« PreviousContinue »
tleman, is complained of by the former. I trust gentlemen, you will have the kindness to allow me a page of your valuable work to submit a few thoughts to the consideration of both your worthy correspondents; for I am much deceived indeed if it will not turn out by explanation, that they both hold the same doctrine, and that the seeming difference between them arises from the obscurity with which J. W. S. has clothed some of his ideas.
I do not with *** "regret much that you should have given a currency in the pages of your Magazine for February" either to the letter in question, or to the remarks of J. W. S. On the contrary, I rejoice much; for had you not given currency to them, we should not have been favoured with the interesting paper of ***, and thus both papers would have been lost, and your readers deprived of their valuable contents: But to the point at issue—
J. W. S. in his remarks states, that "God and Jesus Christ are one and the same undivided, infinite, and eternal Being." To this I give my most cordial consent; but in doing this, I must confess with *** that unless it be explained satisfactorily, no mere assertion will be strong enough to convince an enquiring mind, that Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same Divine Being. Let us first enquire, WHO and WHAT is Jesus Christ? Is the mere finite form derived from the virgir Mary, Jesus Christ? I apprehend not for this was not the Holy Thing, and if not the Holy Thing, it could not redeem and save the human race! The doctrines of the New Jerusalem teach, that all names are expressive of qualities, and this is precisely the case with the name JESUS CHRIST; for the illustrious Swedenborg informs us, that the name Jesus signifies the Divine Good, and the name Christ, the Divine Truth, and by both the divine marriage, A. C. 3004, 3009. Here then it is plainly stated that the name Jesus Christ is not at all applicable to the mere finite form derived from the virgin; for this was neither Divine Good nor Divine Truth, and no human subject could ever produce that, which in ITSELF, is essentially Divine. The finite form or body derived from the mother, was the instrument or medium in which, and by which, Jesus Christ, the Divine Good and Truth conquered every temptation, and accomplished human redemption. Again, Swedenborg says, that Jesus Christ is Jehovah Lord, the Creator from eternity, the Saviour in time, and the Reformer to eternity, who is therefore at once the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A. R. 961. Every one must see at a glance that the name Jesus Christ cannot be confined to the mere material body of our Lord as derived fom the virgin; for this was not the Creator from eternity, it was not the Saviour in time, it is not the Reformer to eternity, neither is it either the Father, Son, or
Holy Spirit. If, gentlemen, a careful distinction be made between Jesus Christ, and the infirm finite form derived from the mother, which was not Jesus Christ, I am persuaded that J. W. S. and *** notwithstanding their apparent differences, will be found equally zealous in propagating the same glorious doctrine of truth, that "Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same undivided, infinite and Eternal Being." Divine Good and Truth are the essential properties of Deity, and these Swedenborg tells us are signified by the names Jesus and Christ, consequently it follows, that Jesus Christ is the only True God and Eternal Life, in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. To Him gave all the prophets witness, and happy is that man whose God is the Lord.
If I understand your Correspondent ***, he does not deny the doctrine advanced by J. W. S. but only complains of a want of clearness in the explanation. The necessity of being clear and distinct upon so great a subject as the one treated of in both the papers alluded to, is surely important, and if those who take a lead in the Church would exclude as much as possible all terms, which have been more or less derived from mystic and enthusiastic writers, the simple truth would become less obscured, and the doctrines of the New Jerusalem would be seen in their true light. In the hope that your Correspondents J. W. S. and *** will don the liberty I have taken with them, I remain,
Your sincere Well-wisher,
PARABLE OF THE TEN VIRGINS.
FEELING unwilling to confine the following new and beautiful illustration of Scripture to the circle of my literary acquaintance, I have obtained the permission of the pious and learned author, to transmit it to you, with the hope of its being favoured with an early insertion in your magazine. The writer was, some years ago, one of the chaplains of the East India Company, and the friend and coadjutor of Dr. Buchanan, at St. John's church, now the cathedral, in Calcutta.
"I send you an illustration of some passages in ancient authors, which my residence in India threw in my way, and which lately recurred to my recollection.
"The passage which it most particularly elucidates, is the awful parable of the wise and foolish virgins, Matt. xxv. 1-13. You
know that the luminaries there mentioned are, in the original, Aaurades; and that the word in our translation is rendered lamps. It would be a complete instance of the Sus Minervani, were I to pretend to inform any classical scholar, that, Aauras, is not what ordinary English readers understand by a lamp; (what we call a lamp, being Auxvos. Lat. lucerna, from which, comes lucerna dismyxos, a lamp with two nozles: trimyxos, one with three, &c. See Martial. Epig. xiv. 41. Lucerna polymixos); but Aauras, truly signifies a torch.
"This however, being well known, a question may occur, how the oil was applied to such an instrument, or luminary, as a torch.
"Now, what occurs in India, presents us with a ready answer. When we are going to travel at night through unfrequented places in that country, where keeping up a light is very important, we do not trust ourselves to a lantern, as in a town or station; but a man is hired, who carries in his right hand a kind of torch, having a large head of tow, or other bibulous substance, and in his left a vessel, (the ayyɛOY. Matt. xxv. 4.) out of which he keeps occa sionally pouring oil upon the lighted tow. This makes a large, strong flame, much stronger than that of the wick of a lamp. The blaze brightens the whole path, and defies the power of rain or wind to extinguish it.
"Before I was set to thinking, by observing this, I remember sometimes inaccurately quoting Holy Scripture, by exhorting the people of a congregation to have oil in their lamps. I believe I was not singular: whereas, if we look into St. Matt. we find no such expression; but it is there, 'Oil in their vessels with their lamps.'*
"The principal use of this criticism is, that it rescues the figure of this awful parable from a great degradation, to which, in the
* Oil in their vessels with their lamps. Admitting this criticism to be correct, of which we have little doubt, it will appear by consulting the spiritual sense of the passage, that the ayyao, (vessel) Matt. xxv. 4, refers to the human WILL, which is the vessel or receptacle of the DIVINE LOVE, this love being signified by the OIL, which is necessary to be constantly kept in the vessel. The Aapras, lamp or torch, from which the light emanates signifies the UNDERSTANDING; for this is the receptacle of DIVINE TRUTH, which to every Christian is that TRUE LIGHT which enlighteneth every man who cometh into the world. When the human Will is thus filled with the Divine Love-the vessel filled with the oil, and all the affections advaneing in purity and order, then the will, being thus filled with the divine oil, influences the Understanding in its heavenly pursuits, and produces with man that bright light, that inextinguishable flame, which not only enables him to distinguish between TRUTH and the dark and unwholsome mists of ignorance and falsehood, but guides him safely in all his journey through this wilderness of life, and will finally introduce him into the realms of an eternal day. Edit.
present form, it is subject, from the misapprehension that a mere English reader has of it. We know that it is the will of our blessed Lord and of the Holy Spirit, in other parts of the Scriptures, to picture that terrible event in some of the grandest descriptions that can strike upon the feelings of the hearer, or the reader; as in Matt. xxv. 31, &c.; 1 Thes. iv. 26; 2 Thess. i. 7, 9, If, then, we imagine the persons to be lying down, as is usual in those countries, with the dress they happened to have on, in order to take some sleep, and all at once the great cry or shout of many voices to be set up, and ten such torches to be ignited together, making whole streets, and the houses in them, to reverberate their light, and these joined, as I conclude, by others of the bridegroom's friends; here is a striking scene, of such a kind as must have forced the attention, and thrilled the nerves of the hearer who understood the allusion. The whole representation is in harmony with the grand descriptions of the same subject in the holy Word. "There is a passage in a profane writer, to which these critical remarks apply; namely, in the Agamemnon of Eschylus, v. 91, et seq. where Clytemnestra has been lighting up the city, and the chorus wonders what it means, and says.
This is exactly the process used with our Indian torch; only here the oil is enriched into a chrism, either for scent, or finer light, by the solution of some preparation kept in the royal store for this purpose. But the μαλακαι παρηλορίας, or cherishing revivals, with which the instrument is anointed, answer remarkably to our application of the oil."*
ON THE PROPOSED SUBJECT CONCERNING JEHOVAH OR GOD THE CREATOR.
AMONG the subjects proposed for consideration in your increasingly interesting Magazine, there is one couched in the following terms: viz.-" Gen. i. 1. Swedenborg in his Apoc. Expli. n. 294, translates this verse thus: "In principio creavit JEHOVAH Cœlum et Terram :" In the Arcana Cœlestia, n. 16, it is thus rendered : "In principio creavit DEUS Cœlum et Terram :" Quere, Which is the correct translation, “creavit Jehovah, or creavit Deus ?” On this subject it may be remarked that the Latin Vulgate * Christian Observer, March, 1826.
gives the same translation as that adopted by the above celebrated Scribe in Arc. Cœl. Gen. i. 1. that is,—“creavit Deus.” The Greek version also gives the above passage of Sacred Scripture thus :— Εν αρχή εποίησεν ο Θεός τον ουρανον και την γην. Here the name Θεος (Theos) is used: and as Parkhurst says;—“The seventy have constantly (very few passages excepted) translated the plural name on when used for the true God, by the singular Oɛos, never by the plural." In the New Testament also os generally answers to the plural of the above Hebrew word, and answers to the English word God. It may be observed too, that the Hebrew word Jehovah is by far the most frequently translated into the Greek Scriptures by the name Kupios and this term when used in the New Testament most commonly corresponds to the name Jehovah. Thus far we see, that the Latin and Greek versions are in favour of the expressions creavit Deus,-God created. But it is yet necessary to proceed a step farther, and make the enquiry; how do these words stand in the Hebrew Scriptures? And on refering to the place Gen. i. 1, it will be found they stand thus:Bara Elohim, that is, literally, the Gods created, or as commonly rendered, God created, &c. and this is the true rendering; not Jehovah created, &c. for the word Jehovah in the Hebrew stands thus as may be frequently seen in Gen. ii. where it first, and frequently begins to occur in the bible, and is most appropriately translated by the word Lord.
But since we see that, In principio creavit Deus Cœlum et Terram, In the beginning GOD CREATED the heaven (heavens) and the earth, is the true rendering, it may next be asked, How then came Swedenborg to use the expression, "In principio JEHOVAH CREAVIT Cœlum et Terram." In order to answer this question, it will be necessary to make enquiry on what particular point his argument runs, in the place where he uses the words Jehovah created, &c. On investigating this part of the subject, Ap. Ex. 294, we find that the topic on which he is reasoning is this: "Quia Tu creasti omnia ;" Because thou hast created all things. Rev. iv. 11. Hereupon he shows that not only all existence and creation are from the Lord, but that all life is from him The subject of discussion runs upon the word create; not upon the particular qualities or exclusive identity of the Creator: and hence we may perhaps see why some little laxity in the use of the term Jehovah has been admitted, which, it is apprehended would not have been the case had he been treating respecting the identical character of the Lord, or concerning Divine Good or Divine Truth from him. In the above passage in the Apocalypsis Explicata, where he has cited Gen. i. 1, 2, 3, 27, he, in respect to these words of scripture,