truths, all which relate to the Lord. Their putting a crown of thorns on His head, signified that they had falsified and adulterated those truths. Their dividing His garments and casting lots for His vesture, signified that they had divided and dispersed all the truths of the Word, but not in its spiritual sense, which His vesture or inner garment represented. Their crucifying Him, signified that they had destroyed and profaned the whole Word. Their giving Him vinegar to drink, signified that all was falsified and false, and therefore he did not drink it, but said, 'It is finished.' Their piercing his side, signified that they had entirely extinguished every truth and every good of the Word. His being buried, signified the rejection of the residue of the Humanity taken from the mother; and His rising again on the third day, signified His glorification. Where these circumstances are predicted in the Prophets and Psalms, their signification is similar." D. L. 16.

Now, as all the circumstances respecting the Lord's temptations were representative of things relating to the Church, it follows that the two thieves and their crucifixion were representative also. We accordingly learn from Swedenborg, that the two thieves signified the same as the sheep and the goats (A. E. 600), since all the members of the Church may be divided into two classes, the evil and the good, or those who are confirmed in evil, and those who are well disposed, the latter being represented by the penitent, and the former by the impenitent thief. They are called thieves, because both classes arrogate to themselves that which belongs to the Lord alone. The railing thief denoted all those, who like the Scribes and Pharisees, are professors only,―external members of the Church, who have a name to live, but who have no heavenly life in their souls. Such are spiritual thieves who appropriate to themselves what belongs to the Lord, and who carry this out to the greatest extent they can in confirming their own dominion over things temporal and spiritual. Such men arrogate to themselves the divine power of the Lord in opening and shutting heaven, and thus rob Him of his peculiar prerogative. Whereas the penitent thief denotes those who are well disposed and simple-minded, but who on account of the false doctrines which abound at the end of the Church, cannot be properly instructed in the genuine intelligence of the Word and of spiritual things, and who consequently attribute to themselves what is properly the Lord's. They cannot see, from want of proper instruction, that all life is the Lord's, that all love and wisdom come from Him alone, and that He is the all in all of his Church. Being, however, well disposed, they acknowledge in a general sense a divine Providence, confess their sins, and implore mercy. The crucifixion, in reference to the penitent thief, denoted the bitter temptations which the well disposed have to undergo in becoming regenerate, especially at the end of the Church, when every thing evil and false abounds; and the crucifixion of the impenitent thief denoted the condemnation of all who are con

firmed in evil. In a more general sense, the two thieves represented the Jews and Gentiles respectively, the former being denoted by the impenitent, and the latter by the penitent thief. Now, it is a law of representatives that the private or individual character of the person representing, is by no means contemplated in the representation itself. Hence the kings of Israel, who were for the most part abominably wicked, could nevertheless represent the Lord (A. C. 665). Thus in considering the representation of David and Solomon, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, their private or individual character did not enter into the representation. In like manner, the individual and private character of the two thieves does not enter into that which they represented. When this fact in the law of representatives is seen, the passage may be seen in its true light. For this malefactor who acknowledged the Lord, confessed his sins, and implored remembrance and mercy, represented by this confession (whatever might have been his individual state and private character) all those amongst whom the Lord could establish his Church; inasmuch as the acknowledgment of Him, the confession of sins, and the imploration of mercy, are the three great requisites which form the plane on which the Lord can build his Church; and therefore the Lord said, "To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise," denoting that in such a state the Lord can abide with man, and impart to him the blessing and happiness of his kingdom. Thus again, the Lord's words are addressed to the thief not in his individual, but in his representative character, and consequently they are addressed to all who are in that acknowledgment, confession, and supplication.

Now, since all who have known each other from any regard, and especially if they leave this world at the same time, meet together in the world of spirits, thus the repentant thief no doubt saw the Lord, and was with him in paradise, or a garden, immediately after death. For the Lord, after his resurrection, was first, seen in a garden. All men, says Swedenborg, on their first entrance into the world of spirits, are in their externals, and this, since it is according to order, was no doubt the case with the Lord, who is order itself. But from this it by no means follows, that the thief in his final state would be in heaven; this would entirely depend upon the quality of his life, which would be manifest when he left his externals and came into his internals. Thus no instantaneous

66

change from an evil to a good life can be founded upon this passage, nor ought any argument to be hence drawn in favour of the doctrine of instantaneous salvation. When Samuel said to Saul, To-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me," (1 Sam. xxviii. 19,) it by no means follows that Saul, who had rebelled so much against the Lord, should be in heaven when he came to his final state. But Samuel's words no

doubt came true, and Saul was with him on the following day in that intermediate state, called the world of spirits, where souls first meet after death (See H. H. 421 431). But it by no means follows that they continued to be together, for when the interiors of their souls were opened through the process of judgment which awaits all after death, Samuel might have ascended into heaven, and Saul have descended into the opposite kingdom.

66

IT is to be lamented that your correspondent FIDES, in his endeavours to shew that the double or divided consciousness of the Lord is no more a proof of his being two Beings, than man's double consciousness proves that every man is two beings, had not, first of all, been quite sure that he was using the word consciousness" in the same sense with Mr. Le Cras, or that "brother Idealist" who is the writer of this Letter. No one can doubt, for a moment, that in the course of those interior changes through which most men pass during this life, the whole tenor of the thought and the affection may be so completely altered, that were it not for the peculiarities of natural habits and bodily structure, many a man, after the lapse of years, would not be recognized even by those who knew him best. Equally true is it that Swedenborg, while he was a natural being, was frequently in a spiritual state, and that while he was in a natural state, he thought and spoke after a natural manner, but while in a spiritual state, he thought and spoke after a spiritual manner. All this is as true as that it has nothing to do with the inquiry, because it has nothing to do with consciousness. Consciousness is the intuitive perception which every sane man has of his own identity. A double or divided consciousness does not mean, therefore, any alternation between interior and exterior thought, neither is it the coëxistence of a spiritual and a natural state of mind, even were such a thing possible, which by no means follows from the passage (n 280 T. C. R.) quoted by your correspondent; since Swedenborg there tells the spirits with whom he was conversing, upon

their expressing their surprise that at one time they saw him, and at another he was invisible,-" Sum alternus, nunc in luce vestra, nunc in umbra vestra." But all this was beside the mark. The single question is, Could the Lord by thinking, in his infirm humanity, so completely lose sight of his Divine Identity as not to know that He and the Father were one, and that He was the very Father to whom he cried out in his agony of mind, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" To me such a supposition is as contrary to the Heavenly Doctrine of the New Jerusalem, as it is to sound reason. It is, besides, only changing one mystery for another. By such a division as to consciousness, we degrade the Lord down to the level of a mère man, who in his states of humiliation and exinanition, could not have been God. Against this delusive conception Swedenborg repeatedly cautions his readers, and yet it is to be feared that there are some who have mistaken the appearances of truth for the truth itself, and are falling headlong into this great error. Let them only reflect, that man has a consciousness distinct from the inflowing Divine Life, because his mind is a spiritual form, which imperfectly receives that life. Hence the Divine consciousness of the Lord and the finite consciousness of man are distinct from one another. He forms no part of the Divine Essence. But if the appearances of truth, such as are contained in the literal sense of the Word, are to be our doctrine, then, not only from such passages as these, The Father is greater than I," Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and God;" but those other passages also in the Apocalypse, where John mentions his having seen the Lord after his ascension, and where the Lord speaks of the Father as distinct from Himself, must be taken as equally conclusive of his being even now distinct from the Father as to consciousness, and that Trinitarians as well as Socinians have some grounds for their respective opinions.

66

66

your

There are several other mistakes in the paper of your correspondent, some of them of importance, as they tend to produce great confusion of thought, where the subject, as unfolded by Swedenborg, is perfectly clear. Thus, your correspondent says, "We should think of Him now, as He is above the heavens in his Divine Humanity." Now, above the heavens he is not in his Divine Humanity, but in his Divine Esse, which cannot be represented. It is in the heavens, and not above them, that He is in his Divine Humanity, for this can be represented to the mind, and therefore admits of being approached and loved. Divinum Domini in cœlis, hoc est accommodatum receptioni angelorum qui ibi. qui finiti; hoc Divinum est in perceptione illorum Divinum Humanum

66

Domini." (A. C. 9956.) "The Divine of the Lord in the heavens is that which is accommodated to the reception of the angels there, who are finite; this Divine [Principle] is in their perception the Divine Human of the Lord."

CHAS. AUG. TULK.

[After some hesitation we have concluded to insert the above article; but to allow it to pass without remark would not be consistent with our sense of duty. Our correspondent has a right to entertain his own peculiar idealistic views; but it is not right that he should attempt, what is obviously the object of his letter, to put forth his strange peculiarities of thought as being the doctrines of the New Church, and the teaching of Swedenborg. We, together with the members of the Church in general, are perfectly satisfied that the peculiar notions of our correspondent, so far as they have been made known, and the truths taught by Swedenborg, are as wide as the poles asunder, as opposite as darkness and light. Our correspondent here speaks of the Lord's "Divine Identity," which implies a belief in his Divine Consciousness; but does he also believe that the Lord had at any time, in the ordinary and obvious sense of the words, a distinct human identity, and thus a distinct human consciousness? If he believes this, he must admit the truth of the Lord's double consciousness when upon earth; if he denies that the Lord had in the world a real personal human existence and identity, he denies the fundamental truth of the New Church, as set forth in the Word, and in the writings of Swedenborg; and to discuss with him, in that case, the different kinds, or different states of the Lord's consciousness, would be as completely a waste of time as to discuss the attributes and perfections of God with one who denies His

existence.

66

Swedenborg uniformly teaches that the Lord "was born like another man, and derived evils from His mother, which he fought against and overcame ;"-that, "being born as another man, he was introduced to things celestial according to order, and this by degrees from infancy to childhood, and afterwards was introduced to knowledges;" that "celestial things with knowledges are insinuated from childhood even to adult age;"—that "with the Lord, the interiors were Divine by derivation from Jehovah His Father, the exteriors were human by derivation from Mary His mother; hence with the Lord, equally as with man, there was a scarcity of knowledges in childhood owing to his external man ;"that, He had the power of learning superior to any other man; but whereas He was to be instructed in things celestial, previous to His instruction in things spiritual, wherein His case differed from that of other men ;"-that, "the Lord in His childhood, whilst He imbibed the things of science, at first knew no other than that they were for the intellectual man, but that it was afterwards discovered that they were for a further end, viz., for His attainment to things celestial;"—that "at that time the nature and quality of the Lord's state was puerile, [or like that of a boy] which is such as to admit the presence of worldly things;"-that, "it may be matter of surprise to many to hear speak of hereditary evil from the mother being with the Lord, &c., but there