foundation [of all intelligence and wisdom], but only for those who live well and acknowledge the Word to be holy and divine; but with respect to those who either doubt concerning it from various things in the sense of the letter, as from the style, and from those things which they consider to be trifling [inania], and also from various other causes, it was said, that the Word must either be opened such as it is in its internal sense, or [that they must be convinced] by natural truths, by which opposite ideas are dispersed, &c. How the foundation from the Word agrees with the foundation from the truths of nature, was shewn by two examples-as he who confirms himself in the denial of the Divine [Being], because he sees the good in a low condition and in poverty, but the wicked honoured and wealthy, and that such things [honours and wealth] are acquired by cunning; in which case the natural truth founded on the Word [or with which the Word agrees] is this :—that to be raised to honours and riches in the world is not a real benefit, or blessing, because they either seduce or withdraw from heaven, and because, being temporary, and thus nothing to what is eternal, they have respectively no esse in themselves; whereas the Lord gives that which is eternal, and he also gives the means which lead to what is eternal; but riches and honours are not such means. The other example is this :— they who think that there is no life after death, and that man dies like the beasts, and who also think that there is no more intelligence in a man than in a beast, and who conclude that the only difference is, that a man is gifted with speech, and a beast not ;-that beasts can think equally as a man, they deduce from various things, as that they are more cunning and intelligent in many things than men, &c. But science teaches that man has an internal and an external, and that his internal can be elevated to God, and that hence he can think of God and of those things which belong to heaven, which are innumerable, and that he can be affected with divine things, and thus be conjoined with the Divine [Being,] who is eternal, and that which can be conjoined with the Divine [Being] cannot die. This conclusion of science [scientificum]* conjoins itself with the Word, which reveals a life after death, that man has an internal In a work by Frederick Cuvier "On the Instinct and Intelligence of Animals," p. 55, he says, after drawing a line of distinction between the intelligence of man and the instinct of animals: "In a word, animals feel (sentent), know, and think; but man is the only created being that has been gifted with the power to feel (sentir), or to have a sense that he feels, to know that he knows, and to think that he thinks.” Here the internal and the external of man's mind, described above by Swedenborg, is clearly stated to be a deduction of science. It remained however for Swedenborg to shew what the instinct of animals really is, to point out its relation to the human understanding, and to shew in what sense sentir, connaitre, penser, or sensation, knowing, and thinking, can be predicated of animals.—ED. and an external; that the internal can be elevated to God, that it can see those things which belong to heaven, and thus be led by God according to the laws of heavenly order, which laws are the truths revealed in the Word. These two examples will serve to illustrate other cases; in short, nothing [of genuine wisdom and intelligence] can be founded upon scientific deductions [scientificis] unless it be first founded upon the Word, this must be the first [plane], the other is only confirmation from the scientific knowledge which a man possesses.-5700-5710. (To be continued.) INDIVIDUAL APPROPRIATION OF THE LORD'S I LATELY met with the following questions in a New Church publication addressed in the way of expostulation to strangers to our doctrines:"The Lord teaches that except we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we have no life in us,-Can we eat the material flesh and drink the material blood, which the Lord had while in this world?" * * * "It will probably be said, that the flesh and blood mentioned in this and similar passages, mean the Lord's sufferings:Does it appear that we can eat and drink his sufferings, or his passion on the cross ?" "It is written that the Bread of God is He that cometh down from heaven, now the Lord's material body did not come down from heaven: Are his sufferings the bread of God that cometh down from heaven? Did his passion on the cross, and his other sufferings, come down from heaven?"* * * Questions like these, the proposers of them should know, require, in order to justify the assumption of such a high tone towards opponents, that they should be unanswerably affirmative; for supposing them to be otherwise ;-supposing the propounders to be in the wrong, as Dr. Johnson observes, their positiveness must add shame to their defeat, inasmuch as it brings upon them an imputation of something more than mere ignorance in the matter. Undoubtedly these questions may appear to some of our brethren, as affording the anticipation of a triumph which cannot be disappointed. But the important consideration for those who wish the Truth not only to be offered but to be received, is, How will they be met? When an intelligent stranger finds these questions put to him, what effect are they likely to produce upon his mind? Surely we do not write expositions of our doctrine to please or magnify ourselves, but to benefit our less enlightened brethren. But before I anticipate the effect of these questions upon strangers, * See American Convention Tract, No. II., entitled "The Blood of the Lord, or brief remarks on the Atonement." I must notice their effect upon myself. In the Repository for 1838, page 133, I find a very conclusive article "On the LITERAL meaning of the Blood of Jesus Christ when mentioned in the Word." The writer quotes sundry passages from the Writings to shew, that E. S. considered the literal sense of the Lord's flesh and blood to be the passion, or rather (to express the proper English meaning of the term) the suffering of the cross. The passages there referred to are, A.E. 328, 476, 748, 806, T.C.R. 703, 704, 709, 710. In one of the passages cited from his last great work, The True Christian Religion, after quoting the words, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life," E. S. says, "In the natural sense of these passages, flesh and blood both mean the passion of the cross, in remembrance of which they are to be received." The first consideration, then, for the propounders of such questions as the above is this, whether they are not at issue with E. S.; and the second is, supposing an opponent were to refer to the words of E. S. just cited, what they could say in their own defence. That the questions proceed upon the principle that the flesh and blood to be eaten do not, and cannot mean the passion of the cross, is evident: on no other ground can they be justified: but that this IS actually their meaning, E. S. expressly affirms. The first of these questions put to strangers is, "Can we eat the Lord's material flesh, &c. ?" Now every one knows that NO Protestant imagines the passage alluded to, to mean a material eating and drinking; and that all Protestants affirm, that a figurative eating and drinking of something figuratively signified by the Lord's flesh and blood is meant to be understood from the Lord's words. Now the figurative sense of very many passages of Scripture had been agreed on by the learned long before the spiritual sense was revealed to our author; will then any New Church writer pretend, that the gift of the spiritual sense to mankind interferes with the liberty of Old Church Christians to understand the literal sense figuratively, wherever it was so previously, and with propriety understood? Can we say to strangers, "We have a spiritual sense for those difficult passages, and therefore you cannot be allowed any longer to understand them figuratively, as you have hitherto done; you must either understand them strictly literally, and so make nonsense of them, or else you must adopt our spiritual sense ;-one or the other;-take your choice." Of course no one could, after taking thought, uphold such a course.* * I would recommend every advocate of our doctrines, public or private, before he ventures to argue that any particular passage of the Word must have the internal sense set forth by E. S., because the literal sense is unintelligible, to examine a It matters not that the figurative sense commonly put on the passage alluded to (in John vi.) is by us deemed erroneous, because it is made, as we think, to favour erroneous doctrine: the fact is this, that some figurative sense is contended for by the Christian Church, and it is our duty to shew what the proper figurative natural sense is, and not to deny its existence altogether in order to insist upon our spiritual sense being substituted for it. We may show, it is true, and which we may certainly prove, that our spiritual sense contains a fulness of wisdom superior to any figurative natural sense: this is the extent of our rightful privilege, and we can gain nothing by attempting to go beyond it. The next of the questions put to strangers is, "Does it appear that we can eat and drink the Lord's sufferings?" We may profitably examine what the apostles thought about the individual participation in the Lord's sufferings by his true disciples; to me it appears that their apprehension of the matter is just and reasonable, and in perfect agreement with the words just quoted from E. S.; and therefore I, for one, am disposed to answer the question affirmatively by saying, "we can (figuratively, and in a legitimate, intelligible sense) eat and drink the Lord's sufferings." (It must be remembered, I observe, that our preceding remarks preclude our taking the words "eat and drink" in the question in any other than a figurative sense, as the true sense of the letter.) The apostle's language is as follows: "Jesus Christ by his own blood entered into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." (Heb. ix. 12.) "We have liberty to enter into the holiest by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh." (Heb. x. 19.) "Jesus suffered without the gate; therefore, let us go forth unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach." (Heb. xiii. 12.) "They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts." (Gal. v. 24.) "I count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: * * * that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable to his death, if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." (Phil. iii. 8—11.) good or esteemed literal commentary; for if he finds that the generally admitted sense of the passage is some specific figurative sense, he will perceive that it is in vain to attempt to fix upon the parties who admit it a literal sense which they do not understand, and then argue from such a groundless assumption. It would be easy to shew, that for want of this reasonable cautiousness, some of our advocates have appeared before the public to a disadvantage. "So many of us as are baptized, were baptized into the death of Christ; by baptism into his death, we are buried with him, that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed. * * * If we be dead with Christ, we shall also live with him. For in that he died, he died unto sin; so likewise reckon ye also yourselves dead unto sin." (Rom. vi. 3-11.) "As the sufferings of Christ so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ." ['in that he suffered being tempted'] abound in us, (2 Cor. i. 5.) "We are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh." (2 Cor. iv. 11.) "If we be dead with him, we shall also live with him; if we suffer, we shall also reign with him." (2 Tim. ii. 11, 12.) "We are joint heirs with Christ; if so be we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together; for the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." (Rom. viii. 17, 18.) Every one of the foregoing apostolic declarations, it cannot be denied, implies a willingness to appropriate the Lord's self-denying and purificatory sufferings, grounded in a desire to appropriate the blessings for which a fellowship with those sufferings and temptations alone can prepare. And does not the phrase, to eat, spiritually signify to appropriate? Undoubtedly the apostles were not acquainted with correspondences systematically, but they were acquainted with some, and I have no doubt that in the passages in John vi., by "eating and drinking the Lord's flesh and blood," they understood the appropriation of the Lord's sufferings, in order to the consequent appropriation of his glory, according to the tenor of the passages just cited. Not only did our Lord say, "The glory thou gavest me, I have given them," (John xxii. 22.) but he also forewarned his disciples that they must be partakers of his sufferings by taking up their cross. We are accustomed to show, in proof of the reality of the science of correspondences, that the common perception of mankind has retained in some of their most common and favourite sayings, the use of correspondences, and who has not seen this proved in the case of a mother, or a sister, when caressing an all but idolized infant, giving expression to her intense feelings by the ardent exclamation, "I could eat you," meaning only to express the fervent appropriation of love, and this reference may prepare us in a degree for meeting the remaining questions. It is asked, "Are the Lord's sufferings the Bread that cometh down from heaven? Did his sufferings come down from heaven ?" To this it is replied, that all protestants understand by the "Bread that cometh |