Emanuel Swedenborg

1. THE
NEW CHURCH REPOSITORY,
AND
MONTHLY REVIE W .
• DEVOTED TO THE EXPOSITION
OF THE
PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY
TAUQHT IN THE WRITINGS OF
EMANUEL SWEDENBORG.
CONDUCTED BY
G~ORGE BUSH, A. M .
. .... -
~ ~.... ....
VOL. V. ...
: ..,
~.
J ~
~ ~
~ ..
.. ~ • •
--
~';.... ~
NEW-YORK:
PUBLISHED FOR THE PROPRIETOR, 16 HOWARD-STREET.
.
LONDON: J. 8. BOD80N AND W. N&WBZ:ay•
1852.

2. •
.. ~ ... .... ... . ..
.:: ~ ;
lIt._ :
' .. we ••• ..::=.
: :.... : .. .
. . :~ . :
J. P. PBALL, Prl.';",· '
No.-J.~,.~~.- .r..

3. INDEX.
ORIGINAl.. PAPERS.
PA...
Aphorisms on Slavery and Abolition, 182,216, 268,2DI,3d7,38'
BOok., - • •
Chapram J onatban. Recollections of,
• .. • • • - 481
- 3M
13
Charity, true, • • •
China, Importahce of N. C. Mi••ion to, • 604
Cburch Orpnization-A Dialope, • 437
Coaflrmation-Remarks, .- • 445
• I"
Cotenant. the.
U Delta." conclulion of Reply to, 301,356,398
DiYiDe Word', three Degrees oC the, • 2~0
Eanb, the Man of the, It
Egypt. AntiqoitIes of, • 23
E.U and the Rella, Eternit, of,
Free DilCDHion, - -
GraYitation, Tbougbta OD the Cause of,
•
- • 381
• 461
"
Hamanity, tbe Divine, 61
Infinite and Eternal, tbe, · III
Jehovah-God-Lord, • • ~81
Letters to a Trinitarian, Rept, to, • 5
Lot. the Use of, in relation to N. C. Min11ur. 134, 153
MalOo's Letter-Remarks on, • • • 2~5
New Cburch, Earl, History of the, • 315
do. in Charlelton, S. C., Organization of, • • 322
Old Chareh Mini.ters, the Dllty 0(, who receive N. C. Doctrines, • 10'
Opposing tbe Free Choice of others. • 410
Order, external Law. 0(, - • • 363
Parables. the, Explained, • • 74, 114, 158, 201,259, 318, 361, 401, 453, 481
~ in tbe A. E., Mlatranalation of, • 318
Peaalty, the D.th, •• 80
Preaching, La"
Psalms, the.
Pleodo-Spirltualism,
• - 305
• 334, 373, GOD, 533
"
Rabbiaical Proverbs, • 651
Sermon on Matt. vi. 13, • 141
do. Luke vi. 38, • 146
do. Rev. iy. 2, • 294
do. Is. dUe 6-'1. • 341
Soul, the, of MaD, • 131
Spirit, the Holy, 11
Spiritual Creation, • 500
Structure, the true, of Mao', Nature. - 516
Tabemacle Service, viewed iD a Spiritual Import, 15. 33, 101, 1'72, 201
POETRY.
Diyine Loye, • 212
Origin of tbe Eartb t • • 5:56
The Pore iD Heart see God, • ~83
CORRESPONDENCE.
Letter from a We'tern Correspondent, giving striking case of Spiritual Experience, 30
II (tom a gentleman in Bath, Me., correcting Error in Mr. De CharlDs' Report
00 the Trine, • • • • • • - • 82
ftom a Methodist Clergyman, • 37
(rom a ProfeBllional Gentleman of Distinction. 80
c, tram a Friend containing Narrative o( an Apparition, 81
Cl on N. C. Order, • • • • - • 141
(rom Rev. Wm. MaJOn, • 188
Crom U Delta." • • 223
le from Hr. Saxton on Distribution ofN. C. Book., - 22:5
.. f,om R. H MOflay 00 Case of Rey. H. Weller,
..
from an Ortbndox Clergyman, with Reply,
OD SpiritualllaDir.-tiOD••
•
•
•
· 221
~S,
1111

4. if' IlfDU.
PAG ••
Letter on Dieeueaioo of tbe Slavery Q.ueetioD. .. • • • • 2'73
If Translation of a PaAale in Swedenborg's Cl Adversaria," requested and givell, 379
•• Extractl from various, on Slavery Diecu9sion, • 418
" from Rev. W. Brace, on EngH!b Translation of H. & H., .. 48..
from S. H. Worcester-TranslatioD ora Passage in the .: Adversaria," • 467
from a Soutbern Corretpondent-Swedenborg 00 Slayery,.. .. • 469
.. from D. Gilmour, Glall0w-Prospectul oC a Dew PublicatioD. .. 472
•• (rom the South-Epistolary !'estimonies, ... .. 476
from ollr English Correepondent-Some Particulars in the early History of the
N. C. in England, _....... - .. 516
&I from a Westena Corre.poodenl-True Mode of dealing with Social Evils, • 51S
•• 'rom a New England SublCri~er. with Remarks, • ~61
.. from Rev. HeDry Weller. .. 563
MISCELLANY.
Cue of Rev. H. Weller, • 284
Db80hltion of the CeDtral Convention. • 584
Distribution of N. C. Books, .. - 3~. 84, 008
Formation of N. C. Society iD San FraDciaco, • 296
General Convention-Proceeding. of. • 409
Haddock'. Lecture Oil Science and PhilOlOphy of SWedenbor,. • 524
New Church Work! wanted. • J91
Proceeding. of Michigan and Indiana ASlOCiatioD-Rev. Mr. Field's Protes., - 273
Swedenborl Vindicated, • 231
BOOKS NOT1CED.
Apocryphal New Testament, • 381
Anderion'. Course of Creation, • 147
Autobiography 01 a Ne,,'cburchman. • 6~7
Barnes on tbe Book of Revelation. • 380
Bonar'. Mall-his Religion and hl. World, - 231
Bush's Note, 011 the Old Testament. 98
Butler's Analogy oC Religion, .. 6iS
Caldw~1l on the Unity of the Race, 95
Carne.' Journal of a Voyage &0 Africa, • 4~2
Carlyle's Lire or Sterling, • • - 8S
Clissold's Spiritual E~position of the Apocalypse, .. 233
Clowes' Gospel aecording to Luke, - 382
De Quincey'. Literary Reminiscences. 38
Edwards on Cbarity. - • 90
i'iehbough'a Macrocosm and Microcosm, • 572
Fry's Christ our Example, • 382
Gl1nnison's Mormon., .. 4-'0
Hayden'. Science and Re~elation. • 41"1
Hengstenberg on the Revelation, - 429
Holcombe's Scientifio Basis oC H01lKeopath" - 239
Holland's Essays and Drama. • • 5'3
Hooker's Examination of Hommorathy. 93
Huc's Journey through Tartary, Tbibet, and China. • 289
Kenrick's Ancient Egypt, • 571
Kitto's Daily Bible Illustrations. ~401479
Layard'. Discoveries at Nineveh, .. 383
Ma~n on the Homan Soul, and Passion oCthe CtON. 92
Men of the Time, • 421
M'osheim'. Historical Commentaries, S6
New Tbemes for the Proteltanl Clergy, - 290
Niebuhr's Life and Letters, • 481
Nineteenth Century, 38
Portals' SignifioRtiOll or Colors, 92
Redtield's Comparative Physiollllomy, .. 572
Richardson's SearcbiDK ArCl!C Expedition, • 481
Sbelton's Salander and Dragon, .. 575
Swedenborg'. Animal Klngdonl, • 233
Tafel's Vindication of Swedenborg, .. 427
Tappan's Step from the New to the Old World, • 432
Taylor·s Indications of a Creator,· • 92
Trench on the Study of Words. - 430
Uncle Tom'. Cabin, - 380
Wright on Soroer1' and Mqic,
'S

5. THE
NEW CHURCH REPOSITORY
AJlD
MONTHLY REVIEW.
'.1. ,. 11111118'1, 1812. le. I.
ORIGINAL PAPERS.
A.RTlCLE I.
REPtY TO LETTERS TO A TRINlTARlAN.
No Ill.
ZLUIIlIATIOR 01" JZnDI THDlD AlID I'0171lTB, OK TID bIVIlU~ BUIUJnTY•
• BA. SI&,
THBK. ar~ three things that strike me as remarkable in your letters,
1~ your confident appeal t on all occasions, to what you call reason
as a sufficient subjective guide ;-2d, in strong contrast with thil,
your manner of citing continuaUy the writings of Swedenborg IUI a
direct objective oracle j-and, 3dly, in still stronger contrast with
both, the little use YOQ make of the Old Scriptures regarded 88 COD-
elusive, either by way of inward or outward authority. Of the first,
DO particular examples need be brought; they are to be found every-
where. In respect to the second, I need only remark, how very
similar your manner of qooting Swedenborg is to that which Chris-
tians have generally used in citing passages from the Bible. It is
Dot as an interpreter, or commentator, or a profound theologian,
whose views are of great value in the elucidation of the Sacred V 01-
ume, but as a direct a priori authoritYt by no means to be questioned,
or requiring any extrinsic or collateral support of argoment or tes-
timony. In other words, YOQ never seem to think of bringing Swe-
denborg to the standard of your reason as you do the Scriptures. In
reading him, you find no places which compel yOIl to say. this " seems
to mean" so and so, but c, it must assuredly mean something else" to
be consistent with right reason, or. "to Call back here upon the but-
tress of the literal averments" of our great prophet" would be a pos-
ture of spirit deserving to be regarded &8 a strange psychological
curiosity" (Letters to Trio. p. 38). Why this great difference? I have
pressed the question before, and I pr~JIS it again; for it seems a most
YOL. v. I

6. Reply to·Letter. to tJ Trinitaritm.-No.lIL [Jan.
important one in deciding the true character of your creed, and the
true name to be given to it. Why do yoa never think of bringing
Swedenborg to the standard of your reason, a~ you do the Scrip-
tures 1 Why do yoa never employ any modifications of exegesis to
make sense out of his nonsense, or to give a consistent meaning to
apparent irrationality t The Scriptures are dark, bllt he is clear;
be "is never even apparently irrational. The'Scrlptures are full of ap-
parent contradictions, and even its truths are many of them " apparent"
only in distinction from" real." In Swedenborg, on the other hand,
the spirit shines through the letter so clearly, 80 fully, so rationally,
that we read him without that vail whioh is upon the face in the
study of Christ and MOHes. All is transparent as noon-day. No
'Wonder you turn away from the dark pages of Paul and John to sach
an authority. No wonder that you quote him precisely as the Py-
thagoreans of old quoted their master.-'A"I'oc'to (ipse dixit), "80 Ae
'aid," was enough for them, and "thu8 8wedenborg teache,," seems
often with you to stand in place of all rational argument, as well as
of all Scriptural proot: That you should thus cite him in addresses
to your own followers, or fellow disciples, might not seen 80 strange,
but I certainly have reaHon to wonder that you should 80 freqaently
employ the same method in your Letters to a Trinitarian. Exam-
ples of what I mean are to be found on almost every page. One iD-
stance, which still serves as a good representative of others, I will
give from letter iv. page 32. It is a perfect specimen of the manner
ill which you usually make the Scripture take its place behind the
dicta of yo'ur oracle, on the ground that it must rnean something COD-
'Iistent with his revelations, or else have no meaning at all. You
are endeavoring ~o pro-e that heaven is not a place, and this is yODr
argoment-
" Heaven in general with all, and in particular with eacb~ is a reception of the iD-
Iu, which is the Divine essence. Tllus teaohes Swedenborg; ana if revelation
does 110t ~ressl,. ,ay &8 mach, it; mwt U8uredly mean it, and the meaning of the
WOM is the Wold. The true BeD88 of the Scripturee can be no other than that;
I8DI8 whioh -is aocording to truth."
I need not dwell on that mixture of truisms with a show of argu-
mentation, which is so strikingly exhibited in this passage. or
course, "the meaning of the Word is the Word" (although you some-
times talk of a Word which has been in the world for centuries
without any available meaning at all), and, of course, "the tme
lense of Scripture is that sense which is according to truth!) Tbere
was no need that one should have visited the spiritual world to he
able to teach us that; although just such bald truisms as these form
every where the great staple of Swedenborg's writings; but it is
quoted here "to illustrate your mode of dealing with the Scriptures.
What, then, is your grand authority in respect to the highest truth 1
Oertainly the ode to which you resort the oftenest-to "hich you go
with the most tonftdence-with which you have the least difficulties of
interpretation to make out of it "the sense which is according to truth."
Tested by all these, and how would the balance stand between Swe-
denborg's Arcana Cmlestia and the Bible? In your 118 pages of Let-

7. 1852.] Reply to L,tten'to tz Tri7litaritm.-No. liL ,
ters to a Trinitarian, what proportion do the quotations (rom the one
bear to those from the other? If you quote Swedenborg ten times
to Christ once (to say nothing of the apostles), and that, too, in a dis-
eo.ion respecting Christ's own person and office, can there be a
doubt as to the fair conclusion to be drawn from these simple arith-
metical premises?
But reason, you will say, is a higher guide than all. It is (rom
reason we most first determine who Christ is. and what is the troe
mode of tbe Divine existence. It is reason which must first reveal to
us .. tbe mystery oC Godliness," and "declare the genel·ation" of HIm
"wbose goings forth are of old! from the days of eternity." In other
words-and this is the substance of page after page in your l~tters-­
three per80ftS in one God is an irrational dogma, but three apparent
Belfhoods in one person, addressing each other, and being addreSsed.
at the same time, as though they were distinct personalities, aDd
that, too, without any apparent reason for so unreal an appearance,.
-all this is perfectly rational. So' also teaches Swedenborg; and,.
therefore, "if revelation does not expressly say so," or if it seems (as
in John xvii. I ; John xii. 27; Matt. xxvi. 39; Luke xxii. 42, and
other places) to say just the contrary, " it assuredly must mean" the-
former, because" the meaning of the word is the word, and the trae-
sense of the Scripture can only be that which is according to.
truth." Q. E. D. ·
But I am too moderate in my statement of your position. You aPe-
actually beginning to thrust Swedenborg in the face of other people's
progress, just as an old-fashioned theologian would employ the Bible·
for a simila.r purpose. This is shown in your late discussion with
Mr. Fernald, to which I would not allude, were it not so perfectlr in
the spirit of some things in your letters to me. He claims the right
of exercising his understanding on the dicta of the New Church Scrip-
tures, of showing their apparent contradictions, and their repug-
nance, in certain cases, to right reason. Now it is really amusing to
see how you meet all this. Of the teachings of Christ you do not
hesitate to say (Letters to fL Trinitarian, iv. p. 38) that the" man
who would fall back upon His literal avermentH" (of a personal dis-.
tinction between himself and the Father), "or who would rebuke
with them the prying researches of the human mind, presents a
strange psychological curiosity." Paul has been made out in yoar-
pages to be little more than an erring egotistical mountebank. Yon
acqoiesce in Swedenborg's consignment of David to one of his cold
hells, as a just doom for his false teachings and his falsA spirit. And
then, when one of the admirers of your prophet venture.4J to express
1 timid doubt of his infallibility, you bring him sbort up for such a
contumacious use ofhis " God-gi ven" reason. You claim, in your pro-
gress, to have rea80ned away beyond Prophets, Apostles, and the
" literal averment¥' and "apparent truth" of Christ. Another thinks
that the grand discoveries of the 19th century, the floods of light
which have been foured from clair,"oyance, from Davis'Revelations,.
and from Spiritua Rappings, forbid that we should remain content
without making a little advance, and reasoning OD, a little beyond.

8. • &ply to Letter. to a Trinilaria..-ND. Ill. [Ju.
8wedenborg. I am amused, I lay, at the way in which you meet this
modest 8.88ertion of the rights of the human intellect-at the shock you
feel on the hare supposition, that one who professes to be an admirer of
the Swedish Seer sbould dare to "treat his eternal truths as the mis-
taken speculations or vagaries of an erring mortal," an~ above all,
the stern rebuke with which you visit the neological impiety that
would "venture, for a moment, to questio~ tbe infallible truth of
heaven. or let up our puny reason or phil080phy agail&6t a Diviu
did. ." (See these remarkable words N. C. Repository for Nov. 1851,
P. ~08). Is there not something really ludicrous in the manner in
which you thus throw yourse) f back in your new conservative saddle,
and pull hard up the reins of your boasted progress as against all
who may think there is yet some more light left in reasoD, and some
farther illumination to be expected from the spiritual world 1 In
view of so strange a spectacle as this, I can only express my thank-
flllness that error has its Jaws of development as ,,'ell as truth. You
.cannot stop this genius of progress you have assisted in conjuring up.
It must develop itself. It is yet to teach you and others, that in a de-
parture from the Old Church doctrine of revelation there is really no
ato:fping place short of that stultification of all reason which must
en in the most naked naturalism. I r~Joice in vhatf'ver tends to
this speedy development. The more rapid the progress, the better.
The 'sooner the crisis, the sooner the cure. Elements',thus combined
,must explode; and the earlier this takes place, the earlier must that
period come, which certainly will come, when our exhausted reason
.hall confess its utter incompetency to solve the great question of
·hoalan destiny, and tbe soul shall go back with a. child-like docility
to the Old Written Word, the Old Christianity derived therefrom-
believing in it with a stronger faith than the world has ever known
before, holding it all the more precious from the fier)· ordeal through
which it has had to pass, resorting to it from an invincible nece'SSity
when science and philosophy are found to give oat darkness more
-rapidly than light, and finally, after all its wanderings, rejoi9ing in
the Bure Word of the Lord as" in the shadow of a great rock in a
.dry and ,,'eary land."
I have deemed these remarks essential, because of that view of
the Scriptures, and of the modifications they are to undergo from
·reasoD, which meets as 80 frequently in your Letters to 1 Trinitarian,
.and especially in t.he 3d and 4th, which I would/rooeed to consider
in the present communication. Whether I shoul agree with you, or
'not, in respect to your distinction between objective and subjective
'yision, as set forth· in your I st and 2d letters, there is nothing in it
~haviDg llufficient bearing on the points most in dispute between us
.Co warrant my dwelling on them. I concede at once that God may
,manifest himself in any way he pleases, objectively, or subjectively,
.in a humaD, or angelic form-in a bush, or a flame, or in any outward
-he chooses to assume; and that, too, whether the Divine Nature
-consist in a single person thus revealing himsel~ with nothing behind
the revelation, or in a plurality of personalities, one of which is, by
way of eminence, the Revealer, in distinction from the other, or others.

9. 1852.] Reply to Lettiw,'to a Tnnitandn.-No. III
On these matters I know nothing from reason-nothing but what re-'
velatioD teaches me; bot as far as the theophany alone is conceme~
it does not at all settle the questions in discussion between us; and, I
therefore, I shall not waste time on this part of your correspondence.
Your third and fourth letters are occupied with the Divine Hu-
manity, as you style it,-meaning, not tbe iocarnation, as would ~.
at first supposed, but 8. very different d~ctrine. I might pass by these,
also, on the same ground; but there is something in your mode of
reasoning bere that too strongly tempts me to take a different course..
Your position is, that irrespective of what is called the incarnation,
irrespective of any becoming in tim~ or of an)" assuming of humanity
into ppr800al union with the Divine: God is eternally, and essentially,
or of his very nature, man. Without deciding on the intrinsic troth-
of this very strange doctrine of reason, permit me to say, that your
argument for it seems very much like a game of words. If you
choose to magnify the idea of hUlnanity to infinity, and then, after
clotbing it with all the Divine attributes, call it God, or call God
"the Divine Man," I CBD regard it as nothing more than the sbeerest
verbal speculation. " Man," you say, "has will and understandiDg,~
p. 26. 11 These are the finite counterparts to the infinite love and
wisdom of his Maker." c, How is it po~sible then to avoid the COD-
clusion tbat there is in God a Divine Humanity 1" I must say that
I see here no conclusion either to be avoided or to be reacbed. Any
other name or names, embracing any conception of something that
may be common, or may seem common, to God and man, or God ~nd
anytbing else, would furnish the 'elements of an argument of equal
logical force. If by tbe Divine Humanity you mean only another
name (or infinite love and wisdom. it resolves itself into the merest
verbal truism; if you do not mean this, your reasoning has DO COIl-
clusiveness whatever. Doubtl~ss the declaration, that man W1UI
made in the image of God, implies something in Deity corresponding
to man in a higher sense than to any lower parts of the creation.
Nor is this merely matter of degree in the same kind. Man has
some things belonging to the Divinp, which the lower animals have
not at all; and, therefore, in respect to this, and in comparison with
them, as anyone may see from the context of the declaration, he is
said to be in the image of God. He belongs, with Deity, to that
legical genus rational (if we cboose to made such a classification) in
which they are not included; but how monstrous, 8S well as illogical,
the conclusion, that tbere is, therefore, no essential or Ipecific differ-
ence; or, in otber words, that Divinity and bumanity are the same
6pecie8 homo, differing only in extent I In such a sense as I have
mentioned, it is doubtless true, as you say, that It man could not be
an image of God, were not God an exemplar of man;" but if you
mean anything more by this than wbat is contained in tbe West-
minster catechism on the same subject, I do not see how you have
made it out, either by the aid of reason or of Swedenborg. If you
mean the same, then all tbat I can say, is, that you ba,'e not balf 80
well expressed it.
I would Dot dwell farther OD yol11' reasoning here, were it not fur

10. 10 Reply ID Leltw61D a TriRilllriaL-ND. Ill. J....
the impious conclusion, as it seems to my reason, to which it inevit-
ably leads. Let me state briefly, yet clearly and fairly, the substance
or your argument in letter IlL, pages 25 and 26 :
Every mFect is potentially in ita 0&1118.
Therefore, whatever is in the human spirit is normally repreeented iD the hUIII&D
,
bocl • • • •
But man 18 made m the lDlag8 or God•
. Henoe, &8 ev~ eJfect is potentially in ita oaUl8, the human spirit is, therefore, re-
presented in God.
But the body is repre&ellted in the human !pirit.
Therefore tlie human body also, in all its paN, is repreeented in Gocl.
TAtrtjor, God u tJ&e DiviM MGD.
Now the short objection to all this is, tbat it runs us straight out
into downright pantheism. It is the same argument, substantially.
applied to man and the human microcosm, which Spinoza extends to
tlie whole universe. Oan you fsil to see that from this simple pre-
mise, "every effect is potentially in ita cawe," employed just as YOQ
employ it, one may with equal conclusiveness prove that the animal
creation, too, are in God. Your argument cannot p~ssibly stop short
of it. You mnst go away beyond your Divine Man, to the Divine
,..... containing within itself every' other sW-, or every grade of
animation. and not man merely. In short, you and Swedenborg have
landed in the old doctrine of the un,iver,al animal, 1'0 tWo. '~%OI' ..
itlurr; 1C0.1'0 CWo ".pd%OP, the 8entient animal compri8ing within i',el!
all other animal8, which you will find 80 copiously set fortb
in Plato's Timmus, only, however, with this difference in favor of the
speculating old heathen, tbat he does not dare to make his Anima.
Mundi, or univer8al animal, the Eternal God, as be reverently styles
him, or Aven an emanatioll from him, but a direct creature of his Al-
mighty power and wisdom. produced in time, and ulentially distinct
from himself: Plato is much nearer to the Scriptures here than Swe-
denborg. To find the troest exemplar of his doctrine. we must have
recourse to the monstrous pa.ntheisms of the old Eastern World.
The wonder is that you should conceive your grateful thanks due to
Swedenborg for the discovery of this original view of things, and re-
gard it as one of those self-evidencing proofs of his mission that dis-
pense with all miraculous attestations. No one, you maintain, ever
before thought of this doctrine of the Divine Man, so beyond all
human investigation, and yet so consonant to reason wh~n discover-
ed. Therefore Swedenborg was inspired with it from heaven (see p.
'25, 26). Now we sa)", that it had before been thought of; it had en-
tered into the depraved human imagination; it had been incorporated
into the most monstrous systems of religion, or rather irreligion ; and,
therefore, Swedenborg was not an inspired messenger from Heaven.
But to present another specimen of your r~asoniDg on this head,
!] give your words from p. 27. You say-
" Love and wildom O&Dnot subsia, or be conoeived, apart from a mbjeot in whom
'tIley inhere. 'No intelligent penon,' _ye Swedenborg, 'oan deny that in God are
Love and W18dom, meroy ana clemency, and good and truth itsel~ for theY' are
from Him; and .. he cannot deny that theee thiDga are in God, neither can he denT
that God is man; for nODe of these things can uist abltTlUledly from man; fJIG" U
.dlir tubj,ct, alld 1o IIpGrat. tMm from Uarir nbj,a iI to IQY tlult tJwr do not aUt.

11. 1811.] llr
'11aiDt of wiedOlll, ud mppaee ii 011. of maD j is il aD~ !' Indeed the i4•."
IoTe and wisdom emting out of a ptrsonallUhject is as absurd 88 to suppose that the
heut and lungB can emt and act apari ftom a body which they actuate. We are .
IImt up, t.hereFate, to the concllllion, that God is Very Man-tlie Inbite MaD.n
I must confess myself exceedingly at a 108s how to take this. I
have the most unfeigned respect for the general strength and clear-
ness of your nnderstanding, and the criticQ.l acuteness of your reason
ing, especially on topics where you are yourself or (pardon me for
saying it) are out of the vapors of your mystic creed; and therefore
I must not pronounce it nonsense. It, doubtless, to your reaSOD, pas-
Besses 8 convincing force; but mine utterly fails to di8cov~r it. It..
does strike me that your "therefore," in the concluding line, is the
most perfect specimen ofa non ,equitur it has ever been my lot to meet
with in the field of argumentation. Can you not see that iD the
parts which I have put in italics, there is a gratuitous assumption of
the whole thing to be provell? "Man u their 8'lbject." True. But
is he the only being who is their subject, or in whom "they inhere 1"
Every thing depends on the right answer to this. Without it, your
formal" therefore" is an empty sound, signifying nothing, except to
tickle the ears of your readers with a mere jingle of logical ter-
minoloUa Y 00 yourself betray a latent feeling of its defect by
changing, perhaps uncoD8ciouslYt your principal term. It was Dot
wide enough; and so you slide gently from " man" to "1)ersonaJ
subject," as though they were identical. I~ ~o avoid this, you affirm
that angels and all other conceivable beings, or ., personal subjects,"
in· whom love and wisdom may inhere, are meD, what else do you
do but enlarge the definition of a term, so as to include in it as much
as you choose. and then delude yourself with the idea tbat you have
really proved something concerning a subject 80 arbitrarily extend·
ed as to fill any predicate yOIl may see fit to attach to it 1 Let IBe.
exhibit the absurdity of your reasoning, by putting it in a more
concise and formal shape-
Love and wiIcIom inhere in a ~ subjeot.
Love &Dd 1riIclo. inhere ill GOd.
Therefore God iI man.
Had it been capable of taking this form'-:"
All ~ IGbjeotB in whom love and wisdom inhere are-men;
God 11 a ~Dal 811bjeet in whom love and wisdom inhere ;
Tbeletore God is man-
Your argument would have been syllogistically perfect; but then,
tb6re wo.:dd stare you directly in the face the irrationality of auum..
iog. in your major premise, the very matter you set out to prove.
Have I done your argument any injustice 1 Have I at all separated
it from its logical context, so &8, in any degree, to mar itl just force t
I would not dwell on this 80 minutely, were it Dot that it forms a
general feature of YOQr reasoning in the most important portioDS or
these letters. It cODsists in assuming a larger sense of a word thaa
has ever before been employed, then proving something (perhaps UD-
deoied) respecting it in the common restricted sense, aDd then boldly

12. 11 Rep'1/1o LelltJr, 10 tJ n-iRiItlria.-No.lIL [Jane
drawing your conclusion commensurate with the wide es:tent of
meaning implied in your premise.
In this view of the matter, the qoestion, whether or no God may
be called the Divine Man, becomes ODe of the idlest Jogomachies OD
which the human mind ever employed itself: Only make your terms
large enough, and you may, in the same way, prove him the Divine
Animal, the Divine World, the Divine Anything. How does ODe de-
claration of the Scriptures, in which words are taken in their estab-
lished human sense, scatter all this show of argument to the winds I
" Lo, I am God, tmd not man, the Holy One in the midst of thee." " I
am the Lord, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel." "For my
thougbts are not your thoughts; neither are )Tour ways my ways,
saith the Lord." I can well imagine the smile with which you·
woold receive such an attempt to confront th~s monstrous fancy or
Swedenborg with the plain letter of Scripture. You might too, per-
haps, deny its literal application. Nothing, however, can be clearer,
than that, by such strong assertions, the prophets meant to express,
Dot a mere diversity of rank and exaltation, but the most striking
generic difference between the Creator and his creature. It is not
merely the great with the small, but humanity contrasted with Deity.
Thus, in another place, "God is not man, that he should lie." If
10U say the added words take away the universality, and. therefore,
the appositeness of the declaration. I answer that this is the very sob-
stance of the argument by which your whole doctrine is thrown
down. God cannot lie. Why not 1 Because" He is God, and not
man-the Holy One." For, in respect to lying and ignorance, and
malevolence, as well as love and wisdom, it may be said, to use your
own language, that" man is their subject," or "they inhere" in man.
Of these, too, it may be affirmed that" they cannot exist abstracted-
ly" or "away from a personal subject it' and, therefore, " we are shut
up to the conclusion" that tbey must be in God; or if not, then" God
is not man:' but the" Holy One," as a greater prophet than Sweden-
borg has 80 sublimely affirmed (Hosea xi. 9; Isaiah xliii. 15; Iv. 8).
There is no avoiding the first of these conclusions, unless you take
the expression-the image of God-as our catechism does, in a par-
tial and comparative, instead of a universal sense. Your use of the
wordftnite win not help the matter; for, as far as your argument is
concerned, it would only denote a smaller, in which, without the ex-
clusion of any particular, there is some point corresponding to every
point in the greater. It is only enlarging or diminishing the scale of
the same specific subject. If you say, again, tbat these evils were
not in the original image, but belong to the fallen state, you only
make wider and wider the essential, or specific, difference. 'God,
then, it may be replied, is Dot man that he should fall, or be capable
of becoming, in 8ny respect, unholy. And this is the very point or
the prophet's remarkable contrast (Hosea xi. 9), "He is not
man, but God-The Holy 0ne"-~1"~ mi'1i'.. You know the
force or the Hebrew word-the Separate One-as it aod the cor-
responding terms in all the primitive languages signify; just as the
opposite class of words denote that which is COm",OR, mixed up with

13. 1852.] Reply 1o Letter. to tJ 7n1litariGn.-No. IlL 18
other things, and thus, in respect t<;t itself; and its own rank, becoming
..,,],oly (im-punu, i"..muMUI) or prcif'ane. In this way it is that God,
although by his power and pre8ence pervading the universe, is yet, in
respect to his essence, or absolute being, eternally ,eparate from all
things else; that is, in the highest sense, Holy. In this and similar
expressions I have quoted from the Hebrew propbets, we find the
most direct antagonism to tbat pantheism, into which some of the
most ancient religions fell, and to which such mystic theosophists as
Swedenborg have been ever inclined to run. No possible difference
of Aind can be greater than that which must exi25t between the
Creator and the creature, even of the loftiest rank; and it is, doubt-
less, for the want of this idea, that no sach thing as creation, in its
true sense, is anyw~ere recogni'led in the writings of Swedenborg.
Man is strictly eternal; his Cl goings forth are from everlasting," the
world is a never beginning, never endingtgenelia; all is e1flux, influx,
emtl1VZtion. In the Scriptural view, on the other hand, the genus 6,6"
if we may reverently use the expression, stands by itself in the eter-
nal loneliness of its essential being, and in direct contrast with all
that is created. It may take op' humanity into union with its life,
but Dot to a participation of its IDcommuniable e,sence (or that which
makes it what it is), unless you confound alllangoage, and all ideas
BDd all things, in one all-absorbing pantheism, or pan-anthropism,
whicbever term your theology, or your anthropology, may most ap-
p~priately require.
Yoor 4th letter is a continuation of the same subject-the Divine Hu-
manity. In it, however, you proceed to give more fully what you and
Swedenborg intend by a trinity, as existing in the Divine Man. Y OQ
are careful enough, and clear enougb, in stating that you do not mean
a trinity of pers0R8t which yon regard as so utterly irrational that
Scripture never could have taught it, and, therefore, never has taught
it. But of your logic on that head in some other place. You must,
however, somehow find a trinity in your conception, or a subjective
trinity, and yon proceed to deduce it in the following manner. You
distinguish between what you call the eaae, the ezistere. and the pro-
cedere, in the Divine Nature. The first is tbe Divine Love; but this
cannot be ,een unless it takes form. This form is the Divine tkought,
or wisdom, which you style the emtere.
" If now we add the idea or tUtitm, operation, prou,diftg, 'flrr~1J, we complete our
COftuption of a trinalDeity, without, at the eame time, mentally dividing him into
three. There is, indeed, a triplicity of aBp'';'" in whioh he is preeented to the mind,
but not one that can with &Dy proj)riety be laid &8 the foundation of a tripenonal
distinction. The tel1D8 Fatlier, SOn, and Holy Ghost, denote no' three per,onl, but
tAr. aaential, of on'P'TIOft."-P. 23.
If ever a man should be clear and careful, it should be on soch sub-
jects liS these; and, therefore, J may well ask, What do yon mean
here by the word ",entials? The use of it evidently shows embar-
rassment, and that you want to make your trinity something more
than the inside, and outside, and both sides, of the same conception, or
three shadows of the same object cast from three differen t points of

14. Repl, to Letter. to tJ rn.lana.-No. IlL [J...
view. I mean DO irreverence, but find these the best methods of ex-
o pressing my conception of your coneeption. You want more of real-
Ity, or objectivity corresponding to these striking names, 80 sig-
ni6cant of something like personality, and personal relation; and )'ou
seem, therefore, to have been led to the use of this word e,.entiah.
But wha.t does it avail you? If you mean by it three appearance.,
or phenomena, the word is very much out of place; you could not
have chosen a worse one for that purr:.se. If you mean three ",enca
in one perso,,,, then indeed you have anded on a mystery vastly tran-
scending the one you deem 80 irrational, of three ~80R6 in one
u,ence; unless you take essence in the chemical sense of component
element, and make the Deity a co_pound of spirit, motion, and
m~~~ 0
But, to return to your trinal division. The first question is, What
'Would you make out of it 1 Suppose we admit all you say, it would.
not at all affect any view we might take hereafter of the person-
al distinction. Mystical dreamers, in all ages ofthe charch, both among
heretics and the nominally orthodox, liave bettn fond of these me~
physical trinities; some, in connection with a personal distinction of
hypostases, and others. without it. They are Dot inconsistent with
each other. The former, too, have generally presented the same con-
ceptions-Love, WisdolDt Energy, or sometimes slightly varied- .
Goodness, Intellect, Life. They all seem to have come from the PI..
tonic, Aya8.-Hoiir-.,,%t). I would not waste time upon these
~eculation.. were it not that it furnishes another specimen of the
Swedenborgian logic, or of the manner in which an air of vast pro-
fundity may be imparted to the most simple conceptions, and. the
plainest thoughts (plain, but none the less valuable on that account)
may be buried, and made unnecessarily obscure, under an ocean of
mere words. Let me imagine myself a teacher in a Sabbath School.
To a class of ordinary intelligence, and nothing more, I am endeavor-
ing to present the best conceptions I can form, from reason and the
Scriptures, of the Divine character and govemment. I tell them that
God il good-that He is love, but that in order to the manijutatioll of
these attributes, there must be objects for him to love. and to whom
He is good. Hence, from H-is love, or goodness, there would be the
purpose to create worlds inhabited bl men, and angels, aDd higher
and lover beings. This was God's thought; and I might call this
thought the fon", of His love, witbout much confounding tbeir uDder-
8&aDdiag; although you apologize lest I migbt find the term a dill.
oaM ODe!' or a " stone of stumbling" from want of acqaaintance with
the deeper Swedenborgian philosophy. Connected with God's good-
ness, thus taking the form of a thougAt, or purpose, there would be a
png-fortA (a much better term this genuine old Saxon than your
Latin procedere) of action necessary to carry this feeling and this
f!unlgAt into execution. In this WilY, I might tell them, God becomes
known; and this is what the good men, who made the catechisms,
meant by his declaral.ive glory. We cannot lee His goodness until it
thus takes form in His ttiought and consequent actioD. ADd so that
which in iu.lf is UDseeD, becomes visible; and then I miibt quote to

15. 18U.] Reply to Let,.,., 10 tJ 7n,.itariaa.-No. m. 1.
them the letter of the 11th Psalm: "The HeaTen. declare the glory or
God i" and Romans i. 20, "For the invisible things of Him are clearly
seen from the creation of the world, in tbat they are understood from
the things that are made, even His eternal power and Deity." All this
from the simple literal Scripture and catechism, without any e'le, or
eNtere, or procedere; and yet, I ask, what would there be lacking
of any essential conception which you set forth in your labored and
scholastic IOheme 1
How easy, too, to apply the same method to any rational BOUI. We
never strictly,ee each other. That which is 6Ub,tance in man, al
well as God, is no matter of sense, but is under,tood from the things
that are done, even our temporal power and humanity. Perhaps you
would claim this as a part of your theory; but as applicable to any
rational agent, divine or human, what does it amount to but this t
In every exercise of the sow there are feeling, thought, and action.
There can be no feeling or desire, without some knowledge of what
is desired. There can be, on the other hand, no knowledge without
IOme degree of interest in. the thing known, aDd there CilD be neither,
without some energizing, either outwardly or inwardly, of the soul.
In other words, in order to act, we must knmD, and we will not know
unless there is some _felling prompting the knowing and tbe acting,
and which must itself be known and acted out. This is a very good
and useful view, but why put it forth as something so profound, and
with .nch an array of scholastic language, as though it were abso-
lutely essential to an argument on the Old Testament theophanies, or
the New Testament doctrine of the incarnation 1 God may manifest
himself in his works; He may send a prophet to declare the fact of
His goodness, but what proved necessity from this for His manifest-
ing himself in a human form, unless there were other end, in view,
aDd other tAougAt8 than ever entered into the Swedenborgian K"P'u ,
The design of all this is not very obvioas, unlea it be to prove that
God cODld not be objectively known to the universe, or· to the human
mind, unle. the Divine Nature had this triplicity of aspect involved
ill the ale, the e:ri8tere, and tbe procedere-or, in good Anglo-SBDD,
6eiftg. revealing thought. and going fortA. This, however, .,OD would
conclude. is only for ODr minds, and therefore, the trinal division i.'
onl1 in appearance, a~d for the Divine Mind has no reality.
Now, tlie opinion may reverently be advanced, that if there be any
DeCeII8ity here at all, it mast be carried farther. The idea of a real
plurality in the very Divine Nature itsel~ seems to have anciently
aommended itself to the retUOR of some minds, from the seeming iJD-
poaibiJity of otherwise forming a satisfactory notion of the mode of
the Divine Existence. A pure monadity, with nothing objective to
IOTe, nothing objective to know, in the fullest and highest seDse (for-
even if an eternal creation is supposed. it must fall inftnitflly below the
all perfect idea·required to fill the Divine Mind and the Divine aWeo-
tion), was totally inconceivable. It was the most difficult of all
thoughts. Hence the mind seems driven to think of some real di..
tinction, in order that Deity might be objective to itsel~ and ODr own
thoughts get relief from this inconceivable subjectivity. Hence the

16. 18 TAe Tabernacle Service viewed in it6 8pirituallmport. [Ian.
conception of a self, knowing a ,elf objectively, and of ,elf, loving
a ,elf objectively, and, at the same time, being objectively known and
loved, even as it knew and loved. Hence the absolute necessity ot
Borne such conception as that of two or more personalities, or brpos-
tases, distinct, yet bound in a unity transcending, in its oneness, aD)·
conception of the term as employed to denote any human, or any
created relation.
Now, we venture on any such speculation as this with all rever-
ence. We would rather trust one single text of Scripture than pages
of such philosophizing; and yet we cannot belp thinking that it is as
good as yours, and that it possesses a better ground in the reason than
any view which would resolve the plnrality in the mode of the Di-
vine Existence into mere phenomena, having no reality in the Divine
Nature, representing no true bypostatic plurality, and therefore, in
fact, a false manifestation, a deceptive phantom, without any corre 8-
ponding objectivity behind it.
But the farther .consideration of this topic, and of your subsequent
letters, must be deferred to another opportunity.
Yours, &c.,
T. L.
ARTICLE 11.
THE TABERNACLE SERVICE VIEWED IN ITS SPffiITUAL IMPORT.
No. I.
TBB PRIESTLY OARBUTS.
Ix a previous series oC articles we have gone at length into a con-
sideration of the Jewish TabernaclA, with its various appendages, and
endeavored to show, by the light of the New Church, the spiritual sig-
nificancy of each. In the present, and several articles to follow, we
enter upon another department of the same general therne, and,
guided by the same clew, propose to unfold the interior import of the
Sacred Garments, in which the priests were called to minister. This
forms the subject of the xxviii. chapter of Exodus, in which we have an
account of the setting apart of an order of men to officiate as minis-
ters of the Tabernacle worship, and a minute description of the vest-
ments by which they were distinguished. Previous to this time the
patriarchal mode of service had no doubt obtained, every master of a
family being a priest to his own household; but now, as a Taberna-
cle of the congregation was about to be erected, as a visible centre
of unity to the nation, the Lord saw fit to order the institution of a
public priesthood, and, according to previous intimation, Ex. xxvii. 21,
AaroD and his SODS are fixed upon as candidates for the high distino-

17. J 8&2.] The Ta6erntJCle Service vietIJBd in iU Spiritual I_port. J'1
tioD. or the four SODS of Aaron here selected, the two eldest, N adab
and Abihu soon proved themselves unworthy of the bonor now con-
ferred upon them, and perished miserably in consequence of profan-
iug the sacred things with which they had to do in the discharge of
their office. The succession then reverted to tbe line of Eleazer aDd
Itbamar, in which it was perpetuated down to the latest period of the
Jewish polity.
In the discharge of the office to which they were now called, Aaron
and his SODS sustained a purely representative character, and there-
fore DO inference caD be drawn from this fact relative to their personal
character. From what we learn of Aaron there is little reason to
think that he possessed the qualities which intrinsically correspond
to a priestly function. But this was no detriment to his fulfilling the
duty to which he was now designated by the following order : -
Ex. nviii. 1-5, U And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and bil101l1 with
.ce,
him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the prieerl
evm Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleasar and Itl1amar, Aaron'IIODI. Ana thoa
Ibalt make haIr garmeng for Aaron thy brother, for glory and for beauty. And
ihoa ahalt s~ unto all t!&at are wiIe-hearted, whom I have filled with the &piritor
wisdom, that they may make Aaron's ~enta to consecrate him, that he may min-
ister unto me in the priest's office. And these are the prmente which they shall
make; a breast-plate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and
a girdle: and they shall make no11 ~eng for Aaron thy brother, and hiI IOD8,
that he may miniater unto me in the priest'. oIiee. And they eh&ll tab pld, sad
blue, and purple, and scarlet, and !ne linen."
Take ihou unto thee. Heb. :1~j;)n hakreb, caule to come nigh. Gr. "potlt&-
,.,.., bring near. The original root :1~t' karab, is of the most frequent
occurrence in relation to sacrifices, and is the ordinary term appJied
to the bringing near or preaenting the "'ariOU8 offerings which were
enjoined under the Mosaic ritual. It is wholly in keeping with this
usage to employ it, as her(', in referenc,e to perlons who by their dedi-
cation to the service of the sanctuary, were in a sense sacrificially
offered up and devoted to the Lord. But, in a higher sense, thid caus-
ing Aaron and his sons to approach denotes the conjl1nction of the Di-
vine Good, represented by Aaron, with the Divine Trutb, represented
by Moses. The conjunction of these two principles is represented in
the Word by two conjl1gial partners, and also by two brothers; by
the former, when the subject treated of is the heavenly marriage of
Good and Truth; and by the latter, when the subject treated of is
concerning the two-fold ministry of judgment and worship; the first
being performed by those who were called judges, and afterwards
kings, and tbe second by those who were called priests. The spirit-
ual import of brothers, therefore, in this relation is not very unlike to
that oC Church and State.
Tl"at he may miniater unto ~e in the priest'. office. Heb. ,~~
lekaAano, from the root ye kahan, of which Kimcbi says the primary
meaning is the rendering of honorable and dignified ,enJ;ce, such as
that of officers of state to their sovereign. In accordance with this it
is used concerning the sons of David, 2 Same viii. 18, who could not,
strictly speaking, be priests; and on the same grounds the substan-

18. re ne Tabernacle Bervice metDed in it, Bpi'ituallmport. [Jan.
tive ~~ koAanim. is in several places in the margin rendered
"princes." But as prifICe, or courtiers wait on th_ king, and are hOD-
ored by nearer access to him tban others; so the priests under the law
"ere assumed into this Dear relation to the King of Israe). and for
this reBson the term in its ordinary acceptation is applied more espe-
cially to the duties of priests in administering before God at his altar.
Of the duties pertaining to the priestly office we shall have occasion
to speak in detail in subsequent 'notes; but we may here observe
briefty, that although as high functionaries in the court of the Great
King, many of their duties were of a civil natare, as might be expect-
ed under a system in which church and ,tate were united, yet those
that more properly belonged to thenl in their sacerdotal character
were mainly the followiog: They were to pronounce the benediction
upon the people aDd to conduct the whole service of the holy place.
Theirs was the business of sacrificing, in all its rites, in all offerings
upon the altar of bllrnt-offerings. The government and ordering of
the sanctuary and of the house of God lay upon them. They kept
the table of show-bread properly supplied; they attended to the
lamps of golden candelabrum every morning: at the same time they
burnt the daily incense, which prevented any offensive scent from the
dressing of the lamps from being perceived. It was their duty to
ke;r ap the fire upon the bnLzen altar, that the fire originally kin-
ell from heaven might never 00 extinguished. It was their office' to
make the holy anointing oil; and theirs to blow the silver trumpets
at the solemn feasts, and also before the Ark at its removals. While
their numbers were few, there was occupation enough to keep them
all employed; but when they aft~rwards bAcame numerous, they
were divided ioto twenty-four bands, or courses, each of which un-
dertook weekly, in rotation, the sacred services. But this regulation
belongs to the time of David. Although the Most High had before,
Ex. xix. 6, said of Israel in general, "that they should be to him a
kingdom of priests:' yet this did Dot militate with his concentrating
the office, in its active duties, in a single family, as he now saw fit to
do. It was only in this way that the great ends of the institution
could be attained, in which, however, we are to recognize far more
than what pertained to the mere external institution. The priest-
hood, in the supreme sense, denote! every office which the Lord dis-
charges as Saviollr, and whatsoever he performs in this capacity, is
from Divine Love; thus from Divine Good, for all good is of love i.
hence, also, by the priesthood, in the supreme sense, is. signified the
Divine Good of the Divine Love of the Lord, while the regal office
points to the Divine Truth thence derived. Mention is often made
in the Word, in one series, of kings and priests j also of kings, princes,
priests, and prophets. and in such passages are signified, in the internal
sense, by kilJg8, truths in the complex; by prince8, primary troths;
by prie,u, goods in the complex; and by prophet', doctrines.
And thou ,halt make holy garments for Aaron tAy brotAer. Beb.
."p -,,= bigd~ kode,h, garments of holinea,. Gr. ottoJ." cif., a /wly
.tole, or perhBps collectively, a quantity of /wIg ,tola. These. gar-
ments are called "ho)y" because they were designed for holv men,

19. 18&1.] ne Tti6ernac1e &mce viewed in it. Spiritual Import. 19
and because they formed part or an establishment whose general
character was koly. Indeed, whatever was separated from common
use, and conseerated to the immediate service ofGod, acquired there-
by tJ reltlti"e holines,; 80 that we spe the amplest ground for the be-
stowment of this epithet upon the sacred dresses. In ordinary life,
when Dot engaged in their official duties, the priests were attired like
other Israelites of good condition; but wben employed in their stated
ministrations, they were to be distinguished by a peculiar and appro-
priate dress. Of this dress, which was kept in a wardrobe somehow
conneeted with the Tabernacle, and which was laid aside when their
ministration ceased, aod returned to the wardrobe, the Jewish writers
have much to say. According to them the priests could not officiate
without" their robes, neither could they wear them beyond the sacred
precincts. Under the Temple, where the usages were no doubt sub-
stantially the same as in the Tabernacle, when the priests atrived to
take their turns of duty, they put off their usual dress, washed them-
selves in water, and put on the holy garments. While they were in
the Temple, attending upon their service, they could not sleep in their
sacred habits, but in their own wearing clothes. These they put off
in the morning, when they went to their service, and, after bathing,
resumed their official dress. But we shall treat of the details in their
order.
The spiritual explication of this part of the Levitical economy will
be easily inferred when it is understood that garments in general
denote the things that are without, and which cover those that are
within; they signify, therefore, a man's extern hI or natural, for this
covers his internal or spiritual. Where the internal is the celestial,
the investiture that clothes it is the spiritual, as the truths of faith
are the proper covering for the goods of charity. In the present
case, as Aaron in bimselfrepresented the Lord as to his Divine Celes-
tial principle, so his garments, being an investment of his person, re-
presents tbe spiritual kingdom of the Lord adjoined to his celestial•
.. The Divine Spiritual principle," says Swedenborg, c'is the Divine
Troth proceeding from the Divine Good of the Lord; this in heaven
appears as light, and also is the light which illuminates the sight of
angels, both that which is external and that which is internal. The
modification of this light according to the recipient subjects, which
are angels, presents various phenomena to the sight, as clouds, rain-
bows, colors and brightnesees of various kinds, as also shining gar-
ments about the angels. Hence it may be manifest that the spiritual
kingdom of the Lord was represented by Aaron's garments of holi-
ness; for there are two kingdoms into which the heavens are di-
vided, the celestial kingdom and the spiritual kingdom, see D. 9277 ;
they who are in the celestial kingdom appear naked, but they who
are in the spiritual kingdom appear clothed. Hence it is again
manifest, that the Divine Truth, or Divine Spiritual [principle],
which appears as light, is what invests [or clothes]. But who can
at all believe, that within the Church, where yet the Word is, aDd"
thence illustration concerning Divine and celestial things, 10 great
ignorance prevails, that it is not known that angels and spirits are

20. 10 ne Tabernacle Service vieUNJtl in ~ Bpirituall111porl.. [Jan.
in a human form, and appear to themselves as men, and also that
they see each other, hear and converse togf'ther; and that it is still
less known that they appear clothed in garments. That this is the
case, not only falls into doubt, but also together into denial with those
who are so immersed in things extemal, as to believe that the body
alone lives, and that that is nothing which they do not see with the
bodily eyes, and touch with the bodily hands, see n. 1881 ; when yet
the heavens are full of men, who are angels, and tbey are clothed in
garments of various degrees of splendor. These however cannot be
at lill seen by man on earth through the eyes of his body, but through
the eyes oC his spirit when opened by the Lord. The angels, who
were seen by the ancients, as by Abraham, Sarah, Lot, Jacob, Joshua,
Gideon, also by the prophets, were not seen by the eyes of the body,
but by the eyes of their spirit, which were then opened. That they
also have appeared clothed with garments, is manifest from the an-
gels that sat at the Lord's sepulchre, and were seeD by Mary Hag-
dalene, and Mary [the wife] of James in white shining garments
(Matt. xxviii. 3; Mark xvi. 5; Luke xxiv. 4); especiall~ from the
Lord when seen by Peter, lames, and John in His glory, when he had
a white glittering garment as the ligbt (Matt. xvii. 2; Luke ix. 29) :
by ,..·hich garment also was represented the Divine Spiritual [princi-
ple,] or the Divine Truth which is from Him. Hence it may be. mani-
fest what issignified by white garments in the Apocalypse, • Thou
hast a few na.mes in Sardis, which /Ulve not polluted their garment.,
and they 8hall walk with Me in white, because theyare worthy. He
that overcometh ,hall be clothed with while garment,,' iii. 4, 5. Gar-
ments in this passage are spiritual truths, which are truths derived
from good, as was shown above; and wbite is genuine truth, n.3301,
4007, 5319. In like manner iD another place, 'I saw heaven penedt
when behold a white horse, and He that sat on Him wa ocalled
Faithful and True, who in justice jud~eth and comba.teth; His ar-
'mies in Heaven followed Him, clothed in fine linen white and clean,'
xix. 1I, 14. And in another place, 'On the thrones I saw twenty and
four elders clothed in white garment,,' iv. 4."
For glory and for beauty. Heb. ~~.bn~i ,~~. lekabod u-letipha-
relh, for glory, or hanor, and for bea,.ut'!l, ornament, decoration. The
expression is very strong, leading us to the inference that a special
significancy and importance attached to these garments. They were
to be made thus splendid in order to render the office more respected,
and to inspire a becoming reverence for the Divine majesty, whose
ministers were attired "'ith so much grandeur. As every thing per-
taining to the sanctuary was to be made august and magnificent, 80
were the dresses of those who ministered there. Yet that a spiritual
design governed the fashion of these gorgeous robes no one will be
apt to doubt, for whose benefit these explanations are indited. As
glory signifies the Divine Truth, in its internal, so does beauty, .in its
,external form; for the brightness or comeliness of Divine Truth ap-
pearing in externals, is intimated by the term beauty. The import of
the expression is, therefore, that the Divine Truth, such as it is in
the spiritual kingdom adjoined to the celestia~ i. e•• luch as it is in

21. 1852.] The Holy Spirit. 11
internals and externals, should be presented or exhibited in the style
of these sacerdotal garments, in every minute detail of which there
was wrapped up a spiritual and a representative meaning. The ex-
plication of this hidden import, so far as it reg8.rd~ the Ephod and
the Breast-plate, will constitute the subject of our next article.
(To b, continued.)
ARTICLE 11.
THE HOLY SPIRIT.
TUB Holy Spirit is light from the Lord, revealing His Divine Form
as the alone Truth, and His Divine substance as the alone Good.
The operation of the Holy Spirit in ma.n is according to the laws of
order, revealing first the external of the Lord to the external percep-
tions of the natural mind of man; then His Divine inner to the inner
spiritual perceptions of man; then His Divine inmost to the inmost
eelestia.l perceptions of man's love.
Swedenborg tells us of the exact workings of the light of the Di-
vine Truth in the human mind, viz., tha.t it produces Reformation,
Regeneration. Renovation, Vivification, Sanctification, Justification,
Purification, Remission of Sins, and Salvatioq.
Reformation has to do with man's external thought; this is filled
with falsities, with utter denials of the Divine truth. For, even if
man is jnstructed to say that Jesus Christ is a Divine being, he says'
it ,,"itb his lips, but his thought says, "How ,vas He divine 1 He
was a man as other men:" or else he does but think and speak as a
parrot. But when man, from the literal sense of the Divine Word,
sees and acknowledges that Christ was "God manifest in the flesh,"
and that in Him "all the fnlness of the Godhead dwelt bodily," tben
light from the Divine Natural has penetrated his natural mind, and
his understanding is reformed. But this is " cold unproductive light;
it has nothing of the life of good in it, and is an acknowledgment
such as the evil spirits may and often do make.
But if from this light of natural truth man goes about to do good,
because Christ went about doing good, then the light grows,. and he
distinguishes tDore and more clearly between good and evil; and Dy
potting away evil, the love of doing good grows upon him, and re.
generates his will. Thus his outermost degree of life is brought into
the sphere of the Lord's person. The reformAt.ion of his understand-
ing, and the regeneration of his will, bring hi In into a perception· Gf
his true eternal spiritual being. Thus is he re7lovated. Heretofore the
spirituAl man ha.s heen dead; nov he realizes it; Hght has shone
upon it, and with his spiritual understanding he begins to discern
spiritual troths-a something within the mere literal meaning of the
YOL. v. 3

22. 22 ne Holy Spirit. [Jan.
Word; not only the Divine perSOD, but the Divine wisdom, gmws
upon his perceptions; the dead spiritual man is renovated, but a per-
ception of the Divine wisdom is but a receptacle in him of a feeling
of the Divine LOl'e; and thought, animated by feeling, is vivified;
it lives and acts; and the reformed natural understanding, and re-
generated natural will, become the fitting receptacles of the reno-
vated spiritual understanding, and the vivified spiritual will. MaD
now lives in a higher degree, but as yet he is in the full recognition
of himself; he loves this beautiful truth a$ his truth; he walks OD
the walls of the spiritual city of his mind, peopled 'with living forms,
and adorned with the gardens of intelligence, and refreshed with the
sparkling fountains of natural truth; and he says, .' Is not this great
Babylon ~hich I have built 1" But while the words of self-gratula-
tion are bursting from him, gone is the glory; darkness ha.s veiled
from him the light of the sun; thert' is yet 1 loftier height to which
he must attain before the sun can forever shine upon his perceptions;
he must realize that in man is no truth; that God is the alone Truth,
whence all truth flo,,'s into him simply as a Divine gift, as a Divine
possession in him. He must look upon himself as insignificant 8
medium of truth as any tiny vein in his own body which bears his
thought upon the red flood that flows through it. When he has at-
tained to this perception, then the truth in him is sanctified; it is
the Lord's truth, not his; and Sanctification leads to Justification.
For if God i~ the alone truth. He is the alone Life, and man being &
form, receptive of Life from God, all the good that he does is from
·the Lord, and man is just because God is just. Thus the renovated
.and reformed human ~nderstanding is sanctified and made holy, and
the vivified, regenera.ted will is justified, and then comes a yet more
interior perception of the celestial purity of the Divine Wisdom;
:and this looking upward to the Divine innocence, causes nlan to see
lmore clearly his own innate and total depravity and total corruption;
.aad by looking away from himself to the Lord, he becomes purified
.irom self-intelligence and self.love, and he comes then into a pertect
trast in the Lord, and yielding his inmost will to the Divine will, his
sins are remitted, or are put away from the centre to the circum-
ference; for the Lord becomes the centre and soul of his being.
Thus is ,alvation wrought in the man by the gradual revealings of
that holy light that flows from the body of our Divine Lord, bring-
ing him into the very sphere of the celestial personality, of the Di vine
'individuality, resulting from the perfect wisdom which is the form
of God, and of the infinite purity of love, vhich is the substance of
that Divine Form. And when the human mind attains to a percep-
tion of absolute perfection, and the human heart realizes a love, that
will forever satisfy its requirements, then is the hunger and thirst
of the soul ministered unto, and man reposes in an eternal joy, rhich
is Bal»ation.
•
EXTRACT.
The .R'Hat maR reasons acutely and with readiness, because bis thought is so near
bis speech as to be 81mo~t in it, and because he places all intelligence ID discourtiug
from tue memory alone.-.d. C. 19:>.

23. 1852.] Tile Antiquitie, of Egypt.
ARTICLE 111.
THE ANTIQUITIES OF EGYPT.
TUB contributor of the series of papers entitled" The Droidism of
Ancient Britain," published some years since iu the· Repository, per-
formed a service worthy of gratitude. It tended to call into notice
what va.~ else obscure, and gave to British archmology a post of hon-
or, which could not fail to be gratifying to those who love the name
of Cymbri, and are interested in the lore of the bards. In the ideal
Taliesin, & personification of the Genius of Druidi~m, we observe a
fonn of speech not far remote from tbat employed when the man
Adam of the Most Ancient, and Noah of the Ancient, church are men-
tioned in the Ward.
Our interest in these memories of the hoary Past was again excited
by a hasty perusal of Gliddon's "Ancient Egypt." Mr. Hayden in
his justly popular "Reply to Dr. Pond" made a few citations from
this work, and had aroused 8. curiosity which oar immaturity of per-
ception precluded from being satisfied. Finding valuable assistance
from a perusal of these lectures, we were impelled to suppose that
otherg would share the delight which we experienced, and th~refore
concluded to embody several of the prominent statements of the au-
thor in a communication for the Repository.
Many of our friends are aware that Swedenborg· affirmed many
things in regard to which subsequent explorations were needed for con-
firmation. Those who receiyed his testimony vere not so insanely in
love with tbe marve]ous as their opponents vainly endeavored to re-
present. They sent no embassy to China, or Great Tartary to find
those lost books of the Word which the Lord had given to the An-
cient church. They emplo~'ed no trav~ller to roam through Africa in
quest of the people "more internal than the rest of the Gentiles,"
whose manners were simple and affections ennobled. New-church-
men, eager to verify tht' teachings of the illuminated scribe, exhumed
not Egypt or Ethiopia. Men who disregard the instructions of Moses
and the prophets will not hear though we superadd testimony from
one ,,"ho spoke fl'om the spirit-world.
Yet as time drev on, the providence of God afforded confirmations
to the words oftbe gifted Seer. Demonstrations were Inade here and
there, 'hich evinced that the region of departed souls ,,"as not far re-
mote from the dvellers in material bodies. Nations were found in
Africa, whose character indicated that Swedenborg had spoken truth.
Large cities inhabited by millions of people have been discovered in
l'artary. l'races of books have been obtained, possessed of a peculiar
character and style, among a people not Paynim nor Pagan.
Egypt, the mystic hOlne of the Gods, a pioneer of hunlan civiliza-
tion. has already revealed secrets of vast importance. The research-
~s of archmologists ha,-e not been in ,~ain, as is manife8t in the pamph-
let before us. The author has been very judicious in his selections ~
from the materials afforded him by his own observations, and the
labors of others.

24. 24 The Antiquitie, of Egypt. [JaD.
The art of writing, '.~ are assured, is of pery remote antiquity. It
. was in existence before history had a being. The older portions of the
Bible were compiled from more ancient documents. The book of Job,
for example, was an Arabian production, and composed among a lite-
rary people. This is evident from these expressions, "Oh. that my
words ,vere written I Oh, that they were PRINTED in a book I" He un-
doubtedly meant engraved like the Chinese works, not by modem
typographers. Again:" My desire is that my adversary had written a
book." Long before Moses "·88 born, written chronicles and the 8ub-
Jimest poetry were extant.
" The Book of Genesis is divided into two perf"ctly separate histo-
ries. The ftr8t part is an account of the CREATION, and the general
history of manltind up to the building of the Tower of Babe). The
8econd part is the history of Abraham and his descendants." Swe-
denborg· and Dr. Lamb, from whom Mr. Gliddon made this quotation,
divide this book at precisely the same point, and include ten chapters
and nine verses of the eleventh, in the first part.
But fanaticism, accident, and casualties have destroyed the great
mass of ancient literary productions. We can allude to "the various
instances of the annihilation of ancient archives in Asia Minor,
Greece and Syria;" the destruction of the Ptolemaic Library, also
of the Alexandrian collection; the destruction of the Chinese annals
by the Tartars, and likewise of the Indian and Central Asiatic libraries
. by other hordes of the sa.rnA nation; the Turkish devastations, the
perishing of Tyrian literature at the conquest by Alexander, and of
Roman annals when Brennus entered that city; the conflagration of
Phmnician manuscripts by Marius at Carthage, and of the Hebrew
archives by Titus Vespasian. "Mahomed Ali has permitted the des-
truction of more historical legends in forty years than had been com-
passed by eighteen centuries ofRoman, B)·zantian, Arab, or Ottoman !
misrule." The history of Hecateus, and the annals of llanetho, Hero-
8US, and Eratosthcnes are lost, all but a few mutilated fragments. So
are also the records of a still earlier period, " saye.such as ChampollioD
has pointed out on the monuments and papyri of Egypt." That
there was a vast number of books is shown by the enumerations no"·
extant. At the date of 625, B. C. above t,,'enfy thousand volumes
were " in constant, universal and popular use among the inhabitants
of Egypt, the productions of a Saphil, Athothil, Necho, and Pet-o,iri"
all Egyptian Pharaohs; no less toaD of priests and other philosophers,
who lived, nearly all of them, ages before Moses."-Poems, especially
epics, were common: and Homer, who visited that country eight hun-
dred years before our present era, stands charged by t.he Egyptian
poet N aucratis, "vith gleaning from Egyptian bards the ideas
which, with such sublhnitl" of thought and diction, he perpetuated in
his Iliad and Odyssey."
But the original documents are lost forever; the glori~s of ancient
Nile have perished; and the prediction of the Hermetic books is ful-
filled: 'c Oh, Egypt I Egypt I the tjme will come, when instead of a pure
religion and a pure belie~ thou shalt possess nothing but ridiculous
fables, incredible to posterit)'; and nothing shall remain to thee but

25. 1852.] The Antiquitie, of Egypt. 26
UJOnU engf"acen on ,tone,-the only monuments that will attest thy
piety."
The ChnldeaDs from whom the Hebrews originated were literary
at a very early period. Their astronomical observations date as far
back as 2234, B. C., or seyen hundred years before Moses. " Yet Di-
odoru4J distinctly avers that the Babylonians learned astronomy from
tbe Egyptians, , being tl,e1llselve, an E~ypti(11l colony.'" Mesopotamia
also was at that same time tributary to Pbaraonic rule. "Berosus gives
a Chaldean history of the ten antediluvian generations, that differs but
iD names from the Hebrew account." To Xisutbru8 (or Nosh) he
gives the credit of compiling the memoirs of the preceding ages.
Many centuries must have elapsed before those nations could possess
the requisite mental discipline to enable them to attain such perfec-
tion in science and letters. But it should be Doted that these dates ex-
tend back to tbe popular ~ra of the Flood, without alluding to any
such catastrophe! A significant omission.
Mr. G. himself remarks: " I cannot reconcile with scriptural chro-
nology, however extended, the lapse of time adequate for the rude un-
instructed savage to acquire among the myriads of progressive steps
towards civilization, the art of writing, whether by symbolic or alpha-
betic signs. Writing may be forever u1,necesslWY to vast tribes of hu-
man beings who are far above the lavage in the scale of civilization,
and would, assuredly, not have been the &l-t which for many genera.
tions, 8 savage community would strive to acquire, or to which their
first efforts would be directed. Centuri{'s would elapse before the hy-
pothetical savage could reach that wonderful process, attested by
Egyptian monuments, still erect on Nilotic shores, whose construction
precedes Abraham by unnumbered generations." He therefore con-
cludes that civilization was not attained at first by long ages of dis-
cipline; but was of hea.venly origin.
Grecian philosophy as well as poetry gret' from the Egyptian
stock. The sages of Hellas resorted to that country (or those lessons
which at home they reproduced in their writings, made sacred in their
mysteries, and taught in their schools. All the world went thither.
Solon, the .. visest of mankind," was a student in Egypt. " The
Egyptians had intercourse 'vith Hindostan, the Spice Island~, and
China, long before that period." 'l'heir ships doubled the Ca.pe of
Good Hope; and they made other important explorations.
The discovery of America must undoubtedly be placed to their cre-
dit. We admit the testimony of the Norwegian and Icelandic skalds,
'vho have chronicled in their sagas the adventures of Eric, who some
nine centuries ago sailed to a countl-y west of Greenland and going
down its coast found a region heavily covered with forest, and spent a
vinter where there was no snov. Runic characters on New-England
rocks have also sbovn that this land 1ias "been visited by the bold
Scandina'ian. Columbus spent a season in Iceland before he project-
ed the discovery of the western continent. But we are now dealing
vith a remote antiquity. .
Authors have appealed to the religious ceremonies of the Aztecs
and Peruvians to prove that their origin '8S similar to that of t.he

26. The A7Itiquitie. of Egypt. [Jan.
Phenicians and other Oriental nations. In social eostoms and re-
fined civilization they did Dot contrast very unfavorably with their
Spanish conquerors. But we soppose that another circumstance
precludes this hypothesis. The Egyptians, Phenicians, Carthageni-
ans, Persians and other ancient people were of the Caucasian race;
which wa.s not the case with the Southern aborigines.
Plato relates that Solon was informed by Sonchis, an Egyptian
priest, . "of the existence of the Atla1ltic [,lea; which Sonchis said
were larger than AFRICA AND ASIA UNITED." On returning home the
Athenian statesma.n wrote a poem, in which be made mention of the
" VAST ISLAND, which had sunk into the Atlantic qcean."
11.
The religion of the ancient nations vas " Monotlleism, mystically de-
veloped ill triads, the existence of which pure prim~val creed among
the Gentiles is shown by the mythological systems of the Hindoos, the
Pelasgic Greeks, the Orpbic philosophers, the Tyrians, the Sidonians,
the Syrians, the Edessenes, the Chaldeans, the Peruvians, the Chinese,
and Ultra..Gangetic nations of the remotest antiquity to have been tbe
same, as thoroughly demonstrable by hieroglyphical discoveries, it is
now proved to have been the faith of those initiaterl in the hierophan-
tic mysteries of the traduced and misurfderstood ancient Egyptians."
The old nations ,,'ere peculiar in their modes of writing. The
Mongolian tribes never attained to an alphabet. The Chinese and
Tartars employ symbolic signs ,vhich express one or more words in
a single character. In Egypt "the art of writing was a combination
of alphabetic or PHONETIC signs to express a letter; oC FIGURATIVE signs;
and of SYMBOLIC signs; ,vith some curiou~ and useful abridgments
from the hieroglyphic (which composes the whole ofthA above three
classes) to the hieratic cbaract~r, and in comparatively modern times
to the demotic or PDchorial." The Hebrew phonetic was doubtless
borrowed from the Eg)·ptian alphabet.
In this S)-ste1!l there were many characters or homophones to repre-
sent each letter; and each character had a symbolic signification as
well 8S a phonetic pover. Thus he spells out A,lIerica. with appro-
priate Egyptian homophones, as follows: A, asp, s)·mbolizing sove-
reignty; M, mace, s)-mb. military power; E, eagle, symb. courage; R,
ram (the head), syIJlb. frontal porer or intellect; I, infant, symb.
extreme youth; e, cake, symb. civilization; A, tan (an a in pbonetic
use), symb. eternal-life. Thus by a judicious selection of appropriate
signs we have the whole character, &c. as well as the word. We
should remember that this specimen of orthography is anglicized;
though sufficiently Egyptian to illustrate the principle.
The intelligent reader ,viII obtain some idea of the correspondences
employed in the vritings of the Ancient Church; and will readilyob-
serve the importance ,vhich ever)" horn of a letter or inflection must
have in each word. A sense existing within each fraction ofevery letter
interiorto anyphonetic value or natural idea, affords amedium or men-
struum for the presence of angels, vhiJe the reader is occupied in the lit-
teraI sense of the Word. The ancient V'ritings having characters pro-

27. 1852.] TIle Antiqui'iea of Egypt. 27
perty adapted to the use, are far better for a. langoage of symbols,
than modern compositions written in alphabetic signs, endowed only
with pbonetic power. .
The Egyptia.n language was constructed of monosyllables; those
words of more syllables were compound. Its syntax strongly
resembles that of the French dialect. Dr. Leipsius"thinks the Coptic,
Sanscrit, and Indo-Germanic languages to have a common relation, if
Dot the same origin.
The arts were cultivated in Egypt to ft. high state of perfection.
Moses indeed wrote when the world had grovn old. ., Philologists,
astronomers, chemists, painters, architects, physicians, must return
to Egypt to learn the origin of language and writing-oftho calendar
and solar motion-of the art of cutting granite with a copper chisel,
and of giving elasticity to a. copper svord-of making gla..~ with
the variegated hues of the rainbov--of moving single blocks oC
polished s~"enite, 900 tons in weight, for any distance by land and
water-oC building arches, round Rod pointed, with masonic precision
unsurpassed at the present day, and antecedent, by 2000 years, to
the "ClORC& Magna" of Rome-of sculpturing a Doric column,
1000 years before the Dorians are known in history-of fresco
painting in imperishable colors-and of practical knowledge in
anatomy. Everyeraftsman can behold in Egyptian monuments the
progress of his art 4000 years ago; and whether it be a vheelright
building a chariot-a shoemaker drawing his t"ine-B. leather-cutter
nsing the self-same form of knife· of old, as is considered the best
form now-a weaver throwing the same hand-shuttle-a. white-
smith using that identical form of bloypipe, but lately recognized
to be the most efficient-the .seal-engraver cutting in hieroglyphics
such names as SHOOPHO'S Lcheops] above 4300 years ago-or even
the poulterer removing the pip from geese--all these, and. many
more astounding evidences of Egyptian priority, now require but
a glance at tht' plates of Roscellini.
.. Are not the symbols of the Egyptians similar to those of the He-
brews T Did not Moses,' , learned in all tbe wisdom of the Egyptians:
fo1low in the Aurim and Thumim of the Hebrew judicial breast-plates
the symbolical and long anterior types used by the Egyptian high
Priest T Can we soppose this similarity to be the effect of chance 1
Must we not attribute the identity to R common primeval and sacred
source, more remote than the establishment of either Dation? In
both nations, none but the Arch Judges and high priests could wear
the brea.~t-pI8te of lights and perfections" [Urim and Thummim].
" It is proved beyond doubt by Portal that from the remotest times,
calor had a symbolical meaning; and that remarkable analogies ex-
ist in regard to the mystical acceptation of every color, "among the
Persians, Indians, Chinese, Hebre"s, Eg~"ptians, Greeks a.nd Romans,
preserved through the middle ages of Christianity-the last relics of
which remain to our day in Heraldry.
"The study of prirniti"e arts and doctrines, whether in respect to
the origin of writing, or to the sources of the Unity in Trinity, identi-
cal wit.h the fountain springs of our subJimest conceptions, leads by

28. 28 ThB Antiquities of Egypt. [Jan.
different roads invariably to the same point, the common primeval
origin of all things; aod attests that the God. of Israel was the God
of the Brahmins; the God of the Chaldeans; as Champollion's dis-
coveries enable us to hope, that shrouded under the vail oftbe S&DC-
tuary he was likewise the Deity of those who were initiated into the
mysteries of the early Egyptians."
In chronological computations Mr. Gliddon, thoogh sufficiently
obedient to the popular sentiment, 8S to adopt the Septuagint era of
the Flood. yet distinctly avers that it is too contracted. "If one thou-
sand more years could be shown admissible by Scripture, there is no-
thing in Egypt that would not be found to agree with the extension."
Yet this Septuagint computation allows 1000 more years than the
one commonly employed.
Ill.
In the fifth chapter of his book Mr. GIiddon devotes several pag~
to finding out the Egyptian roots for some of the proper names used
in the 10th chapter of Genesis. Ham is from khem .e tbe dark twin ;"
Shem from ,hemmo the stranger, or as a Hebrev term "the vhite
twin," Canaan is derived from Kanana, a barbarian country; Miz-
raim is " Hebrew plural term (erroneously set down dual) signifying
fortresses; Phut is traced to Niphaiat, " the country of the nine bows,"
or Libya; Cush, the epithet of the negro race, he renders a barbarian
country, a perverse rac~. "Caphtor has been ingeniously traced to
Ai-caphtor, or covered land, possibly referring to the annual covering
of Egypt by the ,,'aters of the Nilotic inundation. Hence byelis-
ion we obta.in Aicapht or Aicopht; and b)" transmutation with
Greek, Aiguptos, Egypt; which may deri"e some confirmation frolD
the Arabic, ' Gypt,' or 'Gupt,' or 'Qooft,' in relation to our word Capt.
In Sanscrit Egypt is termed Gupta-shan, covel-ed land, wherein we
trace the same root."
Th·e Governm~nt of Egypt, as far back as it is traced, was theocratic.
Not priestly, as we now define that function, but in a more nobly ex-
panded sense. "A theocracy, or a government of pI-jests, was the
first known to the Egyptians; and it is necessary to give this vord
priest_f, the acceptation that it bore in remote times, when the minis-
ters of religion were also the ministers of science; so that they united
in their own persons two of the noblest missions with which man can
be invested, the worship of the Deity, and the cultivation of intelli-
gence."
The sacerdotal becoming corrupt was superseded by a secular
government, ,hich remains in different forms till the present time.
"This grand political revolut.ion had over ,the social velfare of
the nation an influence most salutary and durable. From a sacerdo-
tal despotism, that in the name of Heaven exacted implicit obedience
to the privileged members of the hierarch~", the Egyptians passed under
the authority of a temporal civil monarch~', and acquired a constitu-
tion that rendered them free as well as happy."
The female sex were appreciated in respect to their moral capabil-
ities, social '9irtues, intellectual attributes, and civil rights. The

29. 1852.] The Antiquitiea of Egypt. 29
Jevess never attained the honor of her Egyptian sister; nor was her
nation as noble. In Egypt, women were priestesses and queens in
their ovn right. "We have the most positive and incontrovertible
evideDc~, in a series of monuments coeval with Egyptian events for
2500 years, to prove that the female sex in Egypt wa.~ honored, civil-
ized, educated and as free as among ourselves; and this is the most un-
answerable proof of the high civilization ofthat ancient people."
"The ro)'al authorit)· vas not absolute. The sacerdotal order
preserved in their councils their rightful positions-the military vere
there to maintain order and to strengthen the monarchy, but were
citizen-soldiers; and in the great assemblies (panegy,·ies), wherein all
religiou~, warlike, civil, administrative, commercial, political, statisti-
cal, internal and external affairs were periodically treated; the
priests, the military, the corporations, aDd the people were represent-
ed, and the intere.~ts of all were protected."
According to the old chronicles, there are three categories of
Egyptian rulers; 1st, the Gods, Pthah (Hephestus or Vulcan), Helius
(the sun), and Chronus and the twelve divinities, sa.id to have lasted
33,984 years; 2d, the Demigods; and 3d, the dynasties of men end-
ing with the Macedonian conquest. These spaces of time, fabulous
as they appear, indicate the ages of gold and silver. Indeed the Gods
are called aurittB or children of the sun. Aurum or gold is evident-
ly derived from the same term. The Demigods are also termed Mes-
treans or "begotten of the sun." The" reign of men" is evidently
the period when idolatry overspread the world.
We observe that Egyptian mythology is sublimer than the Grecian•.
Ptbah, their Vulcan, is the Creator and Father of the universe; no pit-
iful~ detormed cuckold, the scorn or the cele~tials. Chronus is the
Deity of "time immeasurable." But no absl1l"d fiction of descent
from the Gods was entertained b~' Egyptians. "On the contrary they
ridiculed the Greeks for supposing themselves to be a heaven-de-
scended race, in a right line of succession; for the Egyptians were a
practical people and a sensible."
" Finally the time-honored chronicles of Eg)'pt carry us back to
the remotest era of earliest periods; and even then display to us the
wonderful and almost inconceivable t'vidences of a government or-
ganized under the rule of one monarch; of a mighty and numerous
people skilled in the arts of war and peace; in mt}ltifarious abstract
and practical sciences; with well framed laws and the social habits
of highly civilized life, wherein the female sex was free, educated
and honored; of a priesthood possessing a religion, in which the uni-
ty of the Godhead and his attributes in trinities or triads, with a be-
lief in the immortality of the soul, a certainty of ultimate judgment,
and H. hope of the resurrection of the dead are discoverable."
Vith the subject of the thirty-one dynasties ve have little to do,
as it is not congruous to our present purpose. So also the demon-
stration that the Egyptians were of the Caucasian and not of
the Nigritian race, yet these subjects are interesting and entitle Mr.
Gliddon's lectures to a dili~ent perusal. It still impresses us with
the melancholy conviction of hov much is lost. The arts and sci-
ences were practiced in the land of Ham, quarries were worked,