say

mere man shall flesh and blood inherit the Kingdom of God. (v. 50.) Then cometh the end-the end of the world; for it is clear, as shewn by Mr. Noble, in his Appeal, that the apostles erred both by interpreting, literally, the events predicted to take place at the Second Advent, (in evident contradiction to the interpretation by Peter of similar sayings in relation to the First Advent-see Acts ii. 17 to 20,) and by expecting that those events would be literally fulfilled in their day, (although, in the case of Peter, there seems to have been some misgiving on this subject, as if he doubted whether the apostles ought not to confine themselves to the announcement of the Lord's First Advent, that being their proper mission, in the fulfilment of which alone illumination was promised, and pass by the subject of the Second Advent, except so far as to warn mankind to be prepared for it,—a preparation for which being, in effect, identical with preparation for death, since to be prepared for the one is to be prepared for the other.) Paul proceeds to state his belief that, when the end comes, that is, on the occasion of the Second Coming of the Son of God, He will lay down his kingly authority; we he states his belief, for Peter assures us, that "in speaking of THESE things," Paul wrote not the unerring words of the unmeasurable wisdom of the Holy Spirit, but according to his own proper measure of wisdomthe wisdom given unto him "--which is as much as to admit, that concerning the manner of the fulfilment of the events of the Second Advent, the apostles were not inspired to speak from the wisdom that is unerring. They were only able to speak according to their own proper judgment, or "according to the wisdom given unto them," as available for forming an opinion upon that, as upon any other subject concerning which they had received no commission to speak. And if St. Paul, it may be remarked, could speak on 'these things" from his own wisdom only, the same must be judged of Peter himself, and the other apostles. But what are we to understand by Paul's opinion or belief, that the Son would then deliver up his kingdom to the Father? It appears probable that he meant to state, in a figurative way, that on the arrival of those "who are Christ's" in heaven, and whom Christ had conducted thither at his Second Coming, the Son would no longer be seen by them as a person, existence, or mediatorial agent, distinct from the Father, or as possessing a mediatorial power in any wise personally distinct from the power of the Father, for the Son would then be seen to be the Father Himself manifested, insomuch that "whoso seeth the Son seeth the Father.” (John xiv.) Paul appears to have considered, that owing to the Lord's appearing to men as locally present upon earth, while he spoke of the Father as being, at the same time, present in heaven, men would be liable to think of them as two distinct Agents or Exercisers of power, until, at the

66

Second Coming which he presently expected, they should be shewn plainly of the Father, and no longer see the relation of the Father and Son darkly, and comparatively, as the natural eye saw through the medium of that partially opaque substance used in his day for the purposes of glass. (1 Cor. xiii. 12.) They would then see clearly How the Father and Son are One-(John x) and also that the Son exercises his mediatorial power not at all like a Person distinct from the Father; and consequently, so far as they had thought otherwise, they would then alter their opinion, which is figuratively described by saying, that the Son would then lay down his (supposed separate) power, and become subject to the Father. They would then see that the Kingdom of God is governed by the Son not as distinct from the Father, but by the Son from the Father, or by the Father through the Son, precisely as the body of man acts from his soul, or as his soul acts through his body; for whoever thinks thus, thinks of the soul as the "all in all" of the acts of the body. (In like manner, we may suppose, that the materialist, on his arrival in eternity, on finding that his having attributed all power to the body, was an error, will, figuratively speaking, or in idea, cause the body to lay down its hitherto supposed power, and become subject to its soul, for that, in reality, the soul is " all in all," in all the activities of the body.) And then it will be seen, that as the soul and body form One Agent and One Person, the Father and Son are, in like manner, One Divine Agent and One Divine Person. So, also, whatever power the body exercises "in putting down all opposing authority," it is the soul that thus "puts all things under" the power of its body. This is what is figuratively stated, and applied to the Divine Essence or Soul, and its Son or Humanity, by saying, (v. 27,) that when the Son had put down all things opposed to him, (whether spirits of darkness or wicked men; evil affections or false persuasions, opposed to the dominion of his righteousness and truth,) it was, in reality, the Father (or his Divine Soul) who put all things under Him. When this view of the Father and Son, shadowed forth figuratively by the apostle, shall be realized, the Son-the Divine Humanity will be recognised as subject or subservient to the Father or Divine Essence which dwells in It—as the body is subject to the soul,— and from which It "proceeded forth," (John viii. 42,)—and then Godthe Divine through the Human-will be seen to be "all in all." But what is meant by the last enemy, death, being first to be destroyed by the Son of God, (or by the Divine Essence through the Divine Human)? It appears to mean, as stated above, the surmounting, by those "that are Christ's," of the terrors and pains of death, through the grace and presence of their Lord. It seems to be implied, that those who should be alive in the world at the Second Coming, (expected by him, as already

It

observed, in his own life-time,) and should "meet the Lord in the air,” must first die, or put off the natural body, and find the Lord present with them to destroy, virtually, (that is, as to all his terrors,) the last mortal enemy, death, and raise them in their spiritual bodies to heaven. certainly has nothing to do with the notion, that when dead bodies shall rise again, (as vainly expected by some,) death will be destroyed through their resuscitation. This resuscitation, indeed, is contrary to verses 44 and 50, and to the whole tenor of Scripture, as shewn by Mr. Noble, in his Appeal.

Which, then, is most consistent, to understand the apostle as teaching that at a particular time the unchangeable, because Divine, relations of the Father and Son will be changed; or to understand that at a particular time immortal beings will rectify their mistaken views of those relations?

Now, although the apostle was mistaken in supposing that in his generation this would take place, and in the manner he expected, there can be no doubt, that such a correction of religious ideas will, and does take place, with every one who "is Christ's," and therefore has a teachable spirit, upon his rising into the spiritual world in his spiritual body, and becoming a beatified spirit. Thus, then, the parabolically-conveyed doctrine of the apostle is not the less true in itself, because he mistakenly looked for its realization in a manner and at a time concerning which he had not received illumination from the Holy Spirit, but spoke according to the ordinary kind of " wisdom given to him," which being finite, was liable to a mixture of error. Such is the only rational way in which we can possibly understand the Son's delivering up his Kingdom to the Father, and becoming subject to Him. No doubt it was of the Divine Providence, for wise purposes, that Paul was_overruled to express himself so very mysteriously.

INQUIRY RESPECTING THE MUSTARD SEED AS BEING THE LEAST OF ALL SEEDS.

By the comparison and correspondence of the growth of a grain of mus tard seed, our Lord illustrates the growth or progression of his heavenly kingdom in man, and in the world. (See Matt. xiii. 31, 32. Mark iv. 30-32. Luke xiii. 18, 19.) The description given by Luke of the seed and its growth is more brief than the former two. In Mark's gospel the seed is said to be "less than all the seeds that be in the earth ;" but that, nevertheless, it becometh " 'greater than all herbs," &c.

Mat

the least of all seeds;" but that when it is

2 c

66

grown, "it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree," &c. One uniform opinion appears to pervade the mind and writings of expositors and commentators as to the seed being small, but not the least of all seeds; and they seem to agree as to the comparatively large tree that is produced from so small a seed. For instance, Wesley, in his notes on one of the above passages, says, that it is "one of the least of seeds;" and that it was 66 a way of speaking extremely common among the Jews." Alsó, that the tree "in those countries grows exceedingly large and high." It is well known that the large size of the tree in the soil and climate of Palestine is frequently noticed by the Hebrew authors. But I am not aware that any of them speak of the mustard seed as being the least of all seeds. In "Nichol's Conference," we are referred to the Talmudical Treatise, where there is a dispute about "sowing upon rocks and stones," and of mixing "wheat and tares" together, and to Pɛal (a Tract in the Jerusalem Talmud) where mention is made of a tree of mustard seed which one might climb into like other trees." Still nothing is said of the smallness of the seed, as being less than all others: and yet, it is reasonable to expect that had it been so, those who resided in that country would have known. Others speak of twelve sorts of mustard, (Eivηπɩ, or σívam, sinapi) the common name. In this diversity is there any one of them that can be truly said to be, literally and emphatically, the least of all seeds? Dr. Hammond says, that in the Babylonish Talmud, Ketub. fol. 3., three boughs of . (Chardal) or mustard, are mentioned. That one of them broken off yielded nine cabs of seed, and wood sufficient to cover a small house; and that in C. 7, of the Tract above noticed, it is said, that one yielded three cabs; and that Simon, the Son of Chalaphata had a stem of mustard in his garden, into which he could climb up as into a fig tree. And the writer adds, that the words, the least of seeds," "is not literally, but proverbially spoken." Also, that Maimonides, More Nev. par. i. c. 56. opposes it (the seed) to the firmament, as a comparison between things of the smallest and greatest magnitude.

66

As before intimated, the general impression in the Christian world, as well as with these and other Commentators, appears to be, that the nrustard seed is not the least of all seeds, but one of the least. Nor am I aware that our author has any where said either that it is the least, or that it is not less than all other seeds, literally speaking. Yet, we are aware, that the spiritual sense of that portion of the Word is so given, as if we were to understand that the mustard seed is the very least of seeds. The question then naturally arises, (a satisfactory solution of which may have its use among us,) viz.-" Is it so expressed in the letter on account of the spiritual sense? to which the letter sometimes yields

for the sake of the higher or more interior sense contained within it. In a word, is it an apparent truth only, and not a literal truth, that the mustard seed is the least of all seeds? Or, can it be shewn, philosophically and scientifically, that the spiritual sense so given, is contained within a statement of a natural and literal fact?

INQUIRER.

REVIEW OF THE "ANIMAL KINGDOM."

(From the Veterinary Record, and Transactions of the Veterinary Association. April, 1840.)

IN several of our former numbers we have inserted Notices of Reviews of the "Animal Kingdom" which have appeared in different scientific works. In all cases the writers appear greatly amazed that such a work as the Animal Kingdom" should have remained one hundred years almost entirely unknown to the world.

66

The approbation which the study of this work has hitherto caused, is a great encouragement to the "Swedenborg Association" to pursue its objects, and to realize the ends it has in view. The following extracts will be read with interest :

66

'The publication of these volumes is, in more points than one, no uninteresting occurrence. In fact, they admit of at least a two-fold consideration. In the first place, the anatomical basis on which the views they contain are founded, is supplied directly from the works of the great anatomists of former times, of those who were the fathers of the organic sciences, whose discoveries were our inheritance, and whose accumulated wealth, recast in the moulds of the present day, furnishes even yet, the most passable and purest coin that we have in circulation in our schools of science. In the second place, they attempt a theory of organic nature, and specifically of the human body; and they aim to shew the connexion of the natural sciences with each other, and afterwards with the human mind, and with society; in fine, with a philosophy of causes."

The Reviewer, after shewing how much we owe to the ancient anatomists, &c., refers the reader to the "Introductory Remarks" of the Translator for a general exposition of the Doctrines of the Animal Kingdom, and says:

"It may be observed, however, that the Animal Kingdom,' although differing toto culo from the Bridgewater Treatises,' is an endeavour to shew the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God,' as displayed in the organic creation. To work out this end Swedenborg has investigated, on entirely new principles, the formation, functions, and uses of