. 386. † The Beginning of the Book of Genesis, p. 37.

‡ Bampton Lectures, p. 229, 236.

B 2 one of the keys of their position."—"You* cannot arrest discussion. You must fight!"

Well, then, where are the weapons? What is left but individual judgment, or pure negations? The Church has no theory of Inspiration to offer: no explanation of the nature of Inspiration: no principles by which to determine its extent: no knowledge of the relation between the Divine and human elements: no rules for the ascertainment and interpretation of types: no rules for determining the spiritual sense, thus none for determining what are mere applications, and what are genuine expositions: all this indefiniteness being justified upon the principle, that, as Christ is the Interpreter of His own Word, and as He interprets by His Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit by the Church, and the Church by the consent of the Fathers, and the Fathers have no definite rules of interpretation; so it is the safest course for the Church to remain without them, and to caution private judgment against defining that which the Church has left indefinite, or seeking a positive Theology where the Church has sanctioned only negations. And now remember the words, "You cannot arrest discussion. You must fight!"—Surely, it is high time to awake out of sleep:

"It† is, at any rate, a time when religious questions are being sifted with an apparatus of knowledge, and with faculties and a temper of mind, seldom, if ever, before brought to bear upon them. The entire creation of new departments of knowledge, such as philology; the discovery as of things

* Defence of Dr. Williams, p. 324.

† Replies to Essays and Reviews, p. 349.

before absolutely unknown, of the physical history of the globe; the rising from the grave, as it were, of whole periods of history contemporary with the Bible, through newly found or newly interpreted monuments; the science of manuscripts, and of settling texts,—all these and many more that might be named, embrace in themselves a whole universe of knowledge bearing upon religion, and especially upon the Bible, to which our fathers were utter strangers. And beyond all these is the change in the spirit of thought itself, equally great and equally appropriate to the conditions of the present conflict: the transformation of history by the critical weighing of evidence, by the separation from it of the subjective and the mythical, by the treatment of it in a living and real way; the advance in Biblical criticism which has undoubtedly arisen from the more thorough application to the Bible of the laws of human criticism (the honey out of the lion's carcase); the temper of mind in dealing with the supernatural, which habits of experimental science and enlarged physical knowledge have engendered; and above all, the entire change in the point of view from which men regard all subjects, from the outward to the inward, from the historical to the metaphysical, from the sensuous to the transcendental, from the common sense of last century to the theories of the Absolute and the Infinite which occupy the attention of the present."

All this awakened spirit of enquiry, this newly-discovered apparatus of knowledge, this change in the very spirit of thought itself, all, we are told, is marching onward in the cause of Scepticism. If you tell us, say the sceptics, that the Scriptures are divinely inspired, and that this Inspiration consists in the spiritual sense, you must tell us what that spiritual sense is, and how we are to arrive at it,—"You cannot arrest discussion, you must fight."

If, now, according to some, a more important controversy than this has not engaged the attention of the Church for three hundred years, nay, according to others, ever since the Council of Nice; it is our imperative duty to "walk about Zion, and to go round about her, and tell the towers thereof, and mark well her bulwarks," and point out and strengthen the weak and defenceless places which seem almost to invite the presence of the invader.

It has already been observed, that, in consequence of the parallel between the living Word of God and the written Word of God, the difficulties which occur in regard to the union of the Divine and human in the one case, have their corresponding difficulties with regard to this union in the other; thus, that difficulties with regard to the Divine and human elements in the written Word, point to prior and corresponding difficulties in regard to the Divine and human natures in the living Word. The case is thus stated by a very eminent theologian of the present day:*—

"As in the case of the Incarnate Word, we fully recognize in the Lord's humanity all essentially human limitations and weaknesses, the hunger, the thirst, and the weariness on the side of the body, and the gradual development on the side of the human mind (Luke ii. 40),—in a word, all that belongs to the essential and original characteristics of the pure form of the nature He vouchsafed to assume, but plainly deny the existence therein of the faintest trace of sin, or of moral or mental imperfections,—even so in the case of the written Word, viewed on its purely human side, and in its reference to

* Aids to Faith, p. 417.

matters previously admitted to have no bearing on Divine truth, we may admit therein the existence of such incompleteness, such limitations, and such imperfections, as belong even to the highest forms of purely truthful human testimony, but consistently deny the existence of mistaken views, perversion, misrepresentation, and any form whatever of consciously committed error or inaccuracy."

Now, when the written Word is viewed on its purely human side, and in reference to matters admitted to have no bearing upon Divine truth, what is this but regarding the human as having no relation to the Divine? Whether in this case the human element be true or untrue, fallible or infallible, is not the question. Supposing it to be as perfectly true and infallible as Euclid's Elements of Geometry, it is not therefore Divine; for it is admitted to have no bearing upon Divine truth. What now are those parts of the Word of God which are admitted to have no bearing upon Divine truth? Is not the answer the one given by Bishop Tomline as to the Old Testament?—"It* is not necessary to be able to distinguish the inspired from the uninspired parts of the historical books of the Old Testament."—What can this mean, but that in the historical books of the Old Testament there are occasions on which the human element is not united with the Divine; and that it is nothing to us to what extent that disunion exists?—which is the very argument of the sceptics.

But has not this a correspondence in the relation of the Divine and human natures in the Person of our Lord? There exists, we are told, a purely human

* Defence of Dr. Williams, p. 164.

aspect of many things which are recorded of Him; hunger, thirst, weariness, with all the other limitations and weaknesses belonging to the purely human aspect in His character. Regarded as purely human, that is, without any union with the Divine, of course they are disunited from the Divine. To what extent does this disunion exist? Shall we say that it is a question that does not concern us, and into which we ought not to enquire? that, as in the case of the written Word so in that of the living Word, it is not necessary that all our Lord's actions and sayings should have within them anything Divine? and that it rests with the good sense, and judgment, and prudence, and so forth, of the expositor to tell us what is Divine and what is not?

Can it be wondered at, that there are those who infinitely prefer, in this case, the theology of Swedenborg; according to which, the relation between the Divine and human natures of our Lord was never suspended for a moment; He never said and never did, no, nor ever suffered anything, in which his human nature was absolutely separated from the Divine? The Word was made man, and never for a moment was humanity disunited from the Word, or the Incarnation suspended. All the temptations, and hunger, and thirst, and weariness, and weeping, and sighing, and groaning, nay, even the very process of dying were not so many manifestations of the severance only of the human from the Divine, but so many means also of more closely uniting the human with the Divine; nay, the very process of dying was only a process by which the humanity perfected its union with the Divinity, and thus took to itself the Divine power of raising itself from the dead, and exercising all power in heaven and in earth.

This is the doctrine of Swedenborg. The humanity became glorified by the very means which seemed most to debase it; and the union between the Divinity and Humanity is now so inseparable, that the humanity must be called Divine, Immanuel, God with us. The whole controversy, therefore, concerning the Inspiration of the written Word of God, resolves itself into the question of the union of the Human with the Divine, both in the living Word and in the written.

What is the nature of this union? The Church answers, "We have no theory upon the subject." But the Church has said also, We have no theory of Inspiration; and what is the consequence? It is left to the sceptics to provide one. So in regard to the union of the Divine and human natures, the Church has no theory. What is the consequence? The sceptics equally provide one in this case also. But why has the Church no theory? Simply because she has departed from those principles of the union of the human with the Divine, which she once taught as sacred and inviolable. The following represents the present state of Theology upon this subject, as maintained by a very competent Theologian:*—

"The truth seems to be, that the two elements (the Divine and human) coexist in the same book: they are distinct, but not separable: they are united, but not confused. We can-

* The Authority of the New Testament, etc., by C. A. Swainson, M.A. Page 147.

B 3 not comprehend their union, because we want the requisite powers of intellect and of reason: we cannot explain it, because we have nothing like it."

Nothing like it! If so, undoubtedly we cannot explain it;—and then how stands the case?

The union is incomprehensible, but the disunion is not. A theology founded upon the union must in like manner be incomprehensible; but a theology founded upon the disunion, very plain and practical. Nay: but it is replied, 'A theology founded upon the disunion would be intrinsically false.' Undoubtedly; but it is not admitted to be a disunion; because two natures which to our apprehension are disunited, are nevertheless united in some way beyond our apprehension. Be it so: but what is this but saying, that the only theology suited to our apprehension is the one founded upon disunion? In this case, the union becomes a mere theoretical or speculative subject; and to contemplate the union at all is merely to indulge in theories or speculations: the Church has no theory of the union of the Divinity and Humanity in the person of Christ. Suppose, however, we were to speak of the disunion in the same terms in which we speak of the union, and say: 'We cannot comprehend the disunion because we want the requisite powers of intellect: we cannot explain it, because we have nothing like it.' In this case, would not the whole doctrine of the Incarnation cease to be practically a part of Christianity? If then the union of the two natures, not the disunion, be altogether past our comprehension, the only possible way in which we can entertain any positive doctrine upon the Incarnation, must be founded upon a disunion of the two natures; which is the prevalent theology.

And yet how does this harmonize with the Athanasian Creed? "For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ?" Surely the union of the Divine and human natures in Christ, is here likened to the union of soul and body; and in like manner, it is a common observation in the Patristic writings, that the Divine element of Scripture is the soul and the human the body. Thus we see a principle of analogy at once established; and we may reason from it in regard to the union of the Divine and human in both cases, as we do from analogy in regard to the attributes of God.

In this case, to say that we do not know where the Divine element ends and the human begins, is the same as to say, we do not know where the soul ends and the body begins; as if the soul and body were continuous quantities, and we could not define the point where they were joined on the one to the other—which would be rather to have a false idea of the nature of the union, than to have no idea whatever.

The advantage, then, of analogy in the present case is, that it furnishes us with a true idea of union; while without analogy of some kind no such idea is attainable, and if we think upon the subject at all, it must be upon a principle of disunion, or, so to speak, misunion.

We see an exemplification of these remarks in the doctrine of the Trinity. It has been maintained by a distinguished prelate, that, in this doctrine, divines have made the Unity the incomprehensible mystery. 'We cannot comprehend the union of three Persons in one God,' say many, 'because we want the requisite powers of intellect and of reason: we cannot explain it, because we have nothing like it.' And yet in the doctrine of the Trinity, the Unity cannot be ignored without the necessary consequence of Tritheism. In like manner, in the doctrine of the Incarnation, the union of the two natures cannot be ignored without the necessary consequence of Nestorianism. Shall unity be ignored in the one case, and yet not in the other, without injury to Theology? And is it not virtually ignored, if, while the disunion is a subject plain and practical, the union is altogether incomprehensible?

But is not the union between the Divine and human natures likened also to a MARRIAGE? Surely the Fathers made use of this analogy: indeed it is noticed by Dean Trench,* in his explanation of the Parable concerning "The Marriage of the King's Son;" where he speaks of both Augustin and Gregory the Great, as understanding this marriage to be one between the Divine Word and the human nature; God and man united, and making one Christ; from which flows the marriage union of Christ with His Church; so that if there were no union between the Divine and human natures, neither would there be any between Christ and His Church. Gregory shews how the two are related—In hoc Pater regi Filio

* Notes on the Parables, Eighth Edition, p. 215.

nuptias fecit, quo ei per Incarnationis mysterium sanctam Ecclesiam sociavit. Moreover,

Athanasius says,* "He deified that which he put on." "Being God, He has taken to Him the flesh, and being in the flesh, makes the flesh God." "Now the flesh had risen, and put off its mortality, and become God."—"The Word of God did not receive by grace the title of God; but his flesh with Him was accounted God."..."And this same God became flesh, that his flesh might become God, Word."—So Gregory of Nazianzum: "God went forth with that which he had taken (the Humanity), one (en) of the two contraries, flesh and Spirit, of which the one deified, the other was deified."—So Gregory Nyssen: "We say that the body too, whereby He took upon Him the suffering, being contempered with the Divine nature, was, through contempering, made that which the nature assuming it, is. So far are we from thinking anything poor of God, the Only-Begotten; for the lower nature, which was taken in that dispensation of love to man, this too we believe to have been transformed to the Divine and pure nature." "He (St. John) knew that the Word which was made flesh, was the same with the Word who was with God. But the flesh is not the same with the Godhead, before it too is transformed to Deity."—So St. Ambrose:

* These authorities are to be found in a note to Dr. Pusey's Sermon entitled The Ascension our Glory and Joy. I have omitted some of them for the sake of brevity: the reader is therefore referred to the Sermon itself, as also to other testimonies upon the same subject, adduced in The Spiritual Exposition of the Apocalypse, by the Rev. A. Clissold.

"Then did the Virgin conceive in the womb, and the Word was made flesh that the flesh, might become God."—So Vigilius: "God was so made man, and man made God, that yet neither was absorbed."

Such is the closeness of the union between the Divine and human natures, as stated by some of the ancient writers.

Cornelius a Lapide, in his *Prolegomena* to the *Canticles*, describes it expressly as a *marriage union*. Thus:—

"Christ in his Incarnation entered as it were into a two-fold *marriage*; the first physical, with his *humanity*, which He physically and really united to Himself; the second ethical with the Church, and with all human nature, which He conjoined to Himself by the *humanity* assumed by Himself: the latter marriage follows from the first. For inasmuch as Christ conjoined (*copulavit*) his humanity to Himself, and as it were *espoused* it; hence both in it and by it, He in like manner espoused to Himself all human nature and the Church. For He therefore assumed the *humanity*, in order that by it He might conjoin and bind to Himself, as his members as it were, all mankind and all the faithful; and that He might be their head and chief; their head, I say, as homogeneous with them, *i. e.*, of the same genus and nature with man. In the first *marriage* Christ is the Bridegroom; the Bride is the *humanity* assumed by Christ, to which therefore may be applied, in the first and proper sense, all that in the Canticles is said concerning the Bride: in the latter marriage the Bridegroom is Christ, the Bride is the Church; the latter is the end and bound of the former; for the end of the incarnation of the Word was, in the counsel of God, the institution and sanctification of the Church: wherefore, the incarnation of the Word is included and presupposed in the institution of the Church, just as the means are included in the end, and as it were the cause in the effect."

Sufficient is here said to shew, what is the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning the marriage union between the Divine and human natures in the person of our Lord. It is true that the consummation of this union is represented by some as having been effected at the Incarnation; by others, however, as having been completed at the Ascension. This is the view adopted by Swedenborg, and it further harmonizes with the sentiments of a distinguished modern divine,* who thus remarks in his Sermon on the Ascension:—

"So in-oned is It (viz., the human form) with God, that as God, through taking our flesh, became incarnate, the Manhood, being taken into God, is deified. One God is that which deifies, and that which is deified. God became Man, taking into Him body and soul and mind; and the body, soul, and the mind of the Man, Christ Jesus, are, by union with the Godhead, God. Yet in that unutterable glory He is, and shall be for ever, Man."

It is obvious from these remarks, that the unity is first of the natures, and thence of the whole Person. What is here called a deified Humanity, is by Swedenborg called, as indeed Augustin calls it, a Divine Humanity. Virtually the two doctrines are the same. For that which is deified hath life in itself, just as that which is Divine: at least we leave others to draw the invisible line of difference between the two. If to glorify here means to deify, surely to glorify the Humanity is to make it Divine; and if the title

* Dr. Pusey. See his Parochial Sermons, vol. ii., p. 225.

Word of God applies to the Divine Nature, it applies in this case to the human; because the human is Divine, and the Humanity as such, is the Word of God. Thus the title Word of God does not apply primarily to the Person as distinguished from the natures, but to the unification of the natures by the glorification of the humanity; and the whole Person is called The Word of God, because the Humanity is made Divine, and as such is in itself the Word of God. It is thus that the Divinity and Humanity, while distinct, are yet distinctly one, and constitute one Person, one Word of God.

But what concord is there between this doctrine, and that of modern Theology? For according to this Theology, the two natures, the Divine and the human, coexist in one Person, and the oneness of the Person gives unity to the natures: the two natures are said to be united, because the Person is one: whereas, according to the foregoing doctrine, there is a unition of the natures which causes the Person to be undivided. For if Nestorianism divides the natures and thereby originates two Persons, then the doctrine which unites the natures imparts also unity to the whole Person. In the popular doctrine the unity is predicated of the Person, not of the natures; there are really two disunited natures in one Person, so that in fact the very individuality of the Person is itself destroyed. Now, if the union between the Divine and human natures be destroyed, and if that union be nevertheless a marriage union; it is obvious, that in this case the very Divine marriage itself is destroyed, and consequently the very first source of the marriage union between Christ and His Church, consequently also between husband and wife upon earth. It is fatal to Christianity, fatal to society, to call this a speculative subject: it is the most practical the Church can entertain.

'Nay,' it will be replied; 'Marriage is here only a figurative expression; and you cannot found an argument upon a figure.'—Suppose then you call it a figure, and say that the marriage is metaphorical, and that metaphor has no corresponding reality; what are you maintaining? That the marriage of Christ with His Church has no basis in any corresponding reality: and what right have you to complain after this, if marriage upon earth be regarded as a mere civil contract, or a social hypothesis? How can any one maintain the sanctity of marriage, who destroys the very first principles of its sanctity? We say, then, that in this case marriage is a reality, not a figure: it is not a metaphor, but a real analogy; and analogies may be used as the basis of argument. "Analogies," says a modern writer, "are founded on the relations between the natural and spiritual worlds, therefore they are something more than illustrations:"—"they are arguments, and may be alleged as witnesses."

Now if the Lord be the living Word of God, and in His person there is a marriage of the Divine and Human natures; and if there is a close analogy between the living and the written Word; shall we not say, that in the written Word of God there is a corresponding union of the Divine and human elements? That to contemplate either one as separate from the other is to divorce the two: to destroy, as far as in us lies, the marriage union between the Divine and human elements in the written Word? Either this is true, or else it is untrue that there is any strict analogy between the living Word and the written Word. Now if the written Word treat entirely of the living Word, and in the living Word exists the marriage union between the Divine and human natures, it amounts to a self-contradiction to say there are no traces of this union in the written Word; and if such traces are to be found, what shall we say of any interpretation and criticism which ignore them? This is no case of Mysticism: it is a case of logical sequence of principles.

If there be a marriage union between the Divine and human natures in the living Word: hence a marriage union between the Lord and His Church: then, if the analogy between the living Word and the written Word be so close, that the only difference between the two is that the one is living and the other written; it follows, that there is in the written Word of God a marriage union of the Divine and human elements; and the written Word will exhibit evidences of that union. The premises are absolutely false, or the conclusion is absolutely true. As long as the nature of the union between the Divinity and Humanity in our Lord is utterly unknown, and regarded as inexplicable by any analogy: as long as that union and the process by which it was perfected, cease to be recognized, as they have ceased: as long as the expression Word of God, applied to certain Scriptures, is an expression without any definite meaning;

so long must the original doctrine held by the Catholic Church, of a marriage union between the Divine and human natures of our Lord, naturally fall into contempt as a mere mystical vagary; but as this is the foundation of the marriage union of the Lord with the Church, of course this union disappears with it; the foundation being destroyed, the superstructure falls; and in this case, what becomes of the Church?

I say, then, supposing this union to exist in the written Word, that Word, as Divinely inspired, will exhibit evidences of its existence; and it would be an unaccountable oversight in any interpreter, to ignore these evidences in his interpretations of Scripture. Accordingly, what has Swedenborg said upon this subject? Let us give him a fair hearing. He says:*—

"It is usual in the Word, especially in the prophetical, to express one thing twice, only changing the expression. He who is unacquainted with the mystery involved in this circumstance, may suppose that it is a needless repetition. Nevertheless, this is not the case; but one expression relates to good, the other to truth; and whereas good is of the will, and truth is of the understanding, one hath relation to the will, the other to the understanding; the reason is, because in the Word every thing is holy, and its holiness is from the heavenly marriage, which is that of good and truth. Hence it is that heaven is in the Word, consequently the Lord, who is the all in

* Arcana Celestia, 5502. See also The Doctrine of the New Jerusalem concerning the Sacred Scripture, art. 84.

all of heaven; so that the Lord is the Word. The two names of the Lord, viz., Jesus Christ, involve the same; the name Jesus implying the Divine good; and the name Christ the Divine truth. Hence also it is evident, that the Lord is in all things of the Word, insomuch that He is the Word itself. Hence also it may be evidently concluded, that man, if he expects heaven, must not only be in the truth which is of faith, but also in the good which is of charity; and that otherwise there is no heaven in him."

Thus what might appear to some to be a wild phantasy in the mind of Swedenborg, is founded upon the deepest reasons derived from the marriage union of good and truth in every part of the Word of God; that is to say, the union between the Lord and His Church; so that in an interpretation conducted upon this principle, the human element is never disunited from the Divine; for, wherever this disunion takes place, there Divine Inspiration ceases, there the writing ceases to be the Word of God. "No man hath seen God at any time: the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him" (ἐξηγήσατο). The Word made flesh is the exegesis of the Divinity; the Word made writing is the exegesis of the Divine Wisdom. The true exegesis therefore of the written Word is the declaration, bringing forth, or manifestation, of the Divine element in the human. If there were no divine element within the human, there could be no spiritual interpretation; genuine spiritual interpretation being only the exegesis of this divine element in the human, suitably to our several states and capabilities of apprehension. Deny the Divine element in the human wherever you may, and spiritual interpretation will be regarded as an importation of meanings into Scripture, rather than an elicitation of meaning from out of it; for certainly we can never bring out of the written Word, that which was never in.

No one, however, can fail to see, that throughout this argument we have been taking the phrase Word of God in a much stricter sense than the one in which it is generally understood. Relax the meaning of the expression, and you relax the union between the Divine and human elements: you relax the union between the Divine and human natures: you relax the marriage union between Christ and his Church; "the marriage of the Lamb" no longer exists. Therefore, as the acknowledgment of the union of the Divine and human natures, is alone that in virtue of which there is a relation between the Divine and human elements in the written Word, and thence of the Lord to the Church; so the Church comes into a perception of this relation, in proportion as she comes into the perception and thence acknowledgment of the spiritual sense of the Word; for that spiritual sense is based upon this union, and is the revelation by the Lord of Himself to the Church: it is the revelation of Himself to the Seven Churches or to the whole Catholic Church; a revelation which culminates as it were in this announcement, "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready."

We thus see the origin of the uncertainty of the rules with regard to spiritual interpretation; and why it is that not only no certain rule exists, but that none can exist, consistently with the state of modern Theology. Without any fixed principles of union between the Divine and human elements; without any perception of the nature, laws, and extent of that union, the whole question of Inspiration and Interpretation, becomes a mere matter of opinion, involved in doubts, difficulties, conjectures, confusion, and contradiction. No rules can be laid down for anything; and we can fully appreciate the remarks of Mr. Conybeare when speaking of the Liber Regularum by Tychonius:*—

"We may be permitted perhaps to regret, that none of the earlier and more learned Fathers of the Church should have left us any more specific and systematic enumeration of the laws and principles by which they were guided in their invention, and application of allegorical expositions; but in this deficiency, it would scarcely repay the labor, if indeed it were practicable within the limits of these discourses, to enter upon the details of a subject so full of intricacy and uncertainty."

Now what are the consequences of this uncertain and unsettled state of Theology? The alternative is either to go into a Church, the authority of which overrules all difficulties; or else to leave the questions of Inspiration and Interpretation open to interminable controversy. In this case, suppose the overruling authority of the Church of Rome should be preferred: what says Dr. Van Mildert?†—

* Conybeare's Bampton Lectures, p. 187.

† See his Bampton Lectures, p. 72.

"Whatever be the authority that assumes a power to determine, suo jure, the sense of Scripture, or to impose articles of belief derived from any other source; that authority itself, if its right be admitted, becomes the Rule of Faith, and virtually supersedes the other."

The Church in this case supersedes the Word of God, and there is an end of the matter. On the other hand, what are the consequences of leaving open the questions of Inspiration and Interpretation, without any fixed principles by which to decide them? An interminable controversy as to what is the Word of God, and what is not;—

"My* Lord, I admit that the phrase 'the Word of God' as applied to the Bible, is a valuable and instructive expression; an expression which is of the highest authority, and is used in the Articles of the Church of England; but I deny that it is a dogmatic expression, or has any dogmatic bearing whatever; because it is impossible to say what the dogma is which it is meant to lay down. What is the meaning of the expression, 'The Bible is the Word of God?' Does it imply the absolute infallibility of the Scripture? If it does not, where do you stop?"

Yes, what is the meaning of the expression, the Bible is the Word of God? This is the question for the Church to determine: not merely whether it means pars pro toto; or Scripture in so far as it is the Word of God; but what is the meaning of the expression Word of God itself? If applied to the written Word in an inferior sense, why not to the living Word in an inferior sense? for the only difference between the two is, that the one is the

* Defence of Dr. Williams, p. 123.

living Word, the other the written. It may be denied, that the title Word of God is applicable to certain Scriptures in the strict sense of the terms; but still if it be conceded that it is applicable, the Scriptures cannot be fallible in the sense in which they are Divine.

It may be said: The fallibility is not of the Divine element, but of the human. I answer: If the human element contain within it the Divine, it is part of the Word of God; and in this sense is it not infallible? If it does not contain within it the Divine, it forms no part of the Word of God; and if it forms no part of the Word of God, whether it be fallible or infallible is beside the question.

Moreover, if the human element of the written Word in its union with the Divine be fallible, are we to admit that the human nature in the living Word is also fallible? It is asserted by some, that the 110th Psalm was not written by David; that the common view taken by the Jews, that David was the writer of it, is a mistake;* "that there is no ground for denying that Jesus shared the common view, and never doubted that the heading of the Psalm was correct; as a historical and critical question of this sort could be entertained only in the sphere of his individual human culture, which would necessarily bear the stamp of his age and country." And yet they who maintain this opinion, maintain also the Divine character of our Lord: it is the human only that is said to be fallible. When therefore

* A Brief Examination of prevalent opinions on Inspiration. By a Layman. Page 17.

our Lord is called the 'Word made flesh,' does it imply the fallibility of the human nature? If it does, where do you stop? Shall it be said that the Church has no theory upon the subject? That she does not presume to define the "proportion" between the Divine and human elements? If she does not, the very meaning of the phrase Word of God becomes an open question: it may imply sometimes what is Divine, sometimes what is only human; and consequently cease to imply necessarily the Divinity of that of which it is predicated.

Accordingly, the phrase Word of God is denied to be dogmatic. As applied to the living Word it is generally acknowledged to be dogmatic: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," is a passage acknowledged to be a proof of the Divinity of the Word. It may be asked then; If the expression be dogmatic as applied to the living Word, why not as applied to the written Word? The answer is evident: The phrase Word of God is admitted to be dogmatic as applied to the Divine nature, but not as applied to the human: indeed, strictly speaking, it is not regarded as properly applicable to the human nature at all. For the Word of God implies the wisdom of God; the wisdom of God is Divine; but the human nature, as we have seen, is not regarded as Divine. Hence, if the title Word of God be applied to the human nature, it is applied in a different sense; and if we once admit that there is a sense in which it does not imply Divinity, "it is impossible to say what the dogma is which it is meant to lay down."

C

The same is the case with regard to the written Word. If we call certain Scriptures the Word of God, and if notwithstanding there are parts of these Scriptures which contain no Divine element, we can regard them as such only in an inferior sense; and thus the title Word of God, ceasing to imply necessarily Divine Wisdom, ceases also in this respect to be dogmatic.

Who then has any right to complain of the Church, if, under such circumstances, it has really made the relation between the Divine and human elements an open question? For in this case, the Church does not undertake to deny that there are instances (and these not a few) in which there is no union whatever between the Divine and human elements; indeed it is most instructive to see how both Sceptical and Orthodox writers harmonize with each other in this respect.

Let the first example be taken from reputedly Sceptical writers:—

"The* human and the Divine are united in it, in a similar manner as the human body is with the spirit of which it is the instrument: the two elements are closely associated, and it would be like treating a living organism as a corpse, if we should seek mechanically to sever the one from the other."

The same writer had previously observed:—

"Hence the Scripture can only be regarded and treated as the Word of God, on condition that it shall be interpreted

* Brief Examination of Prevalent Opinions on Inspiration, etc., pp. 235, 234.

with the key of an enlightened conscience; that in this way all that is human in it shall be separated from what is divine, and that the kernel of salvation shall be discriminated from its mundane husk."

How then are you to arrive at the Divine element? According to this account, by separating from it the Human: for "the human and imperfect individuality of the writers cleaves to the Scripture; and to assert that this individuality was the Word of God, would be more than an error, it would be a sin." Well, then, how do we arrive at the soul? By parity of reason, by separating from it the body. But in this case the body dies. In order to know what Moses and the prophets mean, therefore, you must first kill them; and this seems to be very much the way in which the Jews acted toward our Saviour, in order to put it to the test whether He were the Messiah or not.

Let us next proceed to the nonsceptical writers.

Baxter* admitted that the sense is the soul of Scripture, and the letters but the body or vehicle. He calls the Scriptures the Word of God; but, says he—

..."All parts are not of equal necessity or weight; and as many err by casting off the Old Testament, so others err by equalling it to us with the New."... "We have great cause to take heed of overvaluing its use to us, lest we contradict Paul, that saith that even that which was written in stone is done away, and the law changed, with the priesthood and the old faulty covenant, for a better, of which see the first nine chapters to the Hebrews."

* Defence of Dr. Williams, pp. 129, 132, 133.

c 2

Hence he proceeds to say, that the revelation to David was comparatively obscure; that of the lies, polygamy, divorces, blood-shedding, of which we read respectively in the history of David, Solomon, and the Israelites in general, God does not approve; nor of the curses which fill the Psalms of David.—"So that he says distinctly,—that many of David's Psalms are unchristian; and unchristian, because, though an inspired man, his inspiration did not protect him from every description of crime in his life, or from many most serious errors in his writings."

A plain instance in which the human is separated from the Divine.

To refer to a more orthodox school: does this never separate the human from the Divine? How can it? 'The Old Testament,' it assures us, 'has not passed away: it is divinely inspired: it is the Word of God: it consists accordingly of two elements, the Divine and the human: these two are inseparable; still you must not confound the one with the other, but carefully distinguish between the two.'—Be it so: but now observe the qualifications.* 'We have little to do with criticising the characters and imperfections of the men whom God used as his instruments in conveying to us the knowledge of His will; for, as Butler says, . . . our only enquiry should be, Did the message come from him?' Elijah was a man of like passions as we are. Blot out from the Old Testament the signs of his imperfection, his desponding journey to Mount Horeb, and the wish for himself that he

* The Authority of the New Testament, etc. By C. A. Swanson M.A. Page 86 and seq.

might die, and where are then the proofs of his humanity?

Take the case of Moses: turn to the human side of the picture: he was a man of like passions as we are. He slew the Egyptian who was contending with the Hebrew: how sorely, too, was he tried by the Israelites! Are you surprised that he fell at last before the continued murmuring of the people? that he smote the rock in anger; and being sometimes wroth, was not allowed to enter into the land of Canaan? Here we have the human elements of his character.

Take another case: Abraham was guilty of equivocation when requesting Sarah to tell Abimelech that she was his sister; shewing that, after all his communion with God, he retained the imperfections of human nature; and was a man of like passions with ourselves.

In these and other similar passages of Scripture, such, we are told, is the human element: where is the Divine? Answer:—'In the message they delivered. We really have nothing to do with the general character of the instruments used, except so far as it affects their credibility.' What is this but a repetition of the principles advocated by Baxter? The distinction of the human element from the Divine is here evidently a separation: there is no Divine element whatever in the human: it is simply and singly human imperfection: for, if any Divine element had been retained, it would have been upon this principle, that God could make use of the imperfections of his servants, as well as of their perfections, for conveying to mankind the Divine Truth of his Word; which is the principle adopted by Swedenborg. Here however nothing of the kind is intimated. The imperfections are human imperfections, and nothing more: and in what respect does this method of Interpretation differ from that of the Sceptical Theologian?—who says—

I also affirm that Scripture,* as the Word of God, must be “interpreted with the key of an enlightened conscience; that in this way all that is human in it shall be separated from what is Divine, and that the kernel of salvation shall be discriminated from the mundane husk.” . . Thus—“If we recognize in Scripture a human as well as a Divine side; if we regard the latter as concerned only with spiritual truth, while we refer to the former all that is demonstrably erroneous, or morally imperfect, all scientific inaccuracies, and all historical discrepancies, we shall avoid the doubts and perplexities which must necessarily arise, so long as we attempt to deal with these embarrassing elements as if they were portions of a Book which was from beginning to end the Word of God.”

The separation of the human element from the Divine is, we are told, a duty; and not to make this separation, is a sin; for a large portion of the human element contains nothing Divine, and as such to call it Divine, would be to deify human frailties: it has no claim whatever to the title the Word of God. The proper figure of rhetoric therefore by which the Scriptures may nevertheless be called the Word of God, is synechdoche; in virtue of which we may call the whole the Word of God, when we do

* A Brief Examination of Prevalent Opinions on Inspiration, by a Layman, pp. 234, 248.

not believe the whole to be so, but only a part.—“It may mean Scripture in so far as it is the Word of God.”—Thus we may strike out an indefinite portion from the Law, the Psalms, the Prophets, the Gospels, nay, even the Apocalypse, for this might be shewn to be a book of poetry.*

“What do they mean,” says a voice in the Court of Arches, “when they say that you are to believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Do they mean to say that you must believe every word—IN WHAT? In the Bible? And what is the Bible? Is it the authorized version? And if not, how otherwise? Do they mean to say that every word in the authorized version is of Divine authority? If they do not, what do they mean? They are pleading upon a metaphor—they have introduced a metaphor into the indictment; and they say, because you have used language which is inconsistent with this metaphor, therefore you are a heretic.”

Well then, what is the Bible?

“The† sixty-six books are partly history, partly poetry, partly moral treatises: they contain, probably, at least one drama: they contain many prophecies, whatever may be the sense of the word prophecy. They are written in an Eastern language, absolutely saturated with figure, metaphor, and allusion. The history contains some poetry, and the poetry and prophecy contain much history. Isaiah is poetical, but it contains much historical matter. The book of Exodus is as unquestionably historical; yet it contains the song of Deborah. Now to believe in a history is one thing, to believe in a poem is another.”

“Dean of the Arches.—In what?

“Mr. Stephen.—To believe in a poem. The assertion, ‘I believe in Gibbon’s History conveys one idea;’ the assertion,

* Defence of Dr. Williams, pp. 40, 192.

† Ibid., p. 54.

'I believe in Virgil's *Encid*,' conveys quite a different idea," etc., etc.

Is there nothing ominous of the future of the Church, in the array of authorities by which this view of the subject is supported? Well might the Advocate remark:—"The Church of England cannot altogether abjure reason—it cannot decline discussion upon these subjects—it cannot assume the position of the Church of Rome, and rely upon its own infallible authority; and until every one of the passages which I read yesterday is erased from the writings of its most eminent divines, it can as little rely upon the absolute infallibility of the Bible. Therefore controversy there must be. What will follow? Are you to place the Church in the most contemptible of all positions?" etc., etc.

No! but if we fight, it must be under the banner of One who has been wounded in the house of His friends: whose garments have been stained with blood; but who still bears the name of the Word of God, and out of whose mouth proceedeth a sharp sword wherewith to smite the armies of falsities.

For is it not clear, that, in statements of this kind, the opponents of the Church, if they are so to be called, are fighting the Church with its own weapons? That metaphor on the one side is employed to meet metaphor on the other? Has not the Church itself armed them, and enabled them to retort upon itself its own method of Interpretation?—As with Metaphor, so with *Ideology*.—"The question is simply this," says a writer:* "Are the same principles ap-

* Aids to Faith, p. 140.

plicable to secular history, and to the records of a scheme which is professedly one of Divine interpositions? We see perfectly well, that, if they were applicable, the conclusions of the Ideologist could scarcely be controverted."—In answer to this, we ask a corresponding question: "Are the same principles applicable to secular poetry, and Scripture prophecies?" If they are, the conclusions of the Sceptic can scarcely be controverted. If sacred and secular poetry be interpreted upon the same principles, why not sacred and secular history? Have not theologians, by the metaphorical system, paved the way for that of Ideology? If the truth of God be subverted, it is no matter whether it be by Metaphor or Ideology. One of the reputed Ideologists has made a large use of the figurative system:† the very term Inspiration is said to be figurative; there is metaphor in the terms propitiation and sacrifice:—the expressions, This is my body—This is my blood, are both said to be figurative. Now if metaphor be that figure which has no corresponding reality, and which is proper to the Imagination; Metaphor as truly leads to myth as Ideology; and we may truly say, that, in this respect, Ideology is to history what Metaphor is to prophecy.

Accordingly, those parts of prophecy which are metaphorically interpreted, belong, it is said, to the human element; in which there is nothing Divine because nothing spiritual; and upon this principle Scripture is subjected to a process not of exegesis,

† A brief Examination of Prevalent Opinions on Inspiration. Introduction by H. B. Wilson, B.D. p. 66, 65.

c 3 but of exinacition; you cannot bring out any spiritual sense, because it is interpreted upon a principle which is itself a negation of it; and the method of Interpretation therefore utterly failing to bring out a spiritual sense, we are told it is not there, and that we ought not to be wise above what is written, or enquire into things which God has not revealed, or entertain any theories concerning the union of the Divine and human elements, and hence concerning Inspiration.

What is the consequence? That the Divine and human elements are both ultimately dispensed with: the Divine is too high to be comprehended; the human too low to be respected, too antiquated to be retained, or too fallible to be trusted.

The same consequences of the same method of Interpretation we see exemplified in the very doctrines of Christianity. We are "redeemed" or "ransomed by the blood of Christ: we are "purchased" or "bought with a price:" there is exchange or transfer in some sense or other. It has been popularly represented as a commercial transfer, a transaction between God and Christ. This is the human side of the doctrine; very plain and practical! What then is the Divine side?*—That which involves "inscrutable and tremendous mysteries,—mysteries which ever have baffled, and must ever baffle all human reason!" This is the doctrine of Bishop Browne: it is that of Dr. Williams. Neither party professes to go beyond the merely human element. Thus the Divine element surpasses comprehension,

* Defence of Dr. Williams, p. 317.

and what is incomprehensible does not affect us. The human element alone remains, separated from the Divine; and as to receive it literally is to misrepresent the truth, and yet we do not understand the higher and spiritual signification of the doctrine, we must have recourse to "inferences," "consequences," and "uses," as the only means by which to avoid misrepresentation, and entertain any rational views of Christianity. For—

"How† can this (misrepresentation) be avoided, except by dwelling upon the human side of these doctrines, which are thus capable of misrepresentation; and preferring to speak not of the mode of the Incarnation, but of the inferences which we are to draw from the fact; not of God's reason for being propitious to man, but of the consequences which man is to draw from the fact that God is propitious to him; not upon the manner in which grace may be communicated in baptism, but upon the use which is to be made of it in after life."

Do not, however, the very misrepresentations complained of, result from a contemplation of the human element apart from the Divine? and if, when thus contemplated, the facts are misrepresented, how are we to arrive at a correct idea of the facts? Truth enacted becomes a fact: what is the Grace conferred at baptism is a question of fact: what is the meaning of the term Propitiation is only asking, what fact does propitiation mean: what fact again does the Incarnation mean: does it, or does it not, mean the fact, that as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ? So finally, what fact

* Defence of Dr. Williams, p. 317.

is meant by the expression, the Bible is the written Word of God? Does it mean, that certain Scriptures are the Word of God in the highest sense of the terms, i. e., Divine; and if so, what is that sense?

"Why* the Lord is called the Word," says Swedenborg, "is but little understood in the Church. He is however called the Word, because the Word signifies Divine Truth, or Divine Wisdom; and the Lord is Divine Truth itself, or Divine Wisdom itself; for which reason He is likewise called the Light, which also is said to have come into the world. Divine Wisdom and Divine Love constitute a one; and were from eternity a one in the Lord; wherefore it is said, 'In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.' Life is Divine Love, and Light is Divine Wisdom. This oneness is what is meant by those words, 'In the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' With God, means to be in Him; for Wisdom is in Love, and Love in Wisdom. So also in St. John, chap. xvii. 5."

"That the Word which is here specifically meant, is the same that was manifested by Moses, and the Prophets, and by the Evangelists, may evidently appear from this consideration; that this is Divine Truth itself from which is derived all the wisdom that exists with angels, and all spiritual intelligence with men. For angels have in the heavens the very same Word that men have in the world; save only that with men it is natural, whereas in the heavens it is spiritual. And since the Word is Divine Truth, it is also the Divine Proceeding; and this is not only

* Doctrine of the New Jerusalem concerning the Lord, art. 1.

from the Lord, but is also the Lord Himself. As this Word is thus the Lord Himself, each and all things in the Word are written in reference to Him alone. From Isaiah even to Malachi there is nothing which is not concerning the Lord, or in the opposite sense, contrary to the Lord. That this is the case, has not heretofore been seen by any one; but yet every one may see it, provided he is apprised of it, and thinks of it whilst he is reading; and is informed further, that in the Word there is not only a natural but also a spiritual sense; and that in this sense by the names of persons and of places is signified something concerning the Lord, and thence something concerning heaven and the church from Him, or something opposite thereto. Now as each and all things thereto have reference to the Lord; and as the Word, because it is Divine Truth, is the Lord; it clearly appears why it is said, 'And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory:' and also why it is said, 'While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. I am come a light into the world, that who-soever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.' Light is the Divine Truth,—thus the Word: wherefore every one, even at the present day, who, when reading the Word, approaches the Lord alone and prays to Him, is enlightened by it."

In conclusion:—

It is the opinion of many, that a new era is opening upon the whole Christian world. If new errors or new heresies may rise up within the Church; why not new truths, or new forms of truth? "The promulgation of errors," says Mr. Swainson,* "will accompany or anticipate the discovery of the truth. And I maintained that when the truth is discovered, there will be possibly a slow, but certainly a sure progress in its reception, until at length it pervades the Church at large."—It is simply absurd to suppose, that when truth is discovered, it is discovered to the whole body of the Catholic Church which all at once receives it, and makes it known in virtue of the sanction given to it by herself. The Catholic Church is too broken up to allow of anything of the kind. The real progress of Truth is seen in its reception first by individuals, then by greater numbers, then in the rise of controversies making the truth more widely known, and sifting the evidence with which it is accompanied. Thus the Church as a body is last in the order of reception. But when the Church comes finally to receive it, then has she been taught by the Holy Spirit, who has taken of the things of the Word of God, and shewn them unto the Church. Thus the order in which the Church receives Truth, and the order in which she teaches Truth, are altogether different. If old received truths are preached by the Church ex auctoritate, newly discovered truths are not promulgated in this way; and therefore to reject interpretations of the Word of God simply because they do not come prima facie with the stamp of Church authority, is absurd. Indeed, how can Truth receive the sanction of the Church before it is received by the Church? Truth when

* The Creeds of the Church. By C. A. Swainson, M.A. Hulsean Lectures, p. 111.

INEPIRATION AND INTERPRETATION.

first made known to individuals by the Holy Spirit, stands outside the Church, knocking at the door until it is received within; and we may be assured that when once received, it gives authority to the Church, not receives authority from her. It is in this way, then, that the Holy Spirit makes known the Truth to the Church, even at the present day. Thus it is that "Christ is the Everlasting Word: He is the Author of the Written Word; He is also the Interpreter of the Bible. He has given us the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit, and that Spirit is in his Church Universal"—authorizing the Church to receive as well as to give, and disposing the Church to receive in order that it may be enabled to give. Thus it is that "Christ as the Interpreter," in regard to all new interpretations, interprets first of all to individuals, and through individuals to the Church. This is confirmed by Bishop Butler;*

"The hindrances, too, of natural and of supernatural light and knowledge have been of the same kind. And as it is owned the whole scheme of Scripture is not yet understood, so, if it ever comes to be understood before the Restitution of all things and without miraculous interpositions, it must be in the same way as natural knowledge is come at by the continuance and progress of learning and of liberty, and by particular persons attending to, comparing, and pursuing intimations scattered up and down it, which are overlooked and disregarded by the generality of the world."

That is to say,—by the generality of the Church; because it is the Church, not the world, which holds itself responsible for the interpretation of Scripture.

* Analogy, part 2, chap. 3.

In the present case, what is it that the Church has overlooked and disregarded? Not details, but general principles—principles which involve the question of the nature and extent of Divine Inspiration; a question which the Church has always avoided, and which it is now compelled to meet face to face. “Is it credible,”* we are asked, “that if the Church had held any broad, intelligible doctrine on the subject of the Inspiration, the criticism, or the Interpretation of the Bible, that declaration should be absent from the Thirty-nine Articles, the three Creeds, and the Catechism?” The principal declaration which is to be found, occurs in the Homilies, and is one on which we have founded our present argument. The difficulty in the Church has been to find a definite theory of Inspiration and Interpretation adequate to this view of the subject. It has confessedly found none. Swedenborg has supplied one, based upon the principle of a spiritual sense. I have accordingly availed myself of it, and shall continue to do so.

And now comes the popular objection to this species of exposition; which is thus advocated by Dr. Van Mildert in his Bampton Lectures: †

“Nor is it a slight objection to the indiscriminate application of this species of exposition, that it renders the Scriptures in general too deep and mysterious for popular apprehension. Almost every mystical Expositor aims at novelty. His object is to make discoveries in spiritual knowledge. He sets out with the persuasion that a great portion of the Scriptures has hitherto been, as it were, a sealed Book, not fully understood, except by a chosen few gifted with

* Defence of Dr. Williams, p. 63.

† See p. 247.

extraordinary powers to penetrate its interior, and to disclose its precious treasures. He adopts, moreover, a principle which makes it scarcely possible to determine when the whole truth is actually laid before us. For, if so excursive and volatile a faculty as the Imagination be permitted to range ad libitum in its airy regions, who shall say when it has arrived at the conclusion of its labors? What errors too in religious opinions may not receive a plausible appearance, by the aid of a mode of Interpretation so lax and flexible in itself, and affording such facilities for a perversion of the truth."

Now the three methods of Interpretation laid down by Dr. Van Mildert are the Literal, the Figurative, and the Mystical. As to the literal, it is at length acknowledged that "the mere literalist can hardly be said to be a believer in Divine Inspiration." As to the figurative, "the prophecies,"* we are told, "are written in an Eastern language, absolutely saturated with figure, metaphor, and allusion;"—

"Surely† a large part of the Bible is poetry, and the very essence of poetry is Imagination. . . . You‡ may think this (passage) is prose, but I happen to think it is poetry. We both agree that some is poetry and some is prose; but I take my view of it, and you take yours. I think it was meant allegorically, and you think it was meant literally, and there are many authorities on the Bible who take each view. . . . Observe,§ my lord; I do not say that any one is at liberty to understand the Bible in a sense which the authors did not intend. I say he is at liberty to form his own opinion as to what the sense was they did intend, as to what part they intended as poetry, and what as prose, or what as metaphor and what as plain fact."

* Defence of Dr. Williams, p. 54.

† Ibid., p. 201.

‡ Ibid., p. 56.

§ Ibid., p. 56.

Shall we take refuge in the Mystical mode of Interpretation? But here we are told the Mystical is so "lax and flexible," that "in determining the extent of this species of Interpretation there is considerable difficulty."—No definite rule accordingly has been laid down: it is left to the discretion of the interpreter.—"Great judgment is necessary, neither to do too little, nor to attempt too much." Thus the rules of Interpretation are undefined, the nature and extent of Inspiration undefined, everything relating to the subject indefinite. Seeing these difficulties with regard to Inspiration, the whole ground has been shifted in the Lectures of Mr. Swainson, at Cambridge, in 1859, from Divine Inspiration to Apostolical Authority; but, at Oxford in 1861, it is shifted back again by Mr. Burgon to the original ground of Divine Inspiration; and here stands the question at present, the argument being now, for a time at least, in favor of Mystical or Spiritual Interpretation.

As to the remark, that it is no slight objection to this species of exposition, that it renders the Scriptures in general too deep and mysterious for popular apprehension, it must be owned that modern theology is not liable to this charge, and that too great a depth is not one of its faults. Nevertheless, in the Records of an Evangelical Ministry, occurs the following remark:—

"His sermons were full of matter. Strangers visiting his church would say that he preached over the heads of his people; yet his people themselves said, 'Mr. Phillips goes so deep into things that he makes it all clear to us.' Many after his death could repeat the substance of long passages from his sermons."

Waters that fail, are never likely to become too deep; but deep waters evidence at least a plentiful supply. There is a great difference between accommodating a truth to popular apprehension, and denying the truth altogether. It may require skill in a preacher to explain to the people a spiritual truth; but it requires none to tell them that he has none to explain; as he eschews all novelties, and all discoveries in spiritual knowledge. The sceptic, we may be assured, will equally with the orthodox literalist eschew spiritual Interpretation, and zealously contend for the literal and figurative systems, thus for one meaning and one meaning only, or almost only; both will equally denounce a double sense of Scripture, until at last the orthodox finds that in his zeal to suit Scripture to popular apprehension, the whole cause of the Word of God has been betrayed into the hands of the sceptic, and then he is warned by the learned and more spiritually-minded of his own Church :*—

"That he who reads Scripture under the persuasion that it OFTEN contains depths not yet sounded, and meanings not yet ascertained, will certainly read it with far greater spiritual profit to himself, than he who believes he has fully arrived at the mind of Scripture when he has made out the mere outward meaning of the letter."

Dean Ellicott here says often: Swedenborg says always :†—

* Aids to Faith, p. 452.

† Apocalypse Revealed, chap. xix., art. 824.

"And he had a name written that no one knew but he himself, signifies, that what the Word is in its spiritual and celestial sense, no one sees but the Lord, and they to whom he reveals it. By name is signified the quality of any one; in the present case, the quality of the Word, or what the Word is internally, that is, in its spiritual and celestial sense. It is called a written name, because the Word exists as well among men upon earth as among angels in heaven. By no one knowing it but himself, is signified that no one sees but the Lord himself, and they to whom he reveals it, what the Word is in its spiritual sense. Thus, no one sees the spiritual sense of the Word but only the Lord; and no one sees that sense but from the Lord; and no one sees it from the Lord, except he be in Divine truths from Him."

Some Reviewers read before they write; others write before they read. Whether the following remarks from the Christian Remembrancer are illustrations of the latter course, I leave others to judge:—

Christian Remembrancer:—“We may add that no one can doubt from whence came the reveries of Emanuel Swedenborg, and the principles of the strange sect which bears his name. In this system the literal disappears altogether, and nothing but the allegory remains; this spiritual sense, or rather fantastical, is set before us as the only one worthy of notice, the literal being merely the casket that contains it.” (April, 1862, art. Kabbalism, p. 379.)

Swedenborg:—“In the literal sense of the Word, Divine Truth is in its fulness, sanctity, and power. . . The Word is pre-eminently the Word in its literal sense. . . The celestial and spiritual senses are not the Word, without the natural sense which is the sense of the letter. . . The power of the Divine Truth operates especially against falsities and evils, consequently against the hells; whoever engages in combat against these, must support it by truths from the literal sense of the Word. . . By truths from the literal sense of the Word man is reformed and regenerated. . . The Word in its literal sense is in its fulness, in its holiness, and in its power; and since the Lord is the Word, being the all of the Word, it follows that the Lord in that sense is most eminently present, and that from that sense he teaches and enlightens mankind. . . Man has consociation with the Angels by means of the literal sense.”—The Doctrine of the New Jerusalem concerning the Sacred Scripture, art. 37, 39, 49, 50, 63.

Is this clearly asserting that “the literal sense disappears altogether, and nothing but the allegory remains?”

Christian Remembrancer :—"Still more in (Swedenborg's) heretical notion of the Trinity, the substitution of Manifestation for Person, the threefold soul in man, and doctrines of Angels, all bear a close resemblance to ancient Kabbaliam.' —Ibid.

Swedenborg:—"The Infinite itself, which is above all the heavens, and above the inmost principles appertaining to man, cannot be manifested except by the Divine Humanity which appertains to the Lord alone."—"The Infinite Esse, which is Jehovah, cannot possibly be manifested to man, except by the Human essence, consequently by the Lord; and it was manifested to none but the Lord alone."—Arcana Celestia, art. 1990.

Is this a substitution of Manifestation for Person?*

* It may be well to remind the reader, not excepting the Literary Churchman, of the following passage in our First Tract, p. 51: "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." The Spiritual Exposition of the Apocalypse, in 4 vols. 8vo, was published by Longmans.

BEING AN

ENQUIRY INTO THE RELATION BETWEEN THE LITERAL AND SPIRITUAL SENSES OF THE WORD OF GOD,

AS FOUNDED UPON

THE SCIENCE OF CORRESPONDENCE.

FORMERLY OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD.

No. IV.

"Sterling grew to regard an intelligent theory of Inspiration, and of the relation between the Bible and the faith which it conveys, as the most pressing want of our Church. That it is a most pressing one is indeed certain; and such it has been acknowledged to be by those who meditate on Theology."—Archdeacon Hare's Life of Spring, p. 130.

1862.

"This is what the Age is coming to, and I wish it observed," says a writer in the *Tracts for the Times*;* "we know it denies the existence of the Church as a divine institution: it denies that Christianity has been cast into any particular social mould. Well; but this I say is not all; it is rapidly tending to deny the existence of any system of Christianity either; any creed, doctrine, philosophy, or by whatever other name we designate it."

"I do not see then," says the same writer,† "if men will indulge that eclectic spirit which chooses part, and rejects part of the primitive *Church system*, what is to keep them from choosing part, and rejecting part of the Canon of Scripture."

"I‡ wish to declare what I think will be found really to be the case, *viz.*, that a battle for the Canon of Scripture is but the next step after a battle for the Creed,—that the Creed comes first in the assault, that is all; and that if we were not defending the Creed, we should at this moment be defending the Canon.

"Nay, I would predict as a coming event, that minds *are*

† Vol. V.; Tract 85, p. 99. † *Ibid.*, p. 80. ‡ *Ibid.*, p. 72.

A 2 to be unsettled as to what is Scripture and what is not; and I predict it, that, as far as the voice of one person in one place can do, I may defeat my own prediction by making it. Now to consider the subject.

"How do we know that the whole Bible is the Word of God?"

What is the cause of this gradual dissolution of systems? The writer tells us it is Free Enquiry.

That this prediction concerning Free Enquiry, uttered in A.D. 1838, has been singularly fulfilled, is evident from the present controversy:—

"From whatever point of view,"* says the Dean of Ely, "it may be proposed to regard the doctrines of our religion, with reference to the difficulties which may attach to the reception of them in our days, it is scarcely possible to omit from our consideration the meaning and nature of that divine inspiration, which we attribute to the Holy Scriptures."

And the Dean further observes, that the simple Christian may well be content to believe that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God; but that "the theologian has to ask and answer the question, What does Inspiration mean?"

"I shall contend,"† says Dr. Phillimore, "that though, most wisely, the Church has never given any precise definition of what is Inspiration, it has nevertheless by necessary consequence excluded such views of Inspiration as my learned friends contend for, which would bring it down, when all is explained, to the level of human reason."

"We contend that, though the Church has wisely not

* Hulsean Lectures, p. 75, 79.

† Speech of Dr. Phillimore, in the case of the Bishop of Salisbury versus Dr. Williams, p. 81, 174.

defined Inspiration, it has most certainly and clearly excluded that sense of it, which would bring down the Bible to the level of a poem written by Milton, or a sermon composed by Luther," etc.

According to the foregoing statements, the theologian has to ask and answer the question—What does Inspiration mean? and the answer of the Church is, 'I can tell you what it does not mean, but I cannot tell you what it does.' The consequence is, the Church has no theory of Inspiration, nor can it determine anything with respect to its nature and extent. But the thinking men of the present day are not satisfied with this state of things. The age is urgent in its requirements: the theologian is pressed to answer the question, What does Inspiration mean? Now, "to have to deal with questions of this kind is one of the peculiar trials of thinking men."

For the position of Sceptics is a positive one, established upon the principle that Scripture has only one meaning, and this one the literal. The position of the Church is negative, and a merely negative position will not meet the difficulties of the day. This the thinking men of the Church see and feel to be the case. If the Church says that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, it is surely a very natural question to ask, What do you mean by Inspiration? and if the Church says 'I cannot tell,' then let this be openly known to be the real state of the case. The result will be in due time a searching enquiry into the cause of this ignorance; and the Church, or, if not the Church, the Age, will have to reconsider the whole question. For as Archdeacon Hare says, an intelligent theory of Inspiration has long been acknowledged to be the most pressing want of the day.

The* Church, however, it is said, has wisely abstained from saying what Inspiration is. But how can it be said, she abstains wisely from doing what she is unable to do? If the Church denies the spiritual sense, and if notwithstanding Inspiration consists in the spiritual sense, then, when asked what Inspiration is, it is impossible for the Church to give any true answer; but can this be called wisdom on the part of the Church? Here stands the question at present; but here it will not stand in this age of enquiry.

"It seems to me," says Mr. Swainson,† "that the time has come for an entire reconsideration of the authority of the writings of the New Testament Dispensation." Suppose we add, 'It seems also that the time has come for an entire reconsideration of the Divine Inspiration of the Old and New Testaments.' That the one enquiry will lead, nay, has already led to the other, there can be no doubt. For instance:—

"Here I would observe," says the Dean of Ely,‡ "that the question of the meaning of the term Inspiration, as applied to the Scriptures, is one concerning which we cannot hope to gain so much light from the opinions of Christian antiquity, as we may in the case of some others. Indeed, it seems to me to be essentially a modern question;—one, the great interest and importance of which are found in the

* Dr. Phillimore's Speech, p. 81, 174.

† The Authority of the New Testament, etc., p. 6.

‡ Hulsean Lectures, p. 80.

general tone given to human thought by the accuracy of modern methods in all branches of scientific and learned research. It may perhaps be said with truth, that to have to deal with questions of this kind, is one of the peculiar trials of thinking men in this age; and to shew how they may be treated, without turning our backs upon principles recognized in all branches of human knowledge, is a work, which, if well performed, would be almost the greatest boon conceivable to the Christian Church. It helps us but little to be able to say, that the Scriptures were in all ages reverenced as inspired, to quote the devout expressions of respect with which they were ever mentioned by the fathers of the Church; for though we may conclude from this that a doctrine of Inspiration was always held (concerning which, in fact, there can be no manner of doubt), we may still find ourselves at a loss, when we endeavour to say, what that doctrine was, or whether it be now tenable."

From these remarks, is it not clear that the whole question concerning the Divine Inspiration of the Old and New Testaments is now open; and that to furnish the true solution of the question will be almost the greatest conceivable boon to the Christian Church?

In endeavoring then to promote this desirable object, let us first ask what are the relations of Scripture and Science.

We admit that the accredited conclusions of Science are of a nature to force assent from all those whose education and powers of mind enable them to appreciate the evidence; that if Scripture be interpreted according to a theory of Inspiration which brings it into collision with human science, either the theory must be abandoned, or else the Scripture.

To meet this view of the case it is said :*—

"Divine Inspiration may imply an absence of errors upon physical questions, or it may not: who shall venture to say positively à priori whether it does, or no? . . . if it should appear upon examination, that the first chapter of Genesis, or any other chapter, contains statements not in accordance with Science, then, instead of coming to the conclusion that the Scriptures are not inspired, I should rather come to this, namely, that the idea of Inspiration does not involve that accuracy concerning physics which many persons have imagined that it does."

To this we reply :—

Suppose the subject matter of a narrative in the Bible to be some physical or scientific fact and that only, and yet that the alleged fact is wholly without foundation; in this case, on what has Divine Inspiration to rest? If the narrative be false in the only respect in which it professed to be true, are not its claims to Inspiration as unfounded as its professed facts? Even on the lower ground of policy, is it not better to deny that the narrative had any reference to merely physical facts, and to assert that the facts to which it referred are altogether of a higher order; than to place Inspiration in the merely literal sense, then to question the truth of it, then to make it another question how far Inspiration is consistent with untruth? If this method has been resorted to by some, it is only because they are forced into it by the inexorable demands of Science; but this only shews the nature of the opposition to spi-

* Hulsean Lectures by the Dean of Ely, p. 102.

ritual interpretation, in which it would seem that some defenders of the faith would rather imperil the Bible altogether than yield to the principle of spiritual interpretation. Surely a correct Geological account of the origin of the earth, is not so important as the relation of earthly things to heavenly; and therefore it is far more worthy of Divine Inspiration to give us an account of the relation of earthly things to such as are heavenly and eternal, than of earthly things to each other, in the successive order of time.

Now, if we say that it is owing to the spiritual sense that the Word is divinely inspired, we say what Inspiration means, and in so doing come into no collision with Science, or merely physical facts of any kind; nor do discoveries in Geology interfere with the interpretation of Scripture in any way.—Nay, it is said, but you subvert historical facts.—I answer: First prove them to be so. One of the questions at issue is, whether they are historical or not: whether they are ethical or physical. But even granting that they are historical and that the history is true, it would not prove the history to be divinely inspired, if Divine Inspiration consists in a spiritual sense within the literal; nor, on the other hand, can such a history in any way supersede the spiritual interpretation. In this case, the notion that Geology gives the death-blow to certain portions of Scripture is puerile: we should rejoice in scientific discovery to any extent, knowing that it could not possibly interfere with the truths of the Word of God.

If, however, we say that Inspiration consists in the spiritual sense and thus explain what Inspiration

A 3 means, it becomes a momentous question, In what way is the literal sense connected with the spiritual? We have already said, By the law of correspondence, as the soul is connected with the body. Lord Bolingbroke calls this an allegorical excuse for allegory. But what if the works of God be as allegorical as the Word of God! What if Nature herself be a Parable, and all the objects of Nature have a meaning above and beyond Nature! It is this principle which, in the contemplation of Nature, constitutes the difference between the Christian and the infidel. The atheist and the deist both deny it; but is it becoming in the Christian to do so? Nay; has not the denial of this principle brought the Church into its present difficulties? and has not the acknowledgment of this principle become absolutely necessary, in order to maintain the doctrine of the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures?

"Now," observes Swedenborg,* "forasmuch as Divine things fix their existence in outward Nature in correspondences, therefore the Word was written by mere correspondences; and for the same reason the Lord, in consequence of speaking from Divinity, spoke by correspondences; for whatever proceeds from Divinity, when it comes into outward Nature, manifests itself in such outward things as correspond with what is Divine; which outward things become then the repositories of Divine things, otherwise called celestial and spiritual, which lie concealed within them."

* Doctrine of the New Jerusalem concerning the Sacred Scripture, art. 20.

Before proceeding further, let the reader be prepared absolutely to admit this principle or absolutely to deny it. If he denies it, he denies all relation between the Word of God and the works of God; he places the Christian, in the contemplation of Nature, upon a level with the Deist. There is no alternative. Its importance in relation to the interpretation of the Word of God is essential; for the same objects are common both to Nature and the Word of God. If precious stones, for instance, are symbolical in Nature, they are so in Revelation. We cannot say they have a symbolical meaning in the natural world, and none in the Word of God.

In establishing, then, a true theory of Inspiration, the first step to be taken is the acknowledgment that all Nature is representative. The opponents of the Science of Correspondence must either deny this principle at the outset, or else draw a line between those objects in Nature which are representative, and those which are not.

"There was an opinion," says Mr. Jones, of Nayland,* "I should rather call it a tradition, amongst some heathen philosophers, that the world is a parable, the literal or bodily part of which is manifest to all men, while the inward meaning is hidden, as the soul in the body, the moral in the fable, or the interpretation in the parable. They had heard there was such a thing; but to us the whole secret is opened, by the Scripture accommodating all Nature to things spiritual and intellectual; and whoever sees this plan with an unprejudiced mind, will not only be in the way to understand the

* See his works, vol. iv., Figurative Language of the Holy Scriptures, p. 72, 38.

Bible, but he will want no other evidence of the Christian doctrines."

So Clemens of Alexandria:—

"We may call the world a fable, or parable; in which there is an outward appearance of visible things, with an inward sense which is hidden as the soul under the body."

Alcasar, in his First Preliminary Discourse to the Apocalypse,* observes, that independently of the natural uses of the various objects of Creation—

"I say a profound philosophy teaches, that in the Creation of things it was the intention of the Artificer and Builder, that in those objects of Creation which come within the reach of our vision, men might also be in possession of wonderful symbols and hieroglyphics, serving to point out to them mystically such lessons as would most highly concern them, viz., true instruction in faith and morals."

"Origen, after pursuing the subject in a beautiful train of reasoning, concludes at last with the following words, 'Therefore may all things be referred upward from the visible to the invisible, from the corporeal to the incorporeal, from the manifest to the hidden; so that the objects of the world may be understood to be created by divine Wisdom according to such a divine dispeusation, as from visible things, by means of the things and exemplars themselves, teaches us the invisible, and transfers us from earthly things to those which are of heaven.' Thus far Origen; who doubts not that, in the creation of things corporeal, it was the principal design of the divine Artificer that they should be symbols and traces, as it were, of the mysteries of our faith. Therefore the merely natural office proper to every particular thing, in virtue of which it ministers to other bodies, and in which the philosophy of Aristotle rests, by no means satisfies the infinite

* See his Fifteenth Proximal Note, n. 2.

Wisdom of God, and His especial providence in the salvation of souls; nor indeed His own wonderful counsel whereby He hath determined to raise us from the corporeal to the incorporeal. It is probable, therefore, that the omnipotence of God, when He had the power of making infinite species of souls, plants, and stones, selected and created out of the infinite things which he had in his power, such as were the more apt to signify the mysteries of our salvation, and a conformably moral instruction. And this was accomplished in such a manner, that the universal mechanism of things created should maintain a most beautiful harmony with the wonderful counsel of God in the salvation of men; and that things corporeal should subserve to the representation of those which are spiritual."

Thus far Alcasar.—Even supposing then the first chapter of Genesis to be history, if the world be a parable, why not the Creation of the world? If the objects themselves are separately representative, why not the process of their Creation?

"If we consider (the subject) in due order," says Mr. Jones* of Nayland, "we must begin with the Creation, which, as related in the Book of Genesis, is a pattern of the New Creation in Christ Jesus, and is so applied by the Apostle: 'God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.' Till this light shines in the heart of man, he is in the same state as the unformed world was, when darkness lay upon the face of the deep; and when the new creation takes place, he rises in baptism, as the new earth did from the waters, by the spirit of God moving upon them."

* See his Works; vol. iv., Figurative Language of Scripture, p. 38.

There is no question, then, if the world in general be a Parable and the process of Creation itself parabolical, that the whole of the first chapter of Genesis is in the same sense parabolical. Yet, strange to say, not one word upon this subject is said in Bishop Patrick's Commentary, or in the Family Bible, or in Scott's or Henry's Commentaries, or in abundance of others which might be named. As far as regards the Church of England, it seems to be a method of interpretation which has fallen into such general disuse, that when Geologists have become convinced that the literal sense only cannot stand, a dead silence in regard to any spiritual sense reigns throughout the Seven Replies and the Aids to Faith: although Papias, a cotemporary of Polycarp, is said to have given a spiritual interpretation to the history of Creation, as we know was the case with Augustin, Jerome, and other fathers.

Among the various answers to the Essays and Reviews, that of Mr. Huxtable* has the credit, when sounding a retreat from what he conceives to be an untenable position, of coming to a final acknowledgment that the first chapter of Genesis is parabolical.

"The grounds briefly recapitulated are these;—

"The Divine Inspiration of the section being admitted, but a great want of conformity being noticed between its details if it be construed as history, and the known facts of Nature, we are driven to surmise that our notion of its being historical is itself wrong; (2) à priori, a cosmogenetical

* Faith and Peace, p. 81. Sacred Record of Creation, etc., by B. Huxtable, M.A., Vicar of Weston Zoyland, Somerset, and Prebendary of Wells Cathedral: late Vice-Principal of Wells Theological College.

history was not to be expected, because the communication of such knowledge does not fall within the proper scope of a Divine Revelation: (3) à priori again, a cosmogenetical history from heaven was not to be expected, because if true (as of course it must have been), it would have been unintelligible in all ages till now, and most probably even now: it would further have been prejudicial to the proper purpose of a Revelation,—for it would have led men away to speculations on physical Science, it would have made notions of physical Science matter of religion, and it would have impeded faith in the revelation generally, when its statements relative to cosmical facts were not felt to be in accordance with what Science was supposed to teach: (4) the whole manner of the delineation in this section disinclines the reader to regard it as history, and leads him to feel it to be a Parable: (5) that it is a Parable, and not historical, is evidenced by the consideration that the time in which the events that it refers to took place transcends the historical period, and that therefore, like the closing delineations of the Apocalypse, this opening delineation of Genesis can in all reason be only construed symbolically: (6) this first section stands apart from that which follows* and refuses to be taken in conjunction with it as homogeneous history: and (7) though it is not so obvious to us with our ways of thinking and speaking, to take a passage like this as parabolic, with an

* With respect to the reserve here made in favor of the history of the Fall, it is well known that Dr. Middleton was firmly convinced that this narrative also was a "moral fable or allegory;" he complained of the Fathers so often confounding together figure and fact, as did the cotemporaneous Bishop of London in following their example; indeed even the present respected Bishop asks the question with regard to the first Paradise, "Who will venture to draw the limits here between figure and fact?" See Dangers and Safeguards, p. 260. Also The Works of Dr. Conyers Middleton, Principal Librarian of the University of Cambridge: vol. ii., p. 450.

oriental it would be different; his habits of thinking and speaking would dispose him readily to conceive of it under that character; and we may very easily believe that he might not have thought of it as history at all, but have fastened his mind altogether upon the religious notions which it embodies."

A once celebrated French divine, Jurieu,* in laying down the principles of interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, observes:—

"The first of our principles is this, that everything is full of mysteries in that great work of the Creation. I suppose this principle, because it will be generally granted by those for whose sake I write: as for those who will have nothing to be found here, but the Letter and the History, they deserve not to be considered. If their opinion be no heresy, it comes very near one: 'tis unworthy of a divine, and I am bold to say, unworthy of an understanding Christian. He must very little have studied the Divine conduct, who doth not take notice of its depth, and that incomparably more is concealed than discovered."

"There are three sorts of people who read the Scripture: The simple and ignorant, who are altogether so, studied and deep divines who only are truly divines, and those who are but superficial ones. The first are the lambs, born to eat the grass which grows on the surface of these fields: I do not impute it to them as a fault not to penetrate farther. But I know not how to pardon those pretended divines, who tear out the very heart of the Sacred Scriptures, in the mysteries and divine depths therein, and leave it nothing but a bare superficies."

Now we are told, that the Sceptics of the present day believe only in the letter and the history, and

* The Accomplishment of the Scripture Prophecies, p. 329.

that, as such, Scripture has one meaning and one meaning only. The Aids to Faith was written in answer to the Sceptics; and yet on the subject of the Mosaic Record of Creation it insists only on the letter and the history, hence on one meaning and one meaning only; thus granting to Sceptical writers the very principle for which they are contending; for their policy is to shew that Scripture has but one meaning, and then that this one meaning is untrue.

Surely, then, if we regard the First Chapter of Genesis as parabolical, it is only in harmony with the principle that all Nature is a Parable. But if all Nature be a parable, by what method shall we interpret this Parable? We answer, The Creator is Interpreter. The Word of God which created the Parable, the same interprets the Parable. But if so, where in the written Word is the clue to the interpretation? We answer, In the structure of the Tabernacle; which leads us to interpretations not desultory but systematic; the system itself being therefore no more of human origin than was the plan of the Tabernacle. God, who in the beginning gave the word for the creation of the heavens and the earth, gave the word also for the building of the Tabernacle itself. In both cases the Architect is the same; and both in the Temple of the Universe and the Temple of Jerusalem are presented to us the patterns of things in the Heavens, whence both are parabolical. And as God created the heavens and the earth, let us not contemplate one apart from the other—Nature apart from the Bible: “what God hath joined together let no man put asunder.”

Now in the Temple or the Tabernacle we find that the Creator and Creation, thus, that the Word of God, the heavens, the mind of man, and hence the universe, all meet as it were together; for the Temple is the Divine Humanity, the three divisions of the Temple are the three Heavens, and hence also, as we shall see, the three degrees of the human mind. That Christ is signified by the Temple, is universally acknowledged. That the three divisions of the Temple represent the three heavens, has been also seen by various writers, as by St. Anselm,* St. Remigius, Villalpandus, and others; the outer court representing the lowest heaven, the sanctuary the second heaven, and the holy of holies the third heaven. Both Anselm and Augustin regard these three heavens as corresponding also to three ways of knowing things; and this is the case with Swedenborg, who regards these three ways of knowing things as originating from the three regions of the mind of man, as Turretin† remarks:—

"In man there are three parts, the external senses which apprehend things sensible, τὰ αἰσθητά, and which are in the atrium or Court; the intellect and rational mind which takes cognizance of things apprehended by the intellect, τὰ νοητά, and which are in the Holy place; and the heart or the conscience, which embraces τὰ πιστά, the things of faith which are in the Most Holy place, which eye hath not seen nor ear heard."

Thus do the three divisions of the Temple correspond to the three heavens, the three regions of the

* See St. Anselm on 2 Cor. xii. 1; also Villalpandus on the Temple, vol. ii., chap. vi., p. 14.

† Institutio Theologiae, vol. ii., p. 171. See our Appendix.

mind, and hence to the three ways of knowing things; hence also arise the three different senses of the Word, the highest having relation pre-eminently to love or the affections, the next pre-eminently to truth or the intellect, and the lowest to both in their natural or ultimate form.

"The case is,"* observes Swedenborg, "with respect to these three senses of Scripture, as it was with the Tabernacle: its inmost, or what was within the veil, where was the Ark containing the Testimony, was most Holy, or the Holy of Holies; its internal, or what was immediately without the veil, where were the golden table and candlestick, was Holy; the external also, where was the Court, was also Holy: the congregation assembled thereat, and hence it was called the tent of the Congregation."

Accordingly, Swedenborg observes that†—"by the Tabernacle were represented Heaven and the Church; wherefore the pattern of it was shewn to Moses on Mount Sinai; hence by all things contained in that Tabernacle, as the candlestick, the golden altar for incense, and the table whereon was the shewbread, were represented and signified the holy things of Heaven and the Church; and by the Law written on two tables, and enclosed in the Ark, was signified the Lord as respects the Word. Now forasmuch as externals derive their essence from internals, and both the one and the other from what is inmost, which in the Tabernacle was the Law, therefore by all things

* Arcana Celestia, art. 3439.

† Doctrine of the New Jerusalem concerning the Sacred Scriptures, art. 46.

belonging to the Tabernacle were represented and signified the holy things of the Word."

Dean Trench* makes a similar observation :—

"Nor is it unworthy of remark, when we are estimating the amount of the Parabolic element in Scripture, how much beside the spoken, there is there of acted Parable. In addition to those which by a more especial right we separate off and call by that name, every type is a real Parable. The whole Levitical constitution with its outer Court, its Holy, its Holiest of all, its high priest, its sacrifices, and all its ordinances is such, and is declared to be such in the Epistle to the Hebrews."

In this case, to open the Temple and to see the Ark is to explain the Parable, and all that pertains to it: hence on this passage, "And the Temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in the temple the Ark of his Testament," Vitringa remarks that it signifies that—

"The Person, the Nature, and the Attributes of Jesus Christ, concerning which there are such labored disputations in the Church, will be clearly known, explained, and illustrated; . . . that the interior mysteries of the heavenly Sanctuary will be laid open to spiritual eyes for contemplation, by the removal of every veil; and that to the true worshippers of God they will be far more clearly and distinctly evident than formerly."

So Berengaud :—

"We may likewise by the Temple understand the Old Testament: by the Ark, the mysteries concerning Christ which are contained in the Old Testament. For when Christ came in the flesh, the Old Testament was opened, and the

* Notes on the Parables, p. 25.

spiritual meaning which was latent in it, was revealed to the faithful."

So Alexander Alensis :—

"The Temple of the Lord was opened, that is, the mystery of Christ was made manifest, in heaven, i. e., in the Scripture of God now opened; for the mystery concerning Christ which had before lay hidden in heaven, i. e., in the Sacred Scripture, was made manifest in the Old Testament by the Lamb who was worthy to open the Book and to loose the seven seals. . . . And there was seen the Ark of the Testament in his Temple, that is, those things which were written and shadowed forth in figures concerning Christ, are now revealed; the Ark of the Testament is seen, i. e., Christ; in his Temple, that is, in the Church of God. He is called the Ark, because in Christ are hidden all the treasures of the wisdom and knowledge of God; and Christ is called the Ark of the Testament, because he fulfilled the Old Testament and originated the New."

So Aretas and Œcumenius :—

"And the Temple of God in heaven was opened, and the Ark of his Testament was seen in his Temple.—What does the vision mean by this circumstance? It means, that as it was in former times said to Moses, that those things which he was commanded to execute were significative, and had not the efficacy of the truth signified (for it was said, 'See that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shewed thee on the mount'); so also that these things are now explained, by exalting the knowledge of the visible types to their corresponding heavenly signification."

So Mr. Isaac Williams on the Apocalypse :—

"It must at all events signify that the kingdom and mystery of Christ is now in some sense fully revealed. The Ark of the Testament,—the Old Testament laid up therein, is made manifest and understood: the Lamb hath been found worthy to open the mystery."

If this be the case, may we not say in the words of the same author:*—

"The cases of Analogy which occur (in Holy Scripture) are so numerous, so manifold, and so remarkable that it seems to intimate something of a vast system, of which these are but the casual intimations; consequently, that greater light in things divine will consist in a fuller observation of these analogies; and that to see more deeply into them will be to obtain a higher and greater knowledge of God?"

A similar interpretation of the preceding passage is given by almost all Commentators, both ancient and modern, the only difference being with respect to the period of its fulfilment; some referring it to the time of our Saviour, some to that of the Reformation, and others to a period yet to come; all however agreeing, that it points to some further revelation of the mysteries contained in the Word of God, and to the antichristian opposition it would occasion.

We thus see the Scriptures intimately connected both with the Temple and the Ark; indeed if the Temple was constructed for the Ark, and the Ark for the Decalogue, and the Decalogue represented the whole Word of God, then the throwing open of the three compartments of the Temple naturally suggests some corresponding threefold revelation of the mysteries of the Word of God. In this point of view, we perceive at once the connection between the threefold distinction of the Temple, the Heavens, the human mind, and the Word of God: a distinction which is

* Thoughts on the Study of the Holy Gospels, p. 201.

no more of human origin than is that of the world itself into the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms.

Now the doctrine of Inspiration, as founded upon this view of the subject, cannot be cooped up within the narrow theories of theologians, which are invented only to meet the requirements of individual minds: it indicates a vast and extensive system, coextensive indeed with the goings forth from of old of the Word of God. It is the doctrine of the communication of Divine life—a life communicated both to Angels and men, thus to the Church in heaven and the Church on earth, by Inspiration; and the life thus communicated, consequently Inspiration itself, partakes of that threefold distinction which is common to the whole universe visible and invisible. Angels may declare to men, and men respond to Angels, “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the BREATH of the Almighty hath given me life.”—For, “Wisdom is the BREATH of the power of God, a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty.”

Hence as Swedenborg observes;*

“Inspiration implies that in all parts of the Word, even the most minute, as well historical as others, are contained celestial things which appertain to love or good, and spiritual things which appertain to faith or truth, consequently things Divine. For what is inspired by the Lord descends from Him through the Angelic Heavens, and thence through the World of Spirits, till it reaches man; before whom it presents itself in such a form as the Word has in its letter,

* Arcana Celestia, art. 1887.

which is altogether different from that which belongs to it in its first origin. In Heaven there is not any worldly history, but the whole is representative of things divine; nor is anything else there perceived; as may also be known from the acknowledged fact, that the words there heard are unspeakable by man. Wherefore unless the historical relations be representative of things divine, and be thus celestial, they cannot possibly be divinely inspired. What is the nature of the Word in the heavens can be known only from the internal sense; for the internal sense is the Word of the Lord in the heavens."

Thus, then, the Inspiration of the Sacred Scripture consists in the internal sense; and to unfold that internal sense is to explain the nature of the Inspiration, or of those truths which are spirit and which are life.

Inspiration, then, is not a metaphorical but an allegorical term: it signifies breathing into, so that the internal sense of Scripture signifies a sense or meaning breathed into the external sense. But the Bible is a book, and what can be the meaning of breathing into a book? I answer; the book per se is a dead letter; but when I read it, that which I read is transferred to my mind: it is in my mind that exists the literal sense, and in which therefore the breathing or inspiration, and thus the vivification or animation, of the letter takes place. The inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding not to the book, but to the reader: awakening in the mind the spiritual idea corresponding to the outward sign written in the book. This inspiration is the inspiration of the

Spirit of Truth, which breathes into the outward forms of our consciousness the inward truths which give them life, and which are thus the interior life of the understanding.

This life, which is received from divine inspiration, exists in man as the breath of his spirit: hence the origin of the expression of "thoughts that breathe;" thought from affection being only, as it were, mental breathing: or that function of the mind which corresponds to the respiration of the body. Hence it is that the Spirit of Truth is called breath or spirit, and that wisdom is called the breath of the power of God. Thus as love is spoken of in reference to the functions of the heart or its pulsation, so wisdom is spoken of in reference to the function of the lungs or to breathing; wisdom purifying the affections, as respiration purifies the blood.

The view of Inspiration, then, here presented, establishes a direct relation between the Works of God and the Word of God: the two are in harmony because in correspondence with each other. It is therefore opposed to that doctrine of Inspiration which ignores or denies the correspondence between the two; and which, instead of regarding Nature as uttering the truths of the Bible, compels the Bible to utter only those of Nature; and to subordinate itself to the discoveries of the Geologist, or rather, as stated by Dr. Phillimore,* to the criticism of the Sceptic who says,—"We do not want canons to interpret Scripture, we want to know what makes Scripture at

* Speech of Dr. Phillimore in the Court of Arches, in the case versus Dr. R. Williams, p. 8.

B all; we do not wish to learn how far or how little it agrees with Science—we wish it to take the place that Science shall assign to it."

The truth is, the general denial of the Doctrine of Correspondence has placed not only the Bible but the Church in a false position: it has subordinated both to natural Science, instead of natural Science to both; it has placed the divine below the Geologist, and then sent him in search of an Act of Parliament to relieve him of his sacred office. Whereas, admitting the true Doctrine of Correspondence, what is the true place of the Church?

"There is in Scripture," says Mr. Isaac Williams,* "the literal sense and the spiritual sense; there is a visible Church and a Church invisible." The literal sense then is to the spiritual, what the visible Church is to the invisible. The spiritual sense is for the spiritual or invisible Church, the literal sense for the visible Church; but in like manner as the visible Church is in connection with the invisible, so is the literal sense in connection with the spiritual. Destroy the spiritual sense, and you destroy the connection of the visible Church with the invisible, or of the natural with the supernatural.

"The Church being a supernatural society," says Hooker,† "doth differ from natural societies in this, that the persons unto whom we associate ourselves in the one are men simply considered as men, but they to whom we be joined in the other, are God, Angels, and holy men"... "Neither are Angels themselves so far severed from us in their kind and

* Study of the Gospels, p. 257.

† Ecclesiastical Polity, book i., chap. 15, sec. 2; chap. 16, sec. 4.

manner of working, but that between the law of their heavenly operations and the actions of men in this our state of mortality, such correspondence there is as maketh it expedient to know in some sort the one, for the other's more perfect direction. Would Angels acknowledge themselves fellow-servants with the sons of men, but that both having one Lord, there must be some kind of law which is one and the same to both, whereunto their obedience being perfecter, is to our weaker both a pattern and a spur."

In this point of view, to deny the spiritual sense of Scripture, is to deny the connection of the supernatural society in heaven with the natural society upon earth. In this case the visible Church being left to itself, chooses the literal or natural sense of Scripture, to the exclusion of the spiritual and supernatural; and thus excludes itself from union with the Church in heaven. Have we not here a sufficient explanation of the evils which are now afflicting the Church?

There are, however, three principal objections to the Doctrine of Correspondence as now explained: the First is, that it can never be reduced to any true system; the Second, that it is dangerous to employ it in eliciting the doctrines of the Church: the Third, that no real connection can ever be established between the literal and spiritual senses of Scripture.

First, the Doctrine of Correspondence can never be reduced to any true system. Thus it is observed by a respected author above mentioned:*—

"And now we proceed to shew certain general forms or schemes of Analogy throughout the Scriptures, after first

* Study of the Gospels, by the Rev. Isaac Williams, p. 206.

B 2 premising by way of caution that, the reducing of things to scheme and system in religion is a practice of itself defective and liable to error. On subjects Divine and therefore partaking of what is Infinite, there is always a danger in attempting to class and separate into definite and human systems of division. The relations and dependencies of things are so great, that there is often much fallacy in marking out and distinguishing, and then arguing upon our own divisions and distinctions." . . "Things Divine, as things natural, blend with one another so imperceptibly, that no definite and accurate line can be drawn between them." . . Yet—"We may still have recourse to them (viz., system and divisions) in order to arrange our ideas and facilitate our enquiries. And we may be perhaps allowed to throw these analogies into something of a scheme, being at the same time aware that they run into each other, and into other numerous and indefinable analogies not to be embraced in the same. Shallow minds alone can rest in systems, and be satisfied with the apparent ease and clearness with which they arrange great truths; their seeming clearness often arises from their passing over all the difficulties without diving into their depths; for system is human, and squares out, delineates, and defines the surface: the subjects systematized are of a nature Divine and Infinite, and contain within them unfathomable deeps." . . . "In* reading the Gospels we must not be satisfied with only a limited or superficial interpretation, but are to consider the various modes in which the analogies may be connected with any one event and expression; and to remember that one simple and manifest interpretation is no reason why manifold others may not be equally true; and that a more deep and extensive knowledge of Scripture might be enabled to elicit them in a manner to satisfy any reasonable mind of their truth."

* Ibid., p. 270.

This manifold interpretation is not said to arise from the non-existence of any system of analogies; on the contrary,—

"If* we take separate emblems in Holy Scripture, and find them frequently used in one sense, so as to indicate and mark some definite meaning, and that this our opinion of its mystical sense is confirmed by the opinion of great and good writers, so as to be sure that we are using it in a reasonable and safe manner; and if we put many of these together as thus explained, we shall find, I think, that they will afford something like a system, as if all external nature was systematically expressive of things spiritual and invisible, through a very extensive analogy."

Accordingly it is said—

"That† there seem indications not only that the signs and emblems are in themselves definite and fixed, as representing things spiritual and invisible, but also that they fall in with others and with each other, so as to form a system."

How then is it that we are not thus supplied with any systematic Doctrine of Correspondence? Because‡—

"The whole of this subject of Analogy goes upon the supposition, that it is of a nature so intricate and so extensive, that we cannot attempt to do anything more than to point out glimpses and indications of it;—sufficient to shew that there does exist such analogy as far as it goes;—but with no idea of tracing out its infinite relations, and the mutual correspondence of various analogies; or indeed any single one entire."

We thus see that, in the system of Nature and the system of Revelation, there exists a definite system of Correspondence; but so vast and intricate as to be

* Ibid., p. 268. † Ibid., p. 267. ‡ Ibid., p. 249.

beyond the reach of human faculties; that we must, therefore, be content with only occasional glimpses of it: and that if from these we form a system, it must be of human origin, not of divine. The consequence is, that we are left without any true system of interpretation; any definite Doctrine of Correspondence. It exists indeed, but we cannot reach it; and hence systematic interpretation upon this principle becomes impossible. Everything is regarded as having infinite meanings, and thus we seem to come to the maxim of Cocceius, Scriptura significat quicquid potest significare. This is one school.

Now, the very fact that this mode of interpretation cannot be conformed to any rule, is urged by some theologians as a reason for rejecting it altogether; by others, for denying also that either in the Book of Nature or of Revelation any such system of analogy can be shewn to exist. This is another school.

Is there then any alternative between these two extremes? We are told that there is, in the adoption of a middle course. "This mode of interpretation," says Dr. Van Mildert,* "may not indeed be safely trusted even to the most learned or well-intentioned expositor, unless he be content to circumscribe it within the limits of such necessary rules as those which have been suggested." What limits? Those which are proper to a "middle course" between excess and defect. Here begins accordingly another phase of the argument; for—how are we to ascertain this middle course?—"Here great judgment is often necessary; neither to do too little nor to attempt

* Bampton Lectures, p. 246.

too much." Individual judgment alone, then, points out the middle course.

"The Temple* service of the Jews and the whole ceremonial Law of Moses may be regarded as of a typical character, so far as respects their general design. But here, as in Parables, and all figurative portions of Scripture, the parallel between the literal and mystical sense must not be too minutely extended: an error into which fanciful Expositors are prone to fall, and by which the Sacred Writings have often been subjected to the ridicule of the undiscerning and profane."

Similar is the observation of Calvin upon the words, "See that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount." "Wherefore,"† says he, "we must here pursue a middle course, which we shall do if we do not seek to know more than has been revealed in Christ." In the present case, what is it that was revealed to Moses?—A model or a pattern, according to which he was to make the Tabernacle strictly in every particular. This model was shewn to him from heaven, with all the details of curtains, taches, loops, boards, sockets, etc. "But," says Calvin, "we must not be over-curious in these matters, and seek for some deep meaning in the several taches and like minutiæ, as Hesychius has taken such pains to do, and a good many of the ancient writers." Now the question is, when this model was seen in heaven, had these particulars any significance there? Was the model there, for the most part, a mere unmeaning exhibition of trifling minutiæ? If this be

* Bampion Lectures. By Dr. Van Mildert, p. 238.

† See on Heb. viii. 5.

the case, then in the interpretation of the model the Angels in heaven must have been as much under the necessity of pursuing a middle course as men upon earth: it might have been one of those things which they desired to look into, but which they need not have done, as most of the objects of their enquiry, far from being too deep for their investigation, were wholly insignificant. I mention this, because the case of the Tabernacle is that of the written Word of God. In the interpretation of both, the "middle course" is recommended. If the Scriptures be truly the Word of God, and the office of the Church be to interpret that Word, as the office of Moses was to make the Tabernacle according to the model, Moses would have been as much justified in pursuing a middle course in building the Tabernacle, as the Church itself in giving its interpretation. When the model was shewn to that prophet, and he was commanded to make every particular according to it, what should we say if he had availed himself of the excuse of modern theologians, and said, "This means only in so far as respects the general design?"

"We need not," says Professor Stuart,* "with Cocceins, Bishop Horne, and other writers of this description, find Christ everywhere in the Old Testament: nor need we, as has been said of Grotius, come to the conclusion that he is to be found nowhere in it. There is some middle path between these extremes."

So, likewise, Professor Fairbairn,† referring to the Tabernacle as a pattern of heavenly things:—

* Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy, p. 32.

† Typology of Scripture, vol. ii., p. 224.

"Here, also, there is a middle path which is the right one, and it is possible, in searching for the truths embodied in those patterns of heavenly things, to err by excess as well as defect. We are not to suppose that a separate and distinct meaning attaches to each part by itself or to the separate qualities, perhaps, of the materials of which the different parts are composed."

Dean Trench has availed himself of a similar latitude in the interpretation of the parables?* The question is asked, How much of them is to be taken as significant? What circumstances are essential; what are only incidental? The answer is, "There have been exaggerations on both sides;"—"we are obliged to confess that no absolute rule can be laid down beforehand to guide the expositor as to how far he shall proceed. Much must be left to good sense," etc.—This is the method which Dr. Van Mildert calls the middle course;† but which is not open to any interpreter who has first of all laid down the principle, as Dean Trench has done, that all Nature is symbolical. It is as if one should begin by asserting that the Tabernacle and all that related to it was symbolical; and when he finds in some prophecy something relating to the Tabernacle which he cannot interpret, he should plead the excuse that we must not press the symbol too closely, or indulge in curiosities of interpretation; that the symbol itself is not an essential, is only incidental, adventitious, supplementary, and so forth; and is therefore, in this particular passage, not to be expected to have any meaning.

* Notes on the Parables, p. 35, 16.

† Bampton Lectures, p. 230.

B 3

Mr. Fairbairn* claims a similar latitude in regard to the interpretation of the appurtenances of the Tabernacle. He acknowledges, first of all, that God exhibited to Moses "the pattern of things in the heavens, after which it (viz., the Tabernacle) was in every particular to be constructed;" but then the Tabernacle was likewise to be moveable, and there were things without which it would not have preserved either this property, or its tent-like appearance;—"Therefore, to seek for some deeper and spiritual reasons for such things as the boards and bars, the rings and staves, the different sorts of coverings, the loops and taches, etc., is to go entirely into the region of conjecture, and give unbounded scope to the exercise of fancy."

What is this but the very same latitude which is adopted also in the interpretation of the Apocalypse?

"It needs no argument to shew," says Mr. Desprez,† "that the Apocalypse is a highly figurative and allegorical composition. Now, the great fault of interpreters in explaining allegory, is the attempt to carry minute explanations too far. This has been the cause of irremedial mischief, and has originated a host of absurdities and errors."

"There is always a Divine truth under each symbol; there is always a Divine basis under the allegory;—and this is the truth to be prominently brought forward, the remaining parts of the symbol being only helps to finish out the picture. What rule, then, is here left to guide us? We must remember we are told that Scripture must ever be interpreted according to the analogy of Scripture, and that ample allowance must be made for Oriental phraseology and Biblical metaphor."

* Typology of Scripture, vol. ii., p. 223.

† Apocalypse Fulfilled, p. 32, 436.

Nay, but after this ample allowance for metaphor has been made, the Sceptic turns round and demands, What is Scripture?*

"What do they mean when they say that the Bible is the Word of God? Do they mean to say that they must believe in every word—IN WHAT? In the Bible? and what is the Bible?—they have introduced a metaphor in the indictment, and they say, Because you have used language which is inconsistent with this metaphor, therefore you are a heretic."

No wonder that one of the most sceptical of the Essayists has regarded this work on the Apocalypse with no ordinary admiration!

Such is the dilemma into which we are led by the middle path, and which every interpreter is at liberty to make as wide, or as long, or as short as he pleases, and in whatever direction he pleases.

For who will point out the "middle course" in regard to the natural world, and say, These objects have a meaning above and beyond Nature, and those have not: this part of the world belongs to natural theology, and that to Revelation; for as Christ, who is the Creator, is not to be found everywhere in his own Word, so he is not to be found everywhere in his own works: though, however, he is not to be found everywhere, yet he is to be found somewhere, and that somewhere depends upon the opinion of the Expositor? Surely if precious stones had been admitted to be representative in the natural world, why not also in the Bible? In this case it would not be at the option of the Expositor to say that stone, wood, or brass was not symbolical: his only alternative would be

* See our Third Tract, p. 55.

between the symbolical and the Deistical interpretation of Nature.

Accordingly this is the issue of the argument. It is a downright contest between Deism and Christianity, as to which of the two shall have the interpretation of Nature. There must be no "middle course" between the two; no tampering with the deist by handing over to him one part of the Universe for the purpose of Deism, the other part to the divine for the purpose of Revelation; nor is the portion to be assigned to Christ the Lord of All, to depend upon the Expositor. We must no longer take private judgment as our rule, but find out some rule which shall be the guide of private judgment. A judgment formed upon no rule can no longer be a guide. The Church must now make a choice between the two courses, and upon this choice will depend its future destiny. If the Temple is to be interpreted like any other building, the Bible will be interpreted like any other book; the Humanity of our Lord, signified by the Temple, will be as the humanity of any other man; and one Church, whatever be its teaching, as good as another. As long as we speak of the Science of Correspondence apart from its application to the Bible, as long as we admit that we do not know in what Inspiration consists, the question concerning Correspondence might seem to be only speculative and unnecessary; but when it is seen to be the very basis of the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures; when the Divine element is admitted to be in the human, the spiritual in the natural, by Correspondence only, the whole question changes its aspect, and involves not only the Divine Inspiration of the Word of God, but the very existence of the Church itself. In this case the controversy of the Church is not with Allegorists; she has enough to do to maintain her ground against the Sceptic, and only imperils her position by asserting, against all parties, that there can be no such thing as a definite system of Analogy, a definite theory of Inspiration, or a definite rule of Interpretation.

For—as the spiritual sense of Scripture is founded upon the Science of Correspondence, so a denial of that sense involves a denial of this doctrine; the consequence is, a denial of all connection between the works of God and the Word of God, and an agreement of the divine with the sceptic, that the Word of God has one meaning only, and the works of God no meaning at all. You may argue with the Deist that design implies a designer, in which the Sceptic may readily agree, but there are no means left of bringing the Natural World within the province of Revelation; by surrendering the Science of Correspondence, the Church virtually concedes to the Sceptic, that no such doctrine can be established; and however indifferent the Church may feel upon the subject, not so the Sceptic, who feels that the Church by her silence acknowledges her weakness and his triumph.

"That* the doctrine of a universal analogy between spiritual and natural things has its foundation in the Word of God, appears to me," says a writer, "as clear and undeniable as that faith in Christ is taught in the same

* Essays on the Universal Analogy between the Natural and Spiritual Worlds, p. 20. Originally published by Hatchard, but now out of print.

Scriptures. There is hardly a chapter in the Sacred volume, I believe, which does not set forth this great truth directly or indirectly."

Whose words are these? Those of a man who had been a confirmed Deist, and was afterwards converted to Christianity principally by observing the relation between the works of God and the Word of God as founded upon some law of Correspondence:—

"At* the time," says he, "of my poor conversion to the Christian faith by the teachings of the Analogy of Nature in great measure, these spiritual views of natural things were, as I may say, poured like a flood into my mind continually and involuntarily, and suffered me not to rest. . . . In reading the Evangelist, I heard the Lord saying to those who heard his parables, He that hath ears to hear let him hear. It seemed to me that he had given me such an ear; and therefore I hoped that I might hear or understand without presumption. I am aware that some may think me presumptuous for supposing that I understood the parables of Scripture without human assistance: but I was in the jungles or wildernesses of Hindostan, surrounded by infidels and atheists, and no expositor near me except Him who teaches more effectually than any man. . . . I had long despised and rejected the plain truths of His glorious Gospel from infidel pride, ignorance and corrupt prejudices, and was completely hardened against such plain but wholesome doctrine: He therefore in his infinite mercy spoke to my heart and mind in the Analogy of the parables of Nature: and as I first ascribed the discernment which He gave me to my own ingenuity, I was flattered and allured to persist; until by degrees all the truths of the Law, and afterwards those of the Gospel of Salvation, were graciously and wonderfully

* Ibid., p. 88.

revealed to my soul. . . . Woe unto you, ye lawyers (or expounders of the Law), for ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. That Analogy is one key of spiritual knowledge was evident to me, and it was therefore evident to me from this Scripture, that I ought to use it as a Christian, without being frightened by those who tried to hinder me from entering in."

. . . "It* is now full twenty years since I first began to commit my thoughts on this subject to paper, and I have found the employment both delightful and profitable. It has greatly increased and strengthened my faith: and as my faith increased, so did my views of Analogy become more clear and general. If philosophy be a noble study; and if the philosophy of nature, or in other words, the wisdom of God in Nature, be the most noble and profitable of all that is called human philosophy, then the study of the analogies of Nature with reference to the Word of God, is the most noble and useful of all philosophy. It gives a key and opens a door of entrance into the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, or into the Temple of the Tabernacle of the testimony in heaven."

. . . "Most† of what are called serious or religious persons do believe the Bible to be the Word of God; but they do not, so far as I can find, believe Nature to have been made with any proper spiritual views or purposes; and to them it therefore appears absurd that any one should expect to find in the Bible a universal analogy or correspondence with the book of Nature. Even if it should be found to exist, they, or some of them, consider it to be as it were accidental with respect to any spiritual application, and without any such intention of analogy in the Creator; so at least I have found some evangelical and pious persons say. Hence

* Ibid., p. 20.

† Ibid., p. 167.

they reject the analogy of Nature with Holy Scripture decidedly—as a seal of the truth of evangelical doctrines; and as an ordained instrument of conversion or conviction; and only use it very cautiously as an unparalleled medium of illustration, because no man can be intelligible without it."

This statement, however, does not represent the full extent of the mischief. Mr. Jones, of Nayland, who published certain Lectures on the Figurative Language of Holy Scripture, observes:—

"It* hath been shewed in the Second and Third Lectures, that the great use of Nature, in the hand of God, is to instruct man; and, from the works of Nature, give him a right understanding of such things as are above Nature; and the matter is beyond dispute, because the fact speaks for itself. Yet, to my astonishment this is denied, and even scouted by learned men, who profess a critical judgment of all literary productions; though this sublime and delightful method of teaching is notorious throughout the Old and New Testament."

Here then are two instances, the one in which a Deist was converted from Deism to Christianity by observing the correspondences between Nature and Revelation, or between the works of God and the Word of God; and yet whose subsequent experience in the religious world, by the general denial of this Doctrine of Correspondence, would have forced him back into Deism, had not his own religious convictions triumphed over the antagonism.

Next we have the efforts of an eminent divine to establish the same principle of relation between the works of God and the Word of God; but the oppo-

* Ibid. See his works; vol. iv., p. 272. Preface to a Discourse, etc.

sition he also encounters both from the Church and the world is such, that he is obliged to be as cautious and reserved upon the subject as if he were in the midst of open enemies.

And now what has happened in the present day? A distinguished divine, whose zeal in behalf of the return of the Jews to Jerusalem is the result of the literal interpretation to the exclusion of the spiritual, thus writes :—

"The prevalence of the spiritual interpretation will make prophecy the scorn of the Jew and the infidel, and harden them in their unbelief. A principle therefore which undermines the foundations of our faith and hope, which gives the lie to the Divine promises, and represents God as an equivocator, must surely be rejected as false."

One meaning only, and that one the literal, is therefore adopted; and this distinguished literalist is selected as one of the champions in the Aids to Faith against the Sceptics, of whom we are informed, "that Scripture has one meaning, and one meaning only, is seen to be and felt to be one of the keys of their position;" literalism thus effecting an arrangement between two opposite parties, the one thus retaining the doctrine of the literal return of the Jews to Jerusalem, the other retaining undisturbed in their hands the key to their own position.

But it has been objected by the literalist, that allegorical interpretations can never be relied on for the establishment of any Christian doctrine or precept: that we cannot depend upon an occult sense to establish any position of importance, especially any articles of faith: that as history implies literal facts, so doctrine implies literal truth; and that allegorical interpretation undermines both. This is the second principal objection to the Science of Correspondence which we proceed to consider.

Here then arises the question, What is the relation of allegorical interpretation to the Creeds of the Church? The Creeds are professedly drawn from Scripture: they contain the doctrines of the Church: by what method of interpretation are those doctrines professedly established, the literal or the spiritual? Undoubtedly the literal. It is, therefore, a maxim of the Catholic Church that doctrine ought to be drawn from the literal sense of the Word, and that it should serve as a guide in searching for the spiritual sense.

The Gnostics, we are told, were guilty of violating this rule, and invented a spurious allegorical system, of which they availed themselves in order to elicit from Scripture their own doctrinal figments. Let us compare this method of the Gnostics with that which has been adopted by Swedenborg: the reason for which we shall see in the sequel. According to the Dean of Westminster, in his Notes on the Parables, the case is thus stated by Tertullian:—

"The* whole scheme of the Gnostics, as he observes, was a great floating cloud palace, the figment of their own brain, with no counterpart in the actual world of realities. They could therefore shape or mould it as they would; and thus they found no difficulty in forcing the parables to be on their side. For they really modified their scheme, shaping their doctrine according to the leadings and suggestions of these,

* Notes on the Parables, p. 43.

till they brought the two into apparent agreement with one mother. There was nothing to hinder them here; their Creed was not a fixed body of Divine truth, to which they could neither add nor take away, which was given them from above, and in which they could only acquiesce: but it was an invention of their own, and they could shape, fashion, and alter it as they pleased, and as best suited their purposes. We, as Tertullian often says, are kept within limits in the exposition of the parables, accepting, as we do, the other Scriptures as the rule to us of truth, as the rule therefore of their interpretation. It is otherwise with these heretics; their doctrine is their own; they can first dexterously adapt it to the Parables, and then bring forward this adaptation as a testimony of its truth."

The Dean had previously remarked, that—

"The whole scheme of the Gnostics was one, which, however it may have been a result of the Gospel, inasmuch as that set the religious speculation of the world vigorously astir, was yet of independent growth; and they only came to the Scripture to find a varnish, an outer Christian colouring, for a system essentially anti-Christian; they came not to learn its language, but to see if they could not compel it to speak theirs; with no desire to draw out of Scripture its meaning, but only to thrust into Scripture their own. When they fell thus to picking and choosing from it what they might best turn to their ends, the parables naturally invited them almost more than any other portions of Scripture; for it was plain that they must abandon the literal portions of Scripture; they could find no color for their scheme in them; their only refuge was in the figurative, in those which might receive more interpretations than one; such perhaps they might bend to their purposes. . . . Against these Gnostics

Ibid., p. 41.

Irenæus lays down that Canon, namely, that the parables cannot be in any sense the primary, nor yet the exclusive, foundations of any doctrine, but must be themselves interpreted according to the analogy of faith; since, if every subtle solution of one of these might raise itself at once to the dignity and authority of a Christian doctrine, the rule of faith would be nowhere. So to build, as he shews, would be to build, not on the rock, but on the sand."

Accordingly Dean Trench observes:*—

"The parables may not be made first sources and seats of doctrine. Doctrines otherwise and already established may be illustrated, or indeed further confirmed by them; but it is not allowable to constitute doctrine first by their aid. They may be the outer ornamental fringe, but not the main texture, of the proof. For from the literal to the figurative, from the clearer to the more obscure, has been ever recognized as the order of Scripture interpretation."

It appears then that the Gnostics had recourse to the allegorical sense of parables, in order thence to deduce their doctrine; and the Catholic writers determined, in opposition to the Gnostics, that before resorting to the allegorical sense doctrines were to be established, and to be drawn from the literal sense of the Word. How then could any author more effectually oppose the Gnostics, and more closely coincide in this respect with the Catholic Church, than Swedenborg in the following remarks?†—

"They who read the Word without doctrine, or who do not form to themselves doctrine from the

* Ibid., p. 39.

† Doctrine of the New Jerusalem concerning the Sacred Scripture, art. 53, 52, 54.

Word, are in the dark concerning every truth; their minds must be wavering and unsettled, prone to errors, and easily betrayed into heresies. Doctrine is the only light which can guide them in their enquiries.

"Doctrine ought to be drawn from the literal sense of the Word, and to be confirmed thereby. The reason of this is, because the Lord is present in that sense; enlightening and teaching man the truths of the Church; for all the Lord's operations are performed in fulness, and the Word in its literal sense is in its fulness: this is the true ground why doctrine ought to be drawn from the literal sense." Accordingly he further says,—

"The experience of all the Christian world proves that the Word is seen from, and explained according to doctrine. All of the Reformed Church see and explain the Word from and according to their own doctrine: in like manner the Papists from and according to theirs; nay, the Jews from and according to theirs. Consequently falsities arise from false doctrine, and truths from that which is true. Hence it appears that true doctrine is like a candle in the dark, and like a directing post on the road. But doctrine is not only to be drawn from the literal sense of the Word, but it is also to be confirmed by that sense; for if it be not confirmed by it, the truth of doctrine appears as if the intellect of man only, and not the Divine Wisdom of the Lord, were contained in it; and thus doctrine would be like a house in the air, and not upon the earth, and therefore without foundation."

We thus see that the rule which is here laid down for first deducing doctrine from the literal sense of the Word, and then employing it as a guide to the spiritual sense, is the same with that of the Catholic Church, to whose example therefore Swedenborg appeals in words as clear as the sun in the firmament. How then is it that Dean Trench has fallen into the error of imputing to Swedenborg, in this respect, the method of the Gnostics?* For when the Dean says that they abandoned the literal interpretation of Scripture, and resorted to the allegorical, "with no desire to draw out of Scripture its meaning, but to thrust into Scripture their own," and this, as Irenæus states, only ut figmentum illorum non sine teste esse videatur, he adds, "All this very nearly repeats itself in Swedenborg, in whom indeed there are many resemblances to the Gnostics of old, especially the distinctive one of a division of the Church into spiritual and carnal members."† Surely, if reading an author's writings

* Notes on the Parables, p. 41.

† Where a statement of this kind is made, either a quotation or a reference ought to have been given; but there is neither, nor indeed is any such division of the members of the Church to be found in Swedenborg's writings. His only doctrine upon this subject occurs in The True Christian Religion, ch. ix., On Repentance; ch. x., On Regeneration; also in his Doctrine of Life, sec. 9; where it may be seen, that the natural or carnal man is no member of the Church, except in the same sense in which he might be a member of the Church of England; indeed not even in that, as he is not considered to be regenerate. As a sample of differences of opinion with regard to resemblances to Gnostics, it may be observed, that Bishop Marsh says of Irenæus, "He justly objects to the allegorical interpretations of the Gnostics, though his own interpretations are sometimes as fanciful as those of his opponents."—Lecture 11, p. 467.

with no desire to draw out of them their meaning, but to infuse into them one's own; in other words, if making an author say what he does not say, has a semblance of Gnosticism, we ask with all possible deference, who it is that is so doing in the present case; especially considering what had been said in the advertisement to the Notes to the Parables—

"Where my quotations have been made at second-hand, I have very frequently noted the channel through which I derived them, and, if possible, seen with my own eyes the passage, quoted or referred to; as one soon learns how often men, without meaning to be untrue, will yet lay greater weight on a passage than it will justly bear, or will give a maimed or partial account of their author's meaning."

There is, however, a further statement by the Dean of Westminster in regard to Swedenborg's interpretations, which, I respectfully acknowledge, deserves very serious attention; and as it will lead us into a searching investigation into the connection between the literal and spiritual senses, we proceed to consider it under the head of the Third objection, according to which no real connection can ever be established between the literal and spiritual senses. The objection is thus stated by Bishop Marsh:*—

... "If we endeavor to find an allegorical sense either in history or in prophecy, we endeavor to find a sense with which the literal sense is wholly unconnected. The sense therefore will be supplied by mere imagination: and not only will different interpreters invent different senses, but even the same interpreter may invent as many as he pleases.

* Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible, p. 455, 446.

"In the interpretation of a prophecy to which a double meaning is ascribed, we have no clue whatever which can lead us from the primary to the secondary sense. The primary sense is suggested by the words of the prophecy. But the secondary sense is suggested neither by the words of the prophecy, nor by the things which those words signify. It is a hidden, a remote sense; indeed so hidden, and so remote from the literal sense, that it is supposed to have been unknown even to the prophet who committed the prophecy to writing."

The consequence is, that Bishop Marsh confines a spiritual sense to those particular instances which are specified in the Bible. Even in these cases, however, he requires us to receive the spiritual sense, not because there is any perceptible connection between the literal and the spiritual, but solely on the ground of divine authority. Accordingly, where, it is said, there is no divine authority, the literal sense is regarded as everywhere without any spiritual sense; and wherever any spiritual sense is given by an interpreter, whether in or out of the Catholic Church, it is affirmed to be, from the very necessity of the case, altogether independent of and disconnected from the letter.

The same doctrine is maintained by Professor Stuart in his Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy, and by the advocates of literalism in general; indeed, to a certain extent, even by the very advocates themselves of spiritual interpretation:—

"I am proving," says Mr. Burgon,* "that Scripture itself, literally understood, compels us to believe that under the letter of Scripture, (which of course is to be interpreted literally), there lies a deeper, and sometimes a far less obvious

* Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermons, p. 161.

meaning; occasionally a meaning so improbable, (as men account improbability), that, but for the finger of God pointing it out, we could never by possibility have discerned it; so extraordinary, that when it is shewn us, it needs an effort of the heart and of the mind to embrace it fully."

Mr. Burgon, therefore, agrees with Bishop Marsh, that occasionally at least the spiritual sense of a passage is so improbable, (as men account improbability), that it seems wholly independent of, and altogether disconnected from, the literal sense; and Bishop Marsh further acknowledges this to be the case generally with those spiritual interpretations which are to be found in Scripture itself: hence the necessity of divine authority.

"When,"* says he, "we interpret a prophecy of the Old Testament, which besides its literal meaning is supposed to contain a mystical meaning, or in other words, a prophecy which is supposed to contain both a primary and a secondary sense, the grand difficulty is to ascertain what that secondary sense really is. We are not in want of a clue to determine our choice between two senses already known; but we want a clue which shall lead us from the knowledge of one sense to the discovery of the other."

Is, however, the clue to be found?

"In† every allegory there is, and must be, a clue which leads from one sense to the other. But in the interpretation of a prophecy to which a double meaning is ascribed, we have no clue whatever which can lead us from the primary to the secondary sense."

And as he treats Scripture history in the same

* Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible, Lect. p. 440. † Ibid., p. 446.

C manner,* so he maintains that there is no system whatever by which we can either establish the existence of secondary senses, or by which, on the supposition of their existence, we can discover their real meaning. We must be contented therefore to resolve the question of secondary senses into a question of authority—yes—authority alone. The application of the sign to the thing signified does not depend, he says, upon any principle of moral fitness. It depends on the authority itself. “And since this authority is in Scripture confined to individual cases, the doctrine of secondary senses is reducible to no system.”

Well, then, the “spiritual sense of Scripture is one altogether disconnected from the literal sense;” for—

“If,” says Bishop Marsh,† “we endeavor to find an allegorical sense either in history or prophecy, we endeavor to find a sense with which the literal sense is wholly unconnected. . . . For since the secondary sense of a passage is a sense which the words do not convey of themselves, it is manifest that, as soon as we begin to trust in our own interpretation, we shall interpret without rule or guide. Though no passage can have more than one grammatical meaning, yet as soon as we begin to indulge ourselves in the invention of mystical meanings, it is impossible to say where we shall stop. We shall come at length to that wantonness of interpretation which is displayed by most of the Jewish Commentators, and by many among the Christian Fathers.”

—“In grammatical interpretation, which is an interpretation of words, there are certain rules of interpretation from which we cannot depart. But allegorical interpretation, which is

* Ibid., pp. 452—454.

† Ibid., pp. 455, 454, 363.

an interpretation of things, is subjected to neither rule nor limit."

Hence, according to Bishop Marsh, the necessity of literal Interpretation as introduced at the Reformation, and from that time continued in the Church of England to the present—nay, not only in the Church of England, but out of it. Accordingly, a recent author of some eminence, following the illustrious examples which have been set before him, equally with Bishop Marsh contends for a single sense:*—

"I conceive the term double sense to be ill chosen, and liable to be misunderstood; and that another expression current in some circles, a literal and a spiritual sense, is still more improper and pernicious."

"When† I reflect upon the difficulties, using the mildest term, which arise from an endeavor to convert passages containing matter merely genealogical, topographical, numerical, civil, military, fragments of antiquity domestic or national, presenting no character whatever of religious matter,—into a rule of faith and manners,—I feel it impossible to accept the conclusion; I can find no end to my anxiety, no rest for my faith, no satisfaction for my understanding, till I embrace the sentiment that the qualities of Sanctity and Inspiration belong only to the religious and theological element which is diffused through the Old Testament; and that, where this element is absent, where there is nothing adapted to communicate 'doctrine, reproof, correction, or instruction in righteousness,' nothing fitted to 'make the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work,'—there we are not called to acknowledge any Inspiration, nor warranted to

* Dr. Pye Smith's Discourses on subjects connected with Prophecy, p. 51.

† Ibid., Scripture Testimonies to the Messiah, vol. i., p. 54. Notes.

c 2 assume it. Thus I regard as inspired Scripture, all that refers to holy things, all that can bear the character of 'Oracles of God;' and admit the rest as appendages, of the nature of private memoirs, or public records, useful to the antiquary and the philologist, but which belong not to the rule of faith, or the directory of practice. To this extent, and to this only, can I regard the sanction of the New Testament as given to the INSPIRATION of the Old."

This is speaking out! The author tells us plainly, that a great, if not the greater, part of the Old Testament is not inspired. Other divines, who maintain the same principles, are not so candid: they are afraid to tell us boldly, and lead us only to infer, that many Scriptures which are commonly supposed to be inspired, are only "genealogies, official lists, family traditions, public records or popular poetry," having nothing at all to do with religion, or with what is properly called the Word of God.

Any one acquainted with the Theologico-Political Treatise* of Spinoza will know, that the foregoing account is substantially the same with that which Spinoza advocates; both of them confining the Word of God to that which properly belongs to the religious life, and excluding from Inspiration those parts of Scripture, which, in consequence of the method of interpretation employed, are regarded as having nothing to do with it. Into the same method of Interpretation has insensibly fallen the greater part of the Church! What shall we say then? "Here we do not find ourselves in undisguised conflict with the sceptical writers of our own time. That Scripture

* See his Works, vol. iii., chap. xii.

has one meaning, and one meaning only, is their fundamental axiom: it is seen to be, and felt to be, one of the keys of their position."

It is obvious then from the foregoing remarks, that in these cases the literal sense is regarded as so entirely disconnected from any spiritual sense, that the spiritual sense is not even presumed to exist; and that all distinction between the literal and spiritual senses must be abolished as "improper and pernicious."

Thus has the literalism of the Reformation worked itself out into an open denial of the Inspiration of an indefinite portion of the Scriptures. Spiritual interpretation, even of an elementary kind, is set at defiance as "an outrage upon common sense;" and Scepticism exclaims,* "When interpreters will heal the sick, and raise the dead, and cast out devils, we will begin to bow submissively to their alleged authority for making out a second or occult sense. Until that time has arrived, I would hope that we may be permitted to withhold our assent from their decisions, provided we find them not well supported."—What will they consider to be well supported? We offer to them the Divine Law of Correspondence. They reject Correspondence, substitute metaphor, and demand miracles. But suppose the miracles were wrought, would miracles open their eyes? One might heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, and prove the existence of, what they call, the occult sense; but the sense would remain to them as occult as ever, nor would the opening of the bodily

* Professor Stuart's Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy; p. 20.

eyes of one person be the opening of the spiritual eyes of another. Might not the contrary effect be produced?—"For judgment am I come into the world, that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind."

Let us, then, consider the interpretations of Swedenborg in their antagonism to the views here presented; and this we shall best do by first stating the objection which is urged by the Dean of Westminster in his Notes to the Parables:*—

"One, estimating (Swedenborg's) system of Scripture interpretation, thus speaks: 'His spiritual sense of Scripture is one altogether disconnected from the literal sense, is rather a sense before the sense; not a sense to which one mounts up from the steps of that which is below, but in which one must, as by a miracle, be planted; for it is altogether independent of, and disconnected from, the accidental† externum superadditum of the literal sense.'"

This, as we have seen, is the common objection of the literalist to any spiritual sense whatever. It is the very difficulty which Bishop Marsh urges in regard to the spiritual interpretations of Scripture, and therefore which require to be supported by divine authority: it is likewise one of the characteristics, to a certain extent, as Mr. Burgon admits, of genuine spiritual interpretation. It is not therefore at all peculiar to the interpretations of Swedenborg. We have already seen that it arises, in a great measure, from the loss of the Science of Correspondence; we now proceed further to shew, that it arises also from the reader's own state of mind, and from his being an

* p. 41.

† See Appendix to our Third Tract.

entire stranger to the subject matter of which the internal sense principally treats.

I propose, therefore, to speak, first of all, of that mental condition in virtue of which the spiritual sense appears to be occasionally remote from the letter.

In his Commentary on the Book of Genesis it is remarked by Rupertus, when speaking of the Jews, that "The* synagogue of that people who were born after the flesh, saw not by any means the face of the Lord, but only His back parts; because they saw not the interior things of the holy Law, where His face, i. e., the knowledge of God, is refulgent: when the face of Moses shone, they could in no wise endure it, because they beheld only the outward letter, for they were as the animal (or natural) man, who perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God."

Here the outward and natural sense in relation to the spiritual, is regarded as the hinder part or as behind; and the spiritual sense in relation to the natural, as the face or before; the spiritual sense therefore in relation to the natural is a sense before the sense; and, therefore, when an individual objects to Swedenborg's interpretations as being a sense before the sense, he does not seem to be aware that he is objecting to them for being precisely where and what they ought to be. Surely if some of the doctrines of the Church are so above reason that they transcend our faculties, why may we not suppose that there are spiritual truths, which, as being above us, may seem to be a sense before the sense? Every good and perfect gift cometh from above, and until

* See his Works, vol. i., p. 87, Chap. xxvi.; Genesis xvi. 13.

received into our minds, remains above. Divine Wisdom, flowing from the glory of the Almighty, exists in heaven separately from the letter in which it is embodied upon earth; but if the kingdom of heaven be within us, the truths which had been far above us, descending into the natural mind, descend also into the natural or literal sense. But so long as the natural man is separate from the spiritual, so long will the natural sense appear to him to be separate from the spiritual. There will seem to be no connection between the two externally, because there is none between them internally.

The objection, therefore, which has been urged in the Notes to the Parables is precisely that which might naturally be expected in the present age, and only indicates its religious position. For why should we think it so strange a thing, that the spiritual sense of Scripture should seem to be a sense before the sense, in an age which is so very far behind the sense? for of course to those who remain behind, any knowledge in advance of them must incur the charge of being before. Indeed the objection illustrates a spiritual state which is pointed out in the Word of God itself, and is thus described by Swedenborg:*—

"And they looked after Moses until he entered into the tent.—That hereby is signified that they see the external of the Word, of the Church, and of worship, but that it vanishes from their apprehension: this appears (1) from the signification of looking after Moses, as denoting to see the external of the Word:

* Arcana Celestia, art. 10,550: Exodus, chap. xxxiii. 8.

for by Moses is signified the Word, and by looking after him is signified to see its external: for what is before signifies what is within, and what is after or behind signifies what is without. Hence to see the back parts of Jehovah, and not the faces, is to see what is external and not what is internal: (2) it appears also from the signification of until he entered into the tent, as denoting that the Word vanishes from their apprehension; for when Moses (who represents the Word) entered into the tent (that is, into the internal sanctity of the Word), he was no longer seen."

The Word as to its internal sense and sanctity was unperceived. We see then why, in the very Scriptures themselves, the internal or spiritual sense is represented as before, the external or literal sense as behind. The Jews were in the literal or external sense, and therefore relatively to them the spiritual or internal sense was before the sense in which they were, and apparently independent of it; a sense to which they could not mount up from below, because it seemed to them altogether disconnected from the external state in which they were; a sense, in fine, to which they could not be elevated even by the raising of the dead. Any true spiritual interpretation of Scripture would therefore be to them necessarily a sense before the sense, because it is a sense within the sense; they themselves being content to remain behind in the literal sense. Hence it is that they saw then, and see now, only the figure and the type, represented to Moses as the dark or hinder parts of Jehovah; being utterly unable to look forward to the brighter parts c 3 which were before.—“The* bright side of the glorious light,” says the Family Bible, “where it shone with its full unvailed lustre, is called the fore part or face; and the dark side, where there was a lower degree of brightness, is called its back part.” Thus the proclamation of the name, “The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,” as forming† the inmost sense, or bright side of the Word, was a sense before the sense; for in the Word there is truth before and truth behind; even as the Cherubim, representing the Word, were full of eyes before and behind; the eyes before looking into the sense before the sense, the eyes behind, into the sense behind the sense. “Eyes before them,” says a Commentator,‡ “to look to the Word of God and the deep things in it, which continually lies before them, and to the things that are yet to come relating to the kingdom and Church of Christ; and behind them, to observe how all sacrifices and types, predictions and promises, have had their accomplishment in Christ.”

So a Commentator on Gregory the Great;§ In the four animals “the eyes are before and behind; before, in order that we may examine our internal states and minutely consider them; behind, in order that with profound attention we may examine our external states; so as to avoid what is injurious, embrace what is useful, and thus shew ourselves to have eyes within and without.” Thus, in the case of

* Family Bible, Exodus, chap. xxxiii. 23.

† See Poole’s Synopsis on Rev. iv. ‡ Dr. Gill in loc.

§ Da Sylveira on the Apocalypse, chap. iv., p. 322.

the Cherubim, the brighter parts of the Word which are *before*, are seen by the eyes which are *before* or *within*; the darker and more external, by the eyes which are *behind* or *without*; representing the corresponding perceptive states of the human mind.

The present age, however, has just reversed the case: the brighter parts of the Word which are *before*, are regarded as the darker; and the darker parts which are *behind*, are regarded as the brighter, nay, by some, as those alone from which we receive light. It is the literal sense alone that is to them intelligible; what is not intelligible, they say, is not a revelation: and as the spiritual sense is unintelligible, it forms no part of Divine Revelation, and has nothing to do with the Word of God. And therefore the retreat of Moses into a *dark cave*, from which he might behold the passing by of Jehovah (a locality which was designed to represent the moral and spiritual condition of blinded Jews), is aptly appropriated by some Christians, in the present day, to denote their own spiritual condition.

But is there no other cause for the apparent want of connection between the literal and spiritual sense? Yes; there is that which arises from the very *subject matter* of the spiritual sense: for in seeking for this sense the light of true doctrine must be our guide.

Now, there is one doctrine which may be said to be in modern times almost peculiar to Swedenborg; I mean that of *the Divine Humanity* of the Lord.

Accordingly, the highest or inmost sense of the written Word (call it if you will "the sense before the sense") treats of the process by which the Humanity was so united with Divinity as to be made Divine: a union which was the first principle of the union of the Divine and human elements in the Word of God, or, in other terms, of the connection between the literal and spiritual senses of Scripture. Deny this doctrine, or ignore it, and then read the account of the process of the union of the Divine with the Human, and of the regeneration of man as founded upon it, and the whole must be regarded as a device —ut figmentum illorum non sine teste esse videatur. For, is not the holy Catholic doctrine of the Divine Humanity treated by modern theology as a figment; and instead of it another doctrine substituted, viz., that in the person of Christ the Divine is Divine, and the human is human; that some things He did according to His Divine nature, and some according to His human; but that the Divine and human natures are really altogether disconnected, altogether independent of each other; they are two, of which the one is Divine, the other human; they are not one, Divine-Human: 'the human nature being only the externum superadditum of the Divine?' In the objection above stated, then, substitute the human nature of our Lord for the literal sense, and the Divine nature for the spiritual sense, and we have an exact description of the relation of the doctrine of the Divine Humanity to the theology of the present day. It really does stand before, and above, and aloof from, all the doctrines which are now popularly taught—nay, above all modern interpretations, as "a sense before the sense;" and the history of controversy shews that nine-tenths of the opposition to Swedenborg's interpretations arise from this source.

We have said that the union of the Divine and human natures of our Lord is a marriage union; and the Catholic Church in general, as also the Church of England in particular, are not without witnesses to this doctrine. For instance, on Psalm xviii.;—

"In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a Bridegroom coming out of his chamber;— De thalamo, that is," says the Glossa Ordinaria, "virginali utero, where God is conjoined to human nature as the Bridegroom to the Bride."—Augustin.

Hilary:*—"The Bridegroom and the Bride, is our Lord, who is God in a Body. For as the spirit is Bridegroom to the flesh, so is the flesh Bride to the spirit."

Honorius:†—

"The nuptials first in order were those which took place when the King of heaven adjoined to His Son Christ the human nature; when the chamber (thalamus) was the womb of the Virgin."

Dr. Jackson:‡—

"Marriage, well fitted, is a kind of music, and consists in a true consort of the stronger and weaker sex: but in this happy marriage betwixt heaven and earth, between the Divine and Human natures, the Son of God and the seed of Abraham, there is a sort of contrarieties of strength and weakness in their abstracts. He that was Geber-el, the

* Benedictine edition, p. 735, Parable of the Virgins.

† Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum, tom. v., 1116.

‡ President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford—See his works, vol. vi., p. 243, 241.

strength of God, is indissolubly linked with the weakness of man, and the flesh and substance of a woman... That wisdom in the Greek tongue is of the feminine gender, was (to the Greeks) a sufficient hint thus to transform the Wisdom of God into a goddess of Wisdom; what they spake of this goddess or daughter of Jove was most true of the Wisdom and Son of God."

Dr. Barrow:*—

"Is mirth seasonable on the day of marriage? Behold the greatest wedding that ever was, is this day solemnized. Heaven and earth are contracted; Divinity is espoused to Humanity; a sacred and indissoluble knot is tied between God and man. The Bridegroom is come forth out of his chamber (verbum Dei de utero virginali) clad in his nuptial garment of flesh, and ready to wed the Church, his beloved Spouse. 'Let us, therefore, be glad and rejoice, for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.'"

Dr. Pusey:†—

"Then (at the Incarnation) there began a threefold union of God with man, of which that union of marriage was the image. First, there was the union of God the Word with our flesh, whereby He betrothed indissolubly to Himself our human nature, joining it in one Person with His Godhead, so that God and Man is one Christ."

This union, we are told, cemented that further union foreshadowed in the Canticles between Christ and the Church; and this second union is imaged forth in the Church by a third, namely, the union between husband and wife.

It may naturally be asked, what is this marriage-

* Sermon 1, Nativity of our Lord, Luke ii. 10.

† Parochial Sermons, vol. ii., p. 389.

union between the Divine and Human natures? Ought not doctrine to be founded on the literal sense of the Word; and is it not transgressing the rule to express a literal doctrine in allegorical language? Now, I answer, if this be a trangression of the rule, then has the Catholic Church itself transgressed it; for in speaking of the union of the Divine and human natures, the Church itself represents it always as a marriage-union. It remains, however, to ask on what grounds such an expression can be justified.

"It is a law of Creation," says Swedenborg,* "that wherever there are things active, there are also things passive, and that these two should join themselves together into one."—"It is not possible," says he, "that there should exist in man either the least of thought, or of affection, or of action, in which there is not a kind of marriage of the understanding and will. Without some kind of marriage it cannot be that anything should exist or be produced. In the organical parts or substances of man, both compound and simple, yea the most simple, there is a passive and active principle which could not possibly exist therein, much less produce anything, unless they were joined together in a kind of marriage like that of man and wife. The case is the same throughout all Nature. These perpetual marriages derive their beginning and birth from the celestial marriage, by which an idea of the Lord's kingdom is impressed on everything in universal Nature, as well animate as inanimate."

Accordingly, Cicero speaking of the ancient Pla-

* True Christian Religion, art. 472.—Arcana Celestia, art. 718.

tonists, observes:* that they divided Nature into two parts, one of which was active, the other passive. They maintained that it was impossible for matter to cohere, unless it was held together by some force; and that there could be no force unless exerted by some matter.

Hence one body formed out of two elements, the one active the other passive, is a representative of the marriage-union. In the most ancient book of philosophy extant, that of Ocellus Lucanus, it is said the universe is composed of what is active and passive. This principle it is which is the origin of the sexes, and indeed is one of the acknowledged fundamental principles of philosophy in all ages, and even of grammar.†

Unity, therefore, thus produced is composite, arising from the composition of one constituent as agent or active, with the other as patient or passive: hence in the perfect union of goodness and wisdom, goodness is the agent, truth the patient; the will is active, the intellect passive. It is in this manner, therefore, that in Christ Divine Love and Wisdom are inseparably united,—a unition which, consequently, can be expressed only by a marriage.

Now, the doctrine of the marriage-union between the Divine and Human natures, being a fundamental doctrine of the Catholic Church, ought not to lie dormant, but to be at least of some use to an interpreter; accordingly as it is the highest or inmost

* Academiae Questionum, Lib. Prim.

† See Harris' Philosophical Arrangements, p. 112, 254.—Hermes, p. 44. Lord Monboddo's Ancient Metaphysics, vol. i., p. 28.

truth of the Church, so has Swedenborg regarded it as the highest or inmost sense of the Word; and surely if the Catholic Church has thought that it constitutes the inmost sense of the Canticles, why may it not constitute the inmost sense of other Scriptures? What, then, according to Swedenborg, are the great truths of which the inmost sense of the Scripture treats? That sense teaches, that* the Lord's advent into the world, and the union of the human essence with the Divine, was the means of saving the human race by conjoining heaven and earth;—that unless the Lord had come into the world, and united the human to the Divine, the very perceptive faculty of good and truth would have been utterly lost to man;—that the sensuous and corporeal principles were with the Lord as with other men, but, unlike the case with others, were gradually united to celestial principles and made Divine;—that the progression of the Lord in the world was the progression of the human essence to its union with the Divine;—that the Lord from His earliest infancy progressed according to Divine Order, which order is described in the Word;—that it was by temptations and victories that the external man in Him was made Divine;—that His progress in the union of the human essence with the Divine was according to His instruction by continual revelations;—that the union of the Divine and human of the Lord was a mutual or reciprocal union, and hence is described as a marriage;—that unless the union of the Lord were divine, it could not possibly be united to the Divine itself on account

* See Rich's Index to Swedenborg's Arcana Celestia, art. Word.

of the ardor of infinite Divine love, in which the merely human would perish;—that the union of the human essence of the Lord with the Divine was like the union of truth with good, and the union of the Divine with the human like that of good with truth;—that the union of the human essence with the Divine make one God, in other words, that the Lord is God as to both;—that by the union of the human with the Divine and of the Divine with the human in the Lord, the human became omniscient;—that to glorify is to make Divine, and that the Lord's glorification was progressive, the progression being described in the inmost sense of the Word;—that the glorification of the Lord even to Divine Good is described in the process of expiation;—that the especial subject of which the internal sense of the Word treats is the Lord's Divine Human, and that the Divine marriage is the marriage of Divine Good and Divine Truth, thus it is the Lord in whom alone that marriage exists.

Hence, in virtue of this unition of Humanity with Divinity, the Lord as to His humanity is the one object of worship; the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, the First and the Last of the written Word of God. To him, therefore, who perceives these truths, the Temple of God in heaven is opened, and the Ark of the Covenant is disclosed.

But, compare this view of the subject with that of Thomas Aquinas, as given by Dorner;* and which is, at least, the one adopted by the prevailing Theology:—

* History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, vol. ii., p. 337.

"That Thomas did not arrive at the true idea of the Incarnation, but even endeavored to evade it, is plain from what has been advanced; but especially clear from the mode in which he discusses the formulas, God is Man, Man is God. All the Divine attributes may be attributed to the Man Christ, and all the human to the Son of God; not, however, as though, strictly speaking, they pertained to the respective natures; for, strictly viewed, they pertained to the personality alone. The human and the divine he regards as opposed, not as belonging to, compatible with, each other. Opposites, however, cannot be predicated of one and the same thing in one and the same relation; but only in a different relation. So in the present case, opposites cannot be predicated of the person in its totality, but merely in its Divine aspect or in its human aspect. But how readily (says Dorner) does the reverse question then suggest itself,—Is it possible for one personality to be the personality of natures so absolutely opposed to each other? To this question, however, Thomas devotes no attention; and merely lays down the canon,—That what pertains to the one nature cannot be predicated of the other, considered in itself in abstracto, but solely so far as it is in the person in concreto. Like the Lombard, he takes especial pains to limit the proposition,—That in Christ, Man is God."

Is such the archetype of the union of Christ with his Church? Of the Divine with the human element in the Word of God? If so the whole subject is full of paradoxes. You may speak of the living and the written Word in the most exalted language, and then deny that you really meant any such thing; for "even the communication of the attributes, of which Aquinas speaks so much, is in his view purely nominal,—it did not arise from any real communication of the natures to each other." Moreover it is only in the *Canticles* that the Church professes to find it, and a large proportion of the Church denies even this; so that according to them it is *nowhere*. Let any one read Dorner's* *History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ*, and observe how very little Divine Goodness and Truth have to do with the matter; how often it is mere perplexed metaphysical wrangling; indeed we find the Church, who is the wife, disputing sometimes with respect to her husband, whether it is his *nature* that stands in the relation of husband toward her, or rather his *person*; whether his *person* may not be abstracted from his *nature*, and she may have a husband as to *person* but not as to *nature*; whether she may not worship one nature without the other, or pray to his *person* and not to his *nature*; whether, in fine, she ought to appeal directly to her husband, or only *through* her husband to some other person above him. Has the doctrine of the Divine Humanity come at length to this, that the union of the two natures results only in two which are mutually opposite, incompatible, and have *no communication* with each other? Has the Church, as the wife, no real communication with her husband? Are the Lord and the Church antagonistic to each other? Is the marriage-union between the two only a metaphysical figment? or, if not, only metaphorical? Suppose we call it metaphorical, and say,—

"The marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.† Undoubtedly we may call such imagery

* A most important and instructive work, whose relation to the writings of Swedenborg has yet to be developed.

† Professor Stuart's *Commentary on the Apocalypse*, in loc., vol. ii., p. 343.

Oriental; for the poems of Hafiz among the Persians, and many of the religious poems of the Arabians, assume the same imagery, in order to express the ardour and purity of affection which is due to God. If any reader is offended at this, it is but the part of candor to suggest, that the Bible was written in the East, and for the East as well as the West; and surely in Oriental countries no one would think of taking offence on the ground of tropical language derived from such a source."

Well, then, if the marriage between the Divine and human natures be a metaphor, and the marriage between the Lord and the Church a metaphor, and the marriage upon earth between husband and wife be a representative only of this metaphor, it is a Providential thing for society that some security is found for the relationship of marriage, in regarding it at least as a civil contract. Into what then does this doctrine of a Divine Marriage resolve itself in modern Theology? Either into an abstract metaphysical question replete with the most paradoxical notions, into which none but the keenest wits can penetrate; or else into a mere rhetorical question which no sensible man would ever regard as signifying any reality; or else into the mere amatory theology of weak-minded enthusiasts; or lastly into an alleged revival of Gnosticism in the Christian Church. The consequence is, that the fundamental doctrine of the Divine Humanity has been all but excommunicated from Christianity. It is impossible to deny this fact. The essential principle of all unity in the Christian Church has been denied; and how can there be a marriage-union between the Lord and the Church, when the very first principle of that marriage is repudiated? In other words, How can there be a marriage-union between the husband and the wife, when the very first principle of marriage is denied by the wife? Therefore I add, in the words of Swedenborg on the passage in the Apocalypse, "Let us be glad, and rejoice, and give glory to him, for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready."—"When* the Lord's humanity is acknowledged to be Divine, there is a full marriage of the Lord and the Church; for it is a known thing in the Reformed Christian world, that the Church is a Church by virtue of its marriage with the Lord."

The unition then of the Divine with the Human essence is the same as the unition of Divine Good with Divine Truth: the union of Christ with His Church the same as that of the Divine Humanity or Divine Truth with the love or affection of the Church in the reception of truth: the union of the Divine-human with the Human element in the written Word of God being the source of the union of the spiritual sense with the natural. It is, then, the doctrine first of the Incarnation, and secondly of the Glorified Humanity, which is the foundation of the union between the literal and spiritual senses of the Word.

In all these cases the union is represented by a marriage: in the highest sense, in the person of our Lord, between the Divine and Human natures: in the next, between the Divine humanity and the Church; for strictly speaking, the marriage between the purely Divine and the Human existed only in the

* Apocalypse Revealed, art. 812.

person of Christ; and if we have spoken anywhere of the union of the Church as human, with the Lord as Divine, it is only with a view to the doctrine of the marriage of the Church with the Lamb, that is, with the glorified humanity of the Lord, in whose person the Human is Divine.

It is this marriage-union which is the doctrinal key to the Interpretation of Scripture. Thus as Mr. Isaac Williams observes:*—

... "The expression of God throughout the Old Testament, of being married unto His people, of their falling from Him being adultery, and the like, implies the Incarnation. For there would otherwise be no suitableness in such an expression; inasmuch as the relation of man to God would not be such as to admit of any resemblance of this kind, or be capable of such an analogy. But with the doctrine of the Manhood taken into God in Christ all is of one character, and consistent throughout. And hence the most touching appeals that are made of God to his people by the Prophets are under this figure of marriage, especially by the prophet Jeremiah. And the full force of which can only be understood by a consideration of this mystery: 'For I am married unto you saith the Lord.'"

The union begun at the Incarnation, was completed by the Ascension; and the inmost sense of the Word treats of the process of this union; thus of the inner life of the Lord when upon earth, of the various states of the subjugation of the hells, and of the reduction of all things to order in the heavens, in the world of spirits, and in the Church upon earth.

* Beginning of the Book of Genesis, p. 279.

To conclude:

In reference to the Science of Correspondence we have seen that there are four modes of Interpretation, which may now be arranged in the following order:—

First, the method which denies that Correspondence can be reduced to any system, confines it to the few instances expressly mentioned in Scripture (and those founded upon divine authority), substitutes metaphor, and virtually ignores the doctrine altogether. This method is the extreme literal, and was generally introduced at the Reformation.

Secondly, the method which pursues a middle course, and admits of a principle of Correspondence in the Word of God, not universal but partial; the application of which is left to the discretion of the expositor, and consequently gives rise to all that discordance of interpretation which so generally exists among expositors. This method belongs to the school patronized by Dr. Van Mildert.

Thirdly, the method which rejects the middle course, and acknowledges that Correspondence is not partial but universal, inasmuch as God so created the world that all visible things might represent invisible. But the scale of representation is said to be so vast that we cannot comprehend it: that we must therefore be contented with glimpses of it here and there, and, as such, that Interpretation founded upon it can be reduced to no system. The consequence is, that interpretations in accordance with this view are partly true, and partly also conjecture. But they present a far larger proportion of genuine spiritual truth than the method last mentioned. This method belongs to the school of ancient expositors, and those who are reviving it in the present day.

Fourthly, the method which acknowledges Correspondence as a definite system, science, or law of creation visible and invisible; comprehensible because revealed to the rational mind; and consequently reducible to definite rules. The doctrine of Correspondence is thus regarded as intimately connected with the doctrine of Inspiration: the one explains the other, and thus supplies a want which has been declared to be the most pressing want of the day; in consequence of which it claims the distinction of being, what has been called, the greatest conceivable boon to the Church. This method belongs to the writings of Swedenborg, and is regarded by those who have studied it as one of the most marvellous discoveries ever vouchsafed to mankind: a discovery not of fact, but of law or system; for the fact of such a Correspondence has been more or less recognized from times the most ancient. In the Jewish Church it was held as one of their most sacred traditions. "When God created this world," said one of their Rabbis,* "He created it according to the pattern of the world above; and His reason for so doing was, that the one world might be connected with the other." This was the foundation of their belief in a literal and spiritual meaning in the Law; for they knew that the Tabernacle also was made according to the pattern of things above, and thus that there was a connexion of some kind between

* Propædia Prophetica, by Archdeacon Lyall; p. 264.

D the visible World, the Tabernacle, and the World invisible. "A moment's thought," says Archdeacon Lyall,* "will shew that the doctrine of a concealed sense was a necessary conclusion in their minds; it was scarcely possible for them to have regarded it as the inspired Word of God, without at the same time attributing to it a meaning beyond what was conveyed by the literal interpretation." So far from this tradition being one of those which made the Word of God of none effect, it served as a medium of connexion between the literalism of the Jewish and the spirituality of the Christian dispensation. In virtue of this principle, they had no excuse for rejecting the spiritual teaching of our Saviour, or the argument addressed to them in the Epistle to the Hebrews on the ground of a correspondence between earthly and heavenly things. They knew that from within there was a divine light which shone into the outward letter of the Law; and yet, although they knew of its existence, they had no wish to know anything of its nature, and therefore the veil of mere literalism was drawn over their faces. Their spiritual state is thus described in the Word:†—

"The children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone, for the Israelitish nation knew that in the Word there was an internal sense, but were not willing to know its quality. That that nation acknowledges that there is an internal sense in the Word, is a known thing; for they say that Divine arcana are stored up therein, even in

* Ibid., p. 274.

† Swedenborg's Arcana Celestia, art. 10,705.

every syllable; but when they are told that those arcana are concerning the Lord, His kingdom in the heavens and in the earths, and love and faith in Him, then they are not willing to know. This is meant by that nation acknowledging, indeed, that there is an internal in the Word, but not being willing to know what is its quality. Wherefore also it follows, that Moses drew back the veil over his face, by which is signified, that on that account the internal is closed to them."

Believing, then, that the principles of Analogy or Correspondence have now been finally reduced to a system; that the Word of God can be interpreted according to this system; and that it presents us with a true theory of Inspiration, unfolding to us both its nature and extent, I would address myself to the three classes of Interpreters whom we have mentioned,—Those who deny the laws of Correspondence; those who believe in the existence of such laws, but regard them as only partial; and those who believe in them and regard them as universal, but maintain not that the laws, but that our knowledge of them, can be only partial, and consequently that we can form no true conception of Correspondence or Analogy as a Science, Doctrine, or System.

First, with regard to the school of Bishop Marsh. One of the more recent disciples of this school thus speaks of a work written to advocate the Law of Correspondence as taught by Swedenborg:—"Its* object is to palm upon the world the allegorical jargon

* Divine Inspiration, by the Rev. Dr. Henderson; p. 549.

of Swedenborgianism or the universally *hidden and spiritual sense*, under the imposing name of *plenary inspiration*."—Be it so: I ask you what you have to substitute in the place of this universally hidden and spiritual sense? You reply, The prophetic writings are full of "Oriental* poetry; pictorial, figurative, metaphorical, symbolical, and parabolical modes of representation:" that, as to the historical parts of Scripture, they are in a great measure "private† documents, genealogies, official lists, family traditions, public records, and popular poetry." I ask you, how you reconcile this with the belief that they are divinely inspired, and part of the Word of God? You reply, that you do not pretend to do so: that Inspiration is only of those parts of Scripture which relate to religion, that a great part of the Bible has nothing to do with religion, and that for the universally *hidden and spiritual sense*, therefore, you substitute *metaphor* and *non-inspiration*.—Now, many of the Jews saw that there was a spiritual sense contained within the literal, but did not wish to see. Here we have a class of Christian interpreters who neither see nor wish to see.

I now come to the second class, who believe in a partial law of Correspondence, and partially in a hidden and spiritual sense; of these some believe in a partial inspiration, some in a plenary inspiration, of the Scriptures. Suppose we assume as the representative of this class Dr. Van Mildert, and take the case of plenary inspiration.—You say that there

* Commentary on Isaiah, Introductory Dissertation, p. 35.

† Dr. Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, pp. 40, 54.

is a plenary inspiration of the Bible: that you cannot adopt the middle course of a partial Inspiration: yet you take a middle course in the case of Interpretation. What is the consequence? you arrive at the same results as if you adopted a middle course in regard to Inspiration, for you adopt the theory of a partial Inspiration under the name of a plenary. For of what use is the doctrine of plenary Inspiration, but to educe from all parts of the Word of God the Divine element in the human, by means of an interpretation founded upon this principle? If, then, you say there are parts in which there is no Divine element, you obviously in this case separate the human from the Divine, and substitute partial for plenary inspiration. If you profess the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration, and when you come to the interpretation of prophecy or of certain parables, assume the liberty of saying, "I do not see any deeper meaning in these words than lies on the surface," you are only using the very same expression which is used by those who openly proclaim certain parts of Scripture to be non-inspired. Still more is this the case, when you say of certain words spoken by our Lord Himself, that they have no meaning whatever, not even that which lies upon the surface. I say the same when you come to matters of history; because in this case you also say the same, "I do not see any deeper meaning in these words than lies on the surface." So also with regard to large portions of the prophetic writings, which, notwithstanding their professedly plenary inspiration, receive exactly the same interpretations which are given

D 2 them by those who deny their inspiration altogether. The same interpretations are thus given under two different heads,—plenary inspiration, and non-inspiration; and consequently, in these cases, plenary inspiration identifies itself with non-inspiration, both parties saying the same thing, "I do not see any deeper meaning in these words than lies on the surface."

The doctrine, then, of plenary Inspiration, as advocated by this class of interpreters, resolves itself into partial Inspiration; in so far, however, as under this head it supplies us with genuine spiritual truth, however small the proportion, it corresponds with the partial removal of the veil from the face of Moses. This class are not like the other, who neither see nor wish to see; they have advanced one step farther; they see in part, but, unhappily, have no wish to see more.

We now proceed to the Third class, who hold the doctrine of a plenary Inspiration of Scripture, and consequently of a universally hidden or spiritual sense, and this consistently and unreservedly:—

"Most surprising of all," says one of its advocates,* "is the analogy observable between the union of the Divine and human element in the Gospels,—and the strictly parallel union, as it seems, of the two natures, the Divine and the human element in the person of our Lord. As he was perfect and faultless, so do we deem it infallible also, without spot or blemish of any kind. We reject as monstrous any theory of Inspiration, as it is called, which imputes blunders

* Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermons by the Rev. J. W. Burgon, M.A., Fellow of Oriel College, and Select Preacher.

to the work of the Holy Ghost. As further, we claim for our Lord's recorded human actions mysterious significance, so do we seem warranted in looking for a mysterious purpose, a divine meaning, in every expression of the written Word. Lastly; although we may, nay we must, admit such a Divine and such a human element, we must altogether deny the possibility of separating the one from the other. We cannot separate Scripture into human and Divine. Like the Incarnate Word, the Gospel is at once both human and Divine, yet one and indivisible. And the method of its inspiration is as great a difficulty in its way, and as much beyond our ken, as the nature of the union of the Godhead and the Manhood in the one person of Christ."

We have already explained, that, according to Catholic theology, the union of the Godhead and Manhood in the person of Christ is a marriage-union—a union which is expressed not by the two separate terms Divine and Human, but by the one term Divine-Human, for the two terms Divine and Human express duality but not unity: this doctrine of a Divine Humanity is the foundation of a divine meaning in every expression of the written Word, i.e., of a universally hidden and spiritual sense. We have seen that a representative of the first class of interpreters has denounced this as Swedenborgianism, doubtless because the only class whom he then knew to maintain these principles, were the readers of the writings of Swedenborg. This is now no longer the case: another class of theologians has sprung up, whose first principles of interpretation are one and the same with those of Swedenborg. To interpret the written Word, and thus to behold the inward and spiritual sense, is to draw aside the veil and to be enabled to see the face of Moses, i.e., of the Word, that is, its interior truths—a state of the Church predicted in the Apocalypse, when “they shall see his face, and his name shall be written on their foreheads,” viz., on the first principles of their life.

To you then allow me to say; You are not of those who follow the middle course, or abrogate the authority of the Mosaic Laws: you admit that—

“Full* and pregnant was every particle of those laws, not only such as were moral, or seemed to have a moral end in view, but such also as might appear ceremonial or natural;—replete with great things in Christ’s kingdom, of which not the slightest point or tittle shall fail. And to us it is already evident in many things, that such circumstances respecting the temporal Israel were but shadows of something more substantial, and such as have been or are now being fulfilled. For those institutions were, as St. Paul tells us, but images of the ‘true Tabernacle which God hath pitched and not man,’ according to that pattern of things invisible which is with God, and was seen on the Mount.”

Now we have already seen that the Science of Correspondence opens a door of entrance into the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, or into the Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony in heaven. The Temple is the Divine mystery of Christ or the Holy Scripture, the most holy hidden truths of which are now at length laid open to the Church. This is the substance of all the ancient and modern commentaries upon this passage. If then there is to be a revival of Theology in the Church, thus of the

* Thoughts on the Study of the Holy Gospels, p. 271.

Church itself, it is in this direction that we must look for it; for here we are distinctly told in what the revival must consist, viz., in a clearer and more exalted knowledge of the Word of Life. It is this alone which can reunite the scattered churches of Christendom, both with each other and with the Church in heaven. It is this alone which corresponds to the opening of the Temple of God in heaven, and disclosing to view the Ark of the Covenant. Mr. Faber, therefore, is so far right when he says, that "Clearly* some great change in the condition of matters ecclesiastical must be intended by the opening of that mystic Temple which was heretofore shut," and, that when first opened, "through the moral impediment of a thick intellectual smoke, no man can enter into it:" and yet that it is in relation to the opening of the Temple, that all subsequent judgments in the Church take place:—"Intrare in adytum," says Grotius upon this passage, "est Dei arcana discere." Hence, as Mr. Pearson observes:—

"The† interior part of the Temple, containing the Ark of the Covenant, which under the Law was accessible only to the High Priest, is now exhibited to public view; emblematical of that perfect revelation of the wonders and mysteries of the great scheme of Redemption which will accompany this final accomplishment of the dispensations of God.

"In conclusion, the prophet describes the same commo-

* Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, book vi., chap. iii.

† The Prophetic Character and Inspiration of the Apocalypse, by George Pearson, B.D., Christian Advocate of the University of Cambridge, etc., p. 175.

tions as attending this final establishment of the Re kingdom, which have been before described as atten other great revolutions of religion. Such appears t mystical meaning of the lightnings, and voices, and ings, and earthquake, and hail, which are repres attending the disclosure of the Ark of the Covena heavenly temple."

By lightnings, voices, and thunderings, say denborg, are signified ratiocinations; by earth changes of the state of the Church, here comm by great hail, falsifications of what is true an

These things which take place in the Spiritus have their correspondence in the natural.

"When I thought to know this, it was too for me; until I went into the sanctuary of Go understood I their end."—"Donec intrem i tuarium Dei; id est, ad intellectum sacrae Sc divinitus revelatæ, quam vocant sanctuarium,

Deus in illâ loquitur, sicut in sanctuario divin sponsa dabantur." Psalm lxxiii. 17. De Ly

"In Dei Revelatione tres gradus: per Opera, quæ respondent Atrio, quia omnibus promiscue patent: per Verbum, quod loco Sancto, quia Ecclesiæ soli, destinatur: et per Peciem, quæ Sacrario, et datur solis beatis."—Institutio Theologiæ, auctore Francisco Turretino, tom. ii., p. 171.

The Holy of Holies here corresponds to that knowledge of God which is designated by seeing Him face to face; or the perception of the interior truths of the Word, as contrasted with the vision of the hinder parts of Jehovah representing only the externals of the Mosaic law.