صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

the taking of Eve (who represents the will) out of Adam (who represents the understanding), Gen. ii. 21. The man and the woman interpenetrating each other in Adam, as one Homo, signify the perfect oneness of the will and understanding: but when the Homo (or Adam containing Eve in himself) was divided into vir (Adam) and mulier (Eve), then began the representation of the fallen state of man, through the then commencing riving of the will from the understanding. While the will and the understanding were a one in man, how close must have been the union of love and confidence of their representatives,-the male and the female! Then could the male think as purely of the female as he could of himself, because she was felt, through the interpenetration of their spheres, as a part of himself; and hence, as no one is ashamed of his own nakedness, so was no sense of shame created by the nakedness of the other sex. (Gen. ii. 25.)

CCCL.

The capacity for pure and wise thought depends upon the degree of regeneration, or the union of the will and the understanding. The greater the disjunction of the will and understanding, the greater is the incapacity for chaste thought and feeling when thinking of the other sex; and, consequently, now that the rending of the will and understanding has become confirmed by the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, and the act of separation sanctified by a false religious conscience, never was there a period when there was less of true love between the sexes, or more of mere animal desire, which is as distant from chaste and true love, as hell is from heaven.

CCCLI.

It is a fact, that the female appears to the male as the counter-part of his own nature as a man, or as an alter ego, only in proportion as he is in the actual enjoyment of a united will and understanding; but where the union of the will and understanding is altogether wanting, the female appears to the male scarcely as a fellow-creature, but as a totally other and separate existence, only having a certain relation to his sense of pleasure. To be a spiritual homo, through the union of will and understanding, gives the capacity of thinking of the female as a homo, which is a chaste thought; and not merely as a mulier, which is otherwise. In heaven this capacity is perfected, and while the love of the other sex is "intense," it is perfectly chaste. (See T. C. R. 749.) How holy and intimate must be such a union of intense love!

(To be continued.)

ON THE TERMS REVEREND, &c., AND ON INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN CHURCHES.

To the Editor of the INTELLECTUAL REPOSITORY.
DEAR SIR,

WHEN I first read the letter of Mr. Leyritz in reply to my paper in your June number, on the terms "Reverend" and " Saint," and " Ön the use of Instrumental Music in Churches," I determined not to notice it, nor would any personal considerations induce me to change that determination; but it seems necessary, for the credit of your Magazine, that so extraordinary a communication should not pass without protest. I do, therefore, most solemnly protest, in the name of good manners, which your correspondent has violated, and of liberty of opinion, which his personalities abridge, and of truth itself, which they disgrace, against his manner of exercising the right of independent thought. Why cannot men discern the vast difference between discussion which extends the sphere of knowledge, and carries peace with light, and that captious controversy which hangs a poisoned barb upon the very shaft of truth?

It is not my intention to answer the letter of Mr. Leyritz. A calm explanation of the meaning of my paper cannot be required by many of your readers; for surely few have misunderstood it as he has done; and any other kind of reply would ill become the Christian dignity which ought to characterize your pages. In a merely literary Magazine, the genial severity of Christopher North would be an admirable medicine for your correspondent, and I confess that it requires a large command over natural predisposition to avoid something like it.

Instead of a full reply, allow me a very few words.

Mr. Leyritz's profession of agreement with me in the matter of names is the finest specimen of discordant concord that ever came under my notice. He agrees, and yet he leaves the impression that, somehow, he disagrees. I simply contend that since the revelation of the science of correspondences and significatives by Swedenborg, it is good taste to avoid giving the names of the Lord to men. If, with our knowledge of its meaning, it is not bad taste to call a boy, or a building, "Emanuel," why stop short of the most awful name of Deity? Why not name a lad Jehovah Jackson? Would any body endure such a profanation? But where, as matter of good and reverent taste, is the

* Blackwood.

vast difference between the name of the unmanifested God, and the name of God with us? If Mr. Leyritz really agrees with me on this point, why not say so plainly and with unmistakeable good faith, instead of wrapping up his assent in a sort of etymological snarl?

The phrase "TACITUS must remember" is a be-a-good-boy style of writing, to which old pens in your service are not accustomed.

I did not "raise disputes" about the term "Reverend." If there be any primary fault in the discussion, it belongs to others. I only helped those whom I thought in the right.

I did not "wish to carry on divine worship without music." I did not say that Mozart "poured his devotions into unconstrained harmonies.” The "downright nonsense" of saying that "only such as Mozart can join the innumerable host of heaven in praising Him that sitteth on the throne," I leave, with most sincere courtesy, at your correspondent's disposal.

[ocr errors]

"What kind of mind TACITUS possesses," says Mr. Leyritz, or how it is constituted, I really cannot guess." This is a very interesting inquiry for me, but it does not appear to be likely to interest your readers. They have to do with my opinions as expressed in my paper, and, with all submission, I would suggest that your correspondent's business does not extend farther. Such an exclamation is an impertinence which he would hardly think it right to offer to any one in a mixed company, and which he has much less right to offer to me in the presence of the whole Church. It is a safe rule, I think, not to write of any one what the decencies of civilized intercourse would forbid us to speak. "Whatsoever is more than THIS cometh of evil.”

Your correspondent says "I have yet to learn." Here at least he may expect the cordial assent of your readers, and I cannot doubt their joining me in the suggestion, not unkindly meant, to "learn" first what a writer means before venturing upon a caustic reply to him. I am, dear Sir, very truly yours,

TACITUS.

ON THE RIGHT APPLICATION OF THE PASSAGE IN REV. xxii. 13.

SIR,

"I am Alpha and Omega," &c.

To the Editor of the INTELLECTUAL REPOSITORY.

Ar a recent public discussion on the Divinity of Jesus Christ, at which I was present, the passage in Rev. i. 8, "I am Alpha and Omega," &c.

was adduced to prove the Lord's divinity; in reply to which, it was alleged that the angel who in chapter xxii. 9 conversed with John, applies, in verse 13, the same appellation to himself, and that it does not, consequently, prove the exclusive divinity of the Lord. You will oblige by explaining how the case is.-I am, &c. P.

46

It is evident that the words of the angel conclude with the 9th verse, worship God;" and that at verse 10 the Divine Speaker, or the Lord, as the Son of Man, who in chapter i. says that He is "Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending," &c. resumes, and after stating "that the sayings of the prophecy of this book should not be sealed, and that he that is unjust shall be unjust still," &c., declares that He will come quickly, and that His reward is with Him, and that He is the Alpha and Omega, &c.; thus concluding the divine book with the same declaration of His sole and exclusive divinity, with which He commenced it. Jehovah says "I am the First and I am the Last, and beside me there is no God, (Isaiah xliv. 6.) which plainly shews that this divine appellation is only predicable of the Divine Being himself; and as the angel expressly refused to be worshiped by John, it is abundantly plain that he could not have ascribed a divine title to himself. Moreover, it is the same divine Speaker who says in the preceding verse (12), "Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give to every man according as his work shall be;" which words are evidently spoken by the Lord himself, and consequently those also which immediately follow, namely, "I am Alpha and Omega," &c. It is strange that the deniers of the Lord's divinity should have recourse to such palpable evasions and shifts, which are so easily detected and refuted. But we are aware that when there is a negative principle in the heart, the understanding will be warped, and prompted to have recourse to any artifice and sophistry in order to maintain its fallacious ground. We may here state, that in the Scriptures it often happens that the pronoun involved in the Hebrew and Greek verbs refers to a remoter antecedent; this is the case with the passage in question.*→] EDITOR.

* See Winer's Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, &c. See also Doddridge on this passage.

REVIEW.

THE NEW-CHURCH READER AND CLASS-Book, &c.; consisting of Selections, in Prose and Verse, from the most approved New Church Authors, and from the Writings of Swedenborg; together with some Original Compositions. London: JAMES S. HODSON, Clifford's Inn Passage, Fleet-street.

THE design and intended uses of this little work are so appropriately explained in its preface, that, to recommend it agreeably, we could not do better than to quote the entire preface here; but this our space forbids.*

We agree with all that the editor there says of the nature and uses of his work; and especially in his observation, that "it will be found of essential use, as an interesting and instructive reading book, not only for the elder children, but perhaps for the parents themselves." There are not wanting pieces that will be intelligible and pleasing to children even of younger years, but certainly the greater portion is better suited to those who are more advanced; and there is nothing which is too puerile to engage, and in most instances to delight, the minds of intelligent adult persons. Indeed, we think it creditable to the literature of the New Church, that such a volume as the present could be compiled from its stores, and chiefly from the fugitive pieces of its occasional writers. A large portion of the book consists of poetry, and we are surprised to find that so respectable a body of poetical effusions by New Church writers could be brought together. Most of it rises far above that mediocrity which, though respectable in every thing else, is proverbially intolerable in poetry; indeed, much of it is of a truly classic order. Nor are the majority of the prose articles inferior. The volume, in regard to these, bears a great similarity to those collections of Essays which are commonly dignified with the title of the "British Classics." It also is little inferior in literary merit to many of the volumes on which that high-sounding title has been bestowed; and if rank is to be given to superiority of execution without regard to either humility or arrogance of profession, the unassuming "New-Church Reader and Class-Book," may justly be styled a "NewChurch Classic."

As a specimen of the articles likely to be most attractive to youth, we refer especially to that beautiful production intitled "The Invalid

* In the last sentence of the second paragraph in the Preface, for “of contributing," read "to have contributed."

« السابقةمتابعة »