Revelation can be cleared up, and the clouds dispersed in which, when viewed only as to the letter, these difficulties and discrepancies reside. As some of our readers have recently inquired respecting the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, and the mode in which they are regarded by the New Church, we think they will experience gratification in perusing the following extracts; we would, however, earnestly recommend the perusal of the entire chapter: "Several deviations from historical accuracy have long been known by Christian scholars to exist in the genealogies of the Lord, as given by Matthew and Luke. We will only select a case from each to illustrate our position. Matthew, in tracing this genealogy, divides it into three parts of fourteen generations each. Thus he says—‘So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.' Now if the second of these series is examined, only thirteen generations will be found, and the name omitted is that of Jehoiakim, in whose reign Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against Jerusalem and besieged it. His father Josiah is mentioned, and so also is his son Jeconias, but Jehoiakim himself is carefully excluded. There is then an evident historical discrepancy. Now why is this? Some commentators tell us that this name must have fallen out of the text from which our translation was made, and to prove it they refer to the circumstance of its being found in some old manuscripts. But we submit that this does not prove any such conclusion. The manuscripts adduced are of but little value, as to their antiquity, in such an inquiry as this; and we cannot admit that the original of our translation was a mutilated copy, as the above explanation supposes. If a passage should be found in a transcription, which is not discoverable in older manuscripts,-which is really the case with the subject before us, the conclusion to be drawn is, not that it was in some older document, but that the transcribers have inserted it to supply what they supposed to be an omission in some original. Another way of meeting this difficulty is the supposition that Jehoiakim ought to be read for Jeconias, in the eleventh verse, and counted in the first series; and that the third series should commence with Jeconias. But these suppositions require us to believe that some error had crept into the original, for which there is no ground. For it is a fact that in very early times this very difficulty was presented to the fathers.' Porphyry urged it against Christianity in the third century; and it cannot be doubted that Jerome, who replied to him by suggesting the above emendation, would have produced more substantial evidence than conjecture, in support of it, if a collation of the manuscripts then extant would have supplied him with the materials. We have no doubt that our version in this instance is a correct expression of the original; and higher grounds than literal criticism will have to be taken to remove the difficulty. The reason why Jehoiakim's name is omitted from the list, is on account of that which he represented. All the names in the Lord's genealogy are representative of all the human states through which He descended into the world, which He then took upon Himself, and to which His redemption was extended. But Jehoiakim was not one of these. He was a profaner in a special degree; he hated the prophecies, persecuted the prophets, and destroyed their writings by cutting and casting them into the fire; and hence he represented those who profane in the highest degree. Such are those who speak against the Holy Ghost, concerning whom it is written they shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.' The Lord, then, did not take upon Himself the redemption of these; there is no redemption for them; and to indicate this fact Jehoiakim, by whom they are represented, is omitted from the list." pp. 416 to 418. 6 Again,-why Matthew, in tracing the genealogy, divides it into three parts of fourteen generations each, the author says,— "The fourteen generations in the first division refer to the holiness of love and wisdom in the celestial degree, and thus to their existence in the highest heaven, through which the Lord passed in the process of his coming into the world. The second division represents the holiness of goodness and truth in the spiritual degree, and thus their presence in the middle heaven, through which the Lord passed in the process of His advent. And the third division has reference to the holiness of charity and faith in the natural degree, and thus to their characteristics in the ultimate heaven, through which He also passed in order to effect His incarnation in the world. Thus each division of the fourteen generations denoted a holiness in those distinct degrees of interior things through which the Lord descended; and there were three of them to represent the perfection of the work. That there are three heavens is plainly taught by the apostle, who says that he knew a man who was caught up into the third, and that the Lord must have passed through them in the course of his descent into the world is evident from this, that He in Himself is high above all the heavens,' and yet He said 'I came down from heaven,' and 'am come a light into the world.' The above then, we conceive, are the subjects treated of in the internal sense of the Lord's genealogy, as given by Matthew; and it is for the sake of their adequate representation, in conformity with the peculiar features of Divine composition, that the historicals are employed only so far as they were suitable to this purpose, and other details have been introduced to carry on the representative narrative, when actual history did not afford the requisite material for so doing." p. 421. Again, as to the distinction between the two genealogies of Matthew and Luke in respect to their spiritual significance, the writer says, "In connexion with these subjects, it is of importance to remark certain general features by which those two genealogies are distinguished. Matthew, as it has been seen, commences the genealogy from Abraham, and brings it down to Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.' But Luke traces it from Joseph up to Adam, which was the son of God. Now, these two narrations are popularly supposed to treat of the same event, and in their external sense they appear to do so, but this is not the case with their internal meaning. This may be evident from this consideration, that the Holy Spirit would not have dictated a reverse order of the narrations, if different subjects had not been intended to be revealed by them; nor would it, in the one case, have begun it with Abraham, and in the other have carried it back to God. The genealogy of Matthew was designed to represent particulars respecting the Lord's assumption of Humanity, and its presence in the world; but the genealogy of Luke was intended to represent particulars concerning the glorification of that Humanity in the world, and its final ascent out of it: facts, which at once illustrate the circumstances of Matthew tracing His entrance into the world, and of Luke tracing His exit out of it." p. 425. The subjects treated in this volume are evidently of great importance, into which all thinking minds have ardently desired to look, and which may now, from the able manner in which they are handled, be seen in satisfactory light. The great number of notes, derived from the most learned and esteemed writers, by which Mr. Rendell has corroborated his statements, not only shew the extensive reading of the author, but add a considerable weight and value to the work. We have risen with much satisfaction from the perusal of the volume, and we are certain that our readers will be amply repaid by reading and studying its contents. My heart was glad within me, when I heard, From holiest sources drawn-exhaustless store! On all who seek it without price, conferred. O good and faithful Pastor! to increase Thy fold and tend thy flock, thy sole delight- 193 MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION. PROPRIUM AND PREJUDICE. From the tenor of J. C.'s letter, I certainly feel under no obligation to reply to it. There is no way of understanding another when his definition of the terms he uses is not accepted. In such case, the user of the terms has no resource but silence. I must take the liberty of saying, that had J. C. been better acquainted with moral philosophy, and, I might add, mental observation, I should have been excused this reply. His objections resolve themselves into a demand upon me, that I should defend myself to him, for not using the words "prejudice" and "indignant" exclusively in a bad sense. I might have left this to be determined by the universal consciousness of mankind; but as this guide does not seem sufficient for J. C., I will make a brief remark. PREJUDICE is defined by J. C. as "judgment formed before-hand, without examination;" the latter words implying, also, I observe, prior to examination, in cases followed by after-examination, and sometimes by conviction and change of sentiment. Now, would not the most angelic mind, on finding the established convictions of his conscience and judgment called in question, judge beforehand, or before reasons were assigned, that he is in the right? If J. C. be a full receiver of the doctrines, (for I do not know who J. C. may be,) would he not, in this sense of the term, immediately feel a prejudice in favour of the doctrines, on finding them impugned, (say by the secularists,) without examining all the arguments that the assailants might bring against them? And is such a prejudice a bad principle or feeling? But he has not found this favourable definition of prejudice, as exercised by good minds, in Swedenborg! Let him see if he can find it in his own mind. I recently felt called upon to remark, that some New Churchmen appear to think that all kinds of knowledge are to be found in Swedenborg. To be consistent, such persons should object to the sciences of grammar and geography because they are not treated of in the writings of Swedenborg. I suppose for this reason the science of Moral Philo N. S. NO. 161.-VOL. XIV. sophy, so unquestionably and lamentably neglected by Christians generally, is so little studied in the New Church. It is assumed that all branches of knowledge, and especially moral knowledge and moral terms, are sufficiently elucidated in the Writings. Such a conclusion can only serve to render us ridiculous with the more sensible portion of mankind. If I find from my own consciousness that "prejudice" is a universal principle of the mind, taking its quality of good or bad, accordingly as it is found in the minds of good or bad men, there is no need for me to hunt for a definition of "prejudice" in Swedenborg. I insist, therefore, on the propriety of using the term in a good, as well as in a bad sense. J. C. prefers "firmness" in the case he alludes to; then let him use it in his own compositions, and leave me the liberty of using such words as best express my own ideas, without attempting to force upon me those which he prefers to use for the expression of his ideas. Firmness" and "Christian stability," and "cleaving to the faith once delivered to the saints," are phrases less frequently used in "godly sincerity" and true intelligence, than to gloss over unchristian bigotry. I have no favour for ambiguous and slippery expressions. .6 With the general principle that words should be used in their dictionary sense, I agree; but dictionary meanings are not always adequate to settle a point in moral philosophy. Dr. Paley does not mention "indignation," but he mentions "unsinful anger," which is, perhaps, the same thing as a just indignation. Dr. Ferguson, Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh, says, "Indignation is a sentiment of disapprobation, mixed with resentment," but he says also, "Rage is a sentiment of disapprobation, mixed with hatred." If J. C. can see no difference between "rage" and "indignation," or between hatred and a just resentment, I only say that I can. Did J. C. never meet with the phrase, "holy indignation"? But perhaps he dismissed it at once as a solecism. But if he will look at Mark iii. 5, he will find a specimen of "holy indignation," that is, of anger at unworthy conduct grounded in benevolent 2 B 66 grief for the authors of it. And if he will turn to H. and H. n. 77, he will find a description of angelic_indignation; and in A. C. 3909, at the end, a full defence of spiritual indignation; and as this is found in Swedenborg, possibly he will admit that the word indignant" has a good sense, (notwithstanding his elucidatory poetical scrap,) whatever the term "prejudice" may have in his opinion. In reference to another remark of J. C., I will make a statement of doctrine, and of experience grounded thereon, to shew the operation of opposite principles of proprium, producing opposite activities of prejudice and indignation, in the same mind. There is in a regenerate man, the proprium of his spiritual man opened by regeneration; a portion of the proprium of the natural man reduced to accordance with it, and acting as one with the former; and a remaining portion yet the subject of infernal action in temptation. I will suppose that I am ruffled. A highly prized truth is rudely burlesqued. Being taken unawares, the disordered proprium is suddenly aroused to unholy indignation, contempt, and retaliation, accompanied with a feeling of prejudice more personal than abstract. But I detect the quality of the movement by its inquietude; I put away contempt, and call up sorrow and pity; this brings the spiritual-natural proprium into activity, and my prejudice and indignation are no longer personal, but have respect to the interests of the good and the true in the abstract, and for their own sake. I cannot forbear here expressing my opinion, that numbers of the New Church are much inferior to the Unitarian body in moral knowledge, when they ought to be superior. Let them go to Swedenborg for first principles, but let them work out the expansion of them by moral study and practice, so as to become practically and experimentally, and thus thoroughly acquainted with the "doctrine of good," in contradistinction to "the doctrine of truth," for at present, the "doctrine of good" is almost a terra incognita, known only by name, within the precincts of New Church profession. If this be not done, we shall have more mere theologians than true men amongst us. W. M. THE TRINE IN THE SOLAR RAY, SPIRITUAL AND NATURAL. That there is IN the Lord a Trine consisting of Love, Wisdom, and Operative Power;* and that a Trine (called in the Word the Holy Spirit) PROCEEDS FROM the Lord, by which love, wisdom, and the operative power thereof are communicated to man, in order to generate in him Charity, Faith, and the active Life thereof; and that on this account the Lord is called the "Sun of Righteousness," of whom, or of which, the natural sun is a symbol, is all perfectly believed and understood in the New Church. But, so far as I am aware, the full correspondence between the rays of the heavenly and natural sun, in respect to their trinal character, has not yet been exactly seen. It would appear, however, that the advance of science has discovered a third constituent of the solar ray which establishes an exact correspondence between the solar ray of the spiritual sun and the solar ray of the natural sun; the ray of the spiritual sun having heat which in its essence is love, light which in its essence is wisdom, and an active power thence derived, containing unitedly the heat and the light; while the ray of the natural sun, contains heat and light and a third derived from, and containing them, called actinism. In a popular publication + I find the following statement:— "The application of the prism to the solar ray reveals to us the composition of its beams-light disunited into its primary colours,-heat separated and revealing itself most intensely at the one end of this painted band,-and actinism at the opposite extremity. The process of separation is considered to be as follows: the prism affects variously the course taken by the rays of light, heat, and actinism. Light represented by the yellow ray, being taken as a point of departure, heat lies, or is turned away from it on the one side, and actinism on the other. These all, however, blend together, and are diffused through each other in most parts of the spectrum. "It thus appears that in the sunbeam there reside either three distinct See a paper in page 161 of the Repository for 1852, concerning "Operation," the third essential of the Trinal nature in the Lord and man. + See Chambers's Papers for the People, vol. iv. article, "Science of the Sunbeam." |