QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN THE AUGUST AND DECEMBER NUMBERS OF THE REPOSITORY, 1844.

DEAR SIR,

To the Editor of the Intellectual Repository.

I thank you for the further endeavour, in your last number, to elucidate the subjects involved in the questions respecting Lot's wife becoming a pillar of salt; the star that guided the wise men to Bethlehem; and the origin of the human race from a single pair.

With respect to the reply to the questions on the two first subjects, I entirely agree with the remarks on the distinction between the spiritual literal and the natural literal senses of the Word, that the angels seen by Lot were seen with his spiritual eyes; that, in a state of vision, the individuals may be unconscious that the objects seen are not in the natural world; and moreover, I never thought, as seems to be inferred, of contending for a reception of either of the Scripture narratives referred to in the questions," as a merely natural fact;" but I must confess that I am at a total loss to see how these premises lead to the conclusion you have drawn from them. The simple question was, whether the circumstances cited from the Word (in Gen. xix. 26 and Matt. ii. 2) had a basis in nature, or were witnessed in the natural world; and it appears to me that it has not been shewn they had not, nor even that it is doubtful whether they had.

In reply to your correspondent's remarks on the origin of the human race, from a single pair, it is observed, "We really thought that no person who had been twelve months acquainted with the writings of Swedenborg could still cling to the old contracted notion of one pair, one man and one woman, being the only earthly parents of all the human race." This remark contains an imputation of ignorance, at once unkind and uncourteous to the person who originally asked the question, and all who may differ with you in their opinion respecting its solution. My impression that the human race sprang from a single pair, one man and one woman, was derived early in life from the divine Word itself, was strengthened afterwards from other sources of information, and was confirmed by reading E. S.'s work on the "Worship and Love of God;" and I have never met with any remark in our author's theological works, nor any valid argument elsewhere, to shew that the impression is ill-founded.

In the New Church the question is not a theological one, but belongs rather to our enlightened philosophy. E. S.'s work on the "Worship and Love of God" was written expressly to unfold the laws of creation, which it beautifully does; and the principles developed in that work must be acknowledged in the New Church until they are proved to be incor

rect. Now, in this very work, E. S. clearly shews that the human race OF NECESSITY sprang from a single pair, one man and one woman; and in the absence of any proof to the contrary, is it not better to lie under imputation, even of ignorance, than to give up a valuable work of our author's, and the truly sublime and rational principles it unfolds?

It is true that E. S. says "Adam was not the first of men," but he alludes to the Adam of Scripture, which term, as is well known in the New Church, signifies mankind, and denotes the most ancient church. But this has no more to do with the subject before us, than the history of Joseph and his brethren has. The question is, not whether Adam and Eve were the parents of the human family, but whether the human race sprang from a single pair. If it were the former, the question might be negatived without doubt and difficulty, by shewing that it is not the subject treated of in the Word; but as it is the latter, the task is not so easy, even if it be practicable.

I am, yours, &c.,

H. L.

[The first pair contemplated by the original inquirer was Adam and Eve, in agreement with the common notion on that subject; and this, we certainly thought, was the idea conveyed in the remarks of our respected correspondent in our last. As no first pair antecedent to Adam and Eve was ever thought of by us as involved in the inquiry, all that was required was to shew, from Swedenborg, that there were Præ-adamites, or races of men existing prior to Adam and Eve, and that, consequently, these latter were not the first pair. As to E. S.'s work on the "Love and Worship of God," we hold it in the greatest esteem, as a philosophical production, since it most beautifully unfolds and applies his philosophical principles demonstrated in his previous works, and it may be regarded as a kind of intermediate between his theology and philosophy. Now, in this work, it is evident that E. S. also contemplated the Adam of Scripture as the first man; hence he calls him Adam, and the first-begotten, and in a note at page 67 he alludes to the breath of lives, or the vital spirit as he calls it, as denoting the air opening the lungs of this first man; see the remark appended by the translator to this note. From a perusal of this work, we do not see, as stated by our correspondent, "that E. S. clearly shews that the human race have, of necessity, sprung from a single pair." This, "of necessity," we think, by no means, follows, from his philosophical principles. A critical examination of this work clearly evinces that E. S. wrote it prior to his especial illumination in spiritual things; for at page 66 he states that the inhabitants of heaven, or angels, drove away fierce animals from the sacred grove where the first man was born. Whereas, in his theological writings, he teaches that angels are from the human

race, and, of course, did not exist prior to the first man, and that ferocious beasts existed together with hell, and consequently after the fall.] -EDITOR.

SIR,

THE TRANSLATION OF GENESIS iii. 22.

To the Editor of the Intellectual Repository.

I should be obliged to yourself, or any other Hebraist amongst your readers, to justify the translation of the above passage, as given by Swedenborg, assuming the English translation of his Latin one to be accurate. This translation stands thus :—

"And Jehovah God said, behold the man WAS as one of us, to know good and evil.” On that part of the verse to which I desire to point attention, Swedenborg says, that "man's knowing good and evil signifies that he was become celestial, consequently wise and intelligent. The common translation runs thus:

"And the Lord God said, behold the man IS BECOME as one of us," &c.

Undoubtedly the difference between the two translations is immaterial, according to the spiritual sense put upon the words by E. S. Of man, before his fall, it may be said, that he "was" wise and intelligent, although he had begun to be otherwise; and contemplating him, as he existed at the time of his fall, according to the spiritual idea of that fall, it was equally accurate to say, he "is become as one of us;" by a gradual process, that is, he "is become celestial." For most true it was that the celestial character, consisting in a likeness to the three divine principles, denoted by US, the Divine Love, Wisdom, and Operation, had been attained by the church called Adam, and still continued, although tarnished. (In another point of view, US may be understood as meaning Jehovah God and the angels, as Swedenborg explains, of whom man had become a likeness.)

But according to the sense put upon the words by the literalists, the two translations are quite opposite to each other. That of Swedenborg seems to say that man, before the fall, WAS as God was, being a likeness of all the principles constituent of Deity, but by his fall he had begun to be otherwise; but the common translation attributes to the disobedient act of man, by which he fell, according to the meaning of the fall, as understood by the literalists, the wonderful property of making man really wiser than he was before! As observed, according to the spiritual sense, it appears of little moment whether we read "was" or "is become;" but, according to the literal sense, as understood by the literalists, their translation is attended with great difficulty to themselves, from which

they would gladly escape, and from which they would be altogether relieved, by the translation of Swedenborg, could it be fully justified. It is curious to note their futile endeavours to get out of their difficulty.

Dr. Clarke observes, " On all hands this text is allowed to be difficult." It has been generally concluded, that one of the supposed Divine persons addressed the other two in a strain of irony towards man! "Behold the man is become as one of us!" "This ironical reflection (says Mr. Fuller) is expressive both of indignation and pity. Man is become wonderfully wise! Unhappy creature! He has for ever forfeited my favour." It has been said that this sarcasm (!) was not levelled, however, at man, by the Divine Speaker, but at the serpent, who, it is assumed, was Satan in disguise! In defence of this ironical construction, the language of the Psalms has been quoted, "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision." Thus it is that men, in their weakness, think of God as being such an one as themselves!

AMICUS.

[The term in Hebrew is, the past tense of the verb to be, and is properly rendered by Swedenborg "fuit." Schmidius, Montanus and other translators, who have given a literal version of the Scriptures, have likewise so rendered it. Those who wish to see a critical investigation of the Hebrew tenses may consult Dr. Nicholson's Translation of Ewald's Hebrew Grammar, beginning at page 135.]-EDITOR.

EXTRACTS FROM SWEDENBORG.

"It is not angelical to inquire into the evils appertaining to man, unless the goods are inquired into at the same time." A. C. 10,381.

"Love to the Lord, and charity towards the neighbour, open the internal man." A. C. 10,578.

"To do good to the evil, is to do evil to the good." A. C. 3,820.

"No one can know the divine truths of the Word in the sense of the letter, except by doctrine thence derived; and if he has not doctrine for a lamp, he is carried away into errors, whithersoever the obscurity of his understanding and the delight of his will lead and draw him. The doctrine which should be for a lamp, is what the internal sense teaches, thus it is the internal sense itself."- The man whose internal is open, is in the internal sense of the Word, although he is ignorant of it." "Hence he has illustration when he reads the Word, but according to the light which he is capable of having by means of the knowledges appertaining to him." A. C. 10,400.

"To sin is to do what is evil and think what is false with study and from the will; for the things which are done with study and from the will, are such as go forth from the heart and render man unclean, Matt. xv. 11, 17, 18, 19—consequently, which destroy spiritual life appertaining to him." A. C. 8,925.

"Not sinning denotes the preservation of spiritual life, for spiritual life is preserved by not sinning." A. C. 8,925.

"That the burnt offerings should be of males that were entire, either from the flock or from the herd; but the sacrifices either of males or females.' Levit. i. 2, 3; iii. 1, 6. The reasons were, because celestial things are those which are of love to the Lord, thus of the marriage of good and truth; but spiritual things are those which are of charity towards the neighbour, thus not of the marriage, but of the consanguinity of truth with good; and truths and goods in consanguinity are as sisters and brothers, but in marriage they are as husband and wife. Hence it was that the burnt offerings were of males that were entire by which are signified genuine truths from the Word, or from doctrine derived from the Word, which were conjoined to the good of love to the Lord, which good was signified by the altar and its fire but the reason why the sacrifices were either of males or females, was, because by males were signified truth, and by females, goods, but not conjoined by marriage, but by consanguinity; and whereas both, as brothers and sisters, are from one parent, worship was accepted from truths equally as from goods, that is, from males equally as from females." Apoc. Ex. 725.

REVIEW.

:

Anastasis; or the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body, Rationally and Scripturally Considered. By GEORGE BUSH, Professor of Hebrew, New York City University. London, 1845: Wiley and Putnam, 6, Waterloo-place.

We have just received a copy of this work, which was announced in our last. The doctrine maintained in this able production is substantially the same as that of the New Church. This the author admits, but, at the same time, states "that he arrived at it by a purely independent process." In reference to this point he says:—

Especially would I express the hope that the avowed substantial identity of the theory with that of Swedenborg may not operate to the undue disparagement of the whole work. That I have been here and there indebted to Mr. Noble's able and interesting Appeal in Behalf of the Views of the Eternal World and State held by the New Jerusalem Church,' will be seen from the several quotations I have made from it;