350

ADDRESS TO THE SWEDENBORG SOCIETY.

Our first critic has been rowing the boat, our second critic has been steering it, and shows us where we are to land. The Arcana was the object of the first attack; the Bible is the object of the second. The Arcana swarmed with blunders; the Bible swarms with various readings and corruptions. If then it can be shown that the text of Scripture is so full of "various readings and corruptions" that no reliance can be placed upon it as a basis of spiritual interpretation, of course the foundation, namely the Scriptures, being demolished, the superstructure, namely the Arcana, falls to the ground; and the critic is enabled to contemplate the ruins of both together. Swedenborg knew perfectly well that he could furnish no certain spiritual sense of the Scriptures, if he had no certain foundation upon which to rest. Where then was the foundation? Did none exist? Had it still to be laid? Had the church come to an end; and was the light of the New Jerusalem ready to descend upon earth, but was debarred in its course, because of the state of the text? Were the designs of the Almighty baffled by the various readings and corruptions of the written Word? It must be so, if you say that the text of Scripture was so uncertain that it could not be made the medium of any certain spiritual interpretation. In this cașe the whole order of Divine Providence is suddenly interrupted. Divine influx is stopped for want of a plane into which to operate; for according to Swedenborg-"man hath no spiritual good from the Lord, except by means of truths derived from the Word." (Ap. Ex. 1244.) Well, then, one dispensation is ended, and the other cannot begin, because of the state of the text. Cannot begin, did I say? Nay, rather it does begin; or at least Swedenborg is ensnared into the belief of it; for he thought the text was to be trusted, whereas it seems it is not to be trusted, and the descent of the New Jerusalem to earth is proclaimed by one who, in his spiritual interpretations, is labouring under the same self-delusion as Jeremiah when he said " Oh Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived"! (Jer. xx. 7.)

Whether Swedenborg was the victim of self-delusion or not in the belief, he nevertheless did believe the text of the written Word which he adopted, to be sufficiently correct to be entitled to the name of Holy Scripture, and as such to serve as the medium of a holy influx into his mind when he was reading it, and this without hallucination, and without the necessity of a swarm of critics-especially German critics-to prepare the way of the Lord.

"The books of the Old Testament," says he, "have been preserved from error or corruption since the time they were written. In order that nothing might be

ADDRESS TO THE SWEDENBORG SOCIETY.

351

taken away from them, it was so ordered by Divine Providence that all the particulars therein, even to the letters, should be counted, because of the sanctity within each iota. This was done by the Masorites."

Now observe the work of demolition :

"Such a statement at this day can only excite a smile in those conversant with the condition of the Hebrew text; Swedenborg merely lent his sanction to the common belief of his time in the perfection of the Masoretic editorship." "Yet even while he wrote (1763) Dr. Kennicott, of Oxford, had initiated the destruction of the superstition by his laborious collation of text with text, whereby he elicited such a variety of readings and of corruptions as proved conclusively that Hebrew literature was in no wise exempt from the ordinary vicissitudes of manuscripts."

The object here is plainly to show that the Masoretic text, in which Swedenborg confided, is so full of various readings and corruptions, that it is not to be trusted for the purposes of spiritual interpretation. What other text, then, is here supplied in its place? None whatever. Swedenborg had regarded the literal sense as the body, the spiritual sense as the soul. This theory, if it is so to be called, was not peculiar to Swedenborg; it is common to all the most valued interpreters in Christendom, and is as old as the Christian church, nay, it is older still. But again observe the process of demolition :

"This theory" (viz., of body and soul) "is a pretty one, and might have passed muster before the advent of Kennicott and his horrid brood; but, as we have seen, goes to pieces on the rocks of fact."

Here, then, are the Scriptures, body and soul, shipwrecked on the rocks of fact! And now what has become of the Arcana? Surely the task of criticism was a work of supererogation, when all the time the Arcana was lying with the Scriptures at the bottom of the sea. If the text of Scripture, from whatever cause, has become so uncertain as to admit of no certain spiritual sense, it can admit of no certain literal sense, and fails altogether; because from a corrupt text no genuine sense, spiritual or literal, can be derived. On the other hand, in the same proportion in which it admits of a genuine literal sense, it admits of a genuine spiritual sense. To say therefore that the text of Scripture, in consequence of its various readings and corruptions, is so uncertain as to admit of no certain spiritual sense, is to assume at the same time that it admits of no certain literal sense.

Now, the literal sense is the foundation: the inmost sense, as being the highest, is the roof. When the foundation is gone, the wall of the temple is gone,-down falls the roof, the holy things of the sanctuary have nothing but ruins, thorns, and thistles to protect them, and then

352

ADDRESS TO THE SWEDENBORG SOCIETY.

what then?--they who attack this principle of Swedenborg may see what he at least thinks of their attempts; for he immediately adds *— "If the roof and the wall should be wanting, or should be taken away, its holy things would be plundered by thieves, or desecrated by the beasts of the earth, and the fowls of heaven, and in this way would be scattered."

Well, then, is it not our part to defend the temple-to defend the holy things of the inmost sanctuary-the things of which in the present day the sanctuary is to be plundered?

I ask, then, is it true that Dr. Kennicott and his so-called "horrid brood" have succeeded in destroying the credit of the text upon which the interpretations of the Arcana are founded? "In short," says Bishop Marsh,t "Dr. Kennicott's collations have contributed to establish the credit of the Masora." “That the integrity of the

Hebrew text, from the time when it was fixed by the authors of the Masora, has been as strictly preserved to the present age, as it is possible to preserve an ancient work, is a position which no longer admits of a doubt."

So late as the year 1856, Dr. Davidson, notwithstanding his advocacy of a correction of the text, writes as follows : ‡—

"From all that is known of the veneration which the Jews had for the Sacred Books-a veneration tinged with superstition-we cannot but think that the Masoretic text is on the whole a correct one. We cannot suppose that these doctors corrupted the materials they had in their hands. On the contrary, they employed them conscientiously and faithfully, knowing that they contained Divine oracles addressed to their fathers." “Dr. Kennicott proceeds too much on the assumption that the Masoretic text is corrupt where it differs from the Samaritan Pentateuch and ancient versions, and therefore sets about reforming it where it is authentic and genuine."

§ "The collations of Kennicott and De Rossi in the eighteenth century shewed that no material variation has been made in the text, as far as we can discover, by the aid of all critical appliances. It confirmed the old Protestant idea that the text had been carefully preserved and faithfully transmitted by the Masorites. No important or extensive help has been furnished by such copious collations of manuscripts toward changing the text. They affect it only in a small degree. The variations in manuscripts influence the sense or meaning of the text very slightly. The same remark applies to ancient versions. We cannot hope to get from them anything that will materially alter the Masoretic text."

The same statement is repeated substantially in p. 593 of the Biblical Criticism, 1856; and is quoted by Mr. Hansell, Reader of *Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, art. 33. + Biblical Criticism, p. 154-5.

Criticism of the Bible, sect. ix. § Horne's Introduction, vol. ii., p. 45.

ADDRESS TO THE SWEDENBORG SOCIETY.

353

Theology in Magdalen College, in his preface to the Greek New Testament containing the texts of the most ancient MSS. and of Tischendorf's newly-discovered Sinaitic Codex, printed at the Clarendon Press at Oxford in the year 1864. In Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, the contributors to which are among the most learned men which the present age could produce, the rule laid down is as follows-"Deem the Masoretic text worthy of confidence, but do not refuse any emendations of it which can be fairly established." But who is to be the judge whether they can be fairly established? Certainly not any or every individual critic; for in that case the student of the Bible would ever be tossed about on a sea of emendations. "The works of Biblical scholars," says the article to which I have last referred, "have been on the whole more disfigured than adorned by the emendations of the Hebrew text which they have suggested." Accordingly, in the preface to the work on Genesis and Exodus, by Dr. Wordsworth, published in the year 1864, the author observes:- "I do not profess to give a critical analysis of the Hebrew; that is a work which will be executed by others fully competent to perform it, and which I rejoice to know is in progress." In the mean time, what sort of confidence does Dr. Wordsworth place in the Masoretic text? "The Jews," says he, "with all their shortcomings, have been faithful and diligent guardians of the Old Testament. By their careful transcription of it, and by their public reading of it in their synagogues in all parts of the world, they have preserved it from mutilation, addition, or alteration. The Jews have ever revered it as the Inspired Word of God." Mr. Burgon, Vicar of St. Mary's, Oxford, in his Sermons before the University, and his work on the Pastoral Office, strictly maintains to this day the very same doctrine; and what is all this but, in the face of all Dr. Kennicott's and De Rossi's various readings and corruptions, to re-echo down to the present moment, the statements of Swedenborg? You may now perceive, therefore, what reason there is for asserting, or insinuating, that the Scriptures are so corrupted that Swedenborg was self-deluded in regard to their sanctity, and therefore, that the authority of the Scriptures being undermined the Arcana falls to the ground.

Now, my friends, some critics may reply:-"Supposing we grant that, as a general rule, the Masoretic text is correct, yet we maintain that there are exceptions to it; and, to give a spiritual interpretation to a false reading, only exposes the folly of the system." Nay; but I ask you, Is it not folly to single out the exceptions and to ignore the rule? Besides, on what principle do you judge the Masoretic text to

354

ADDRESS TO THE SWEDENBORG SOCIETY.

be erroneous? On what principle would you correct it, if it were? If you adopt the rule of its general integrity, you have a foundation upon which to build. A spiritual interpretation has its context as well as a literal one; and that context may assist you in the choice of the right word. In this case, the spiritual interpretation, instead of being overruled by the error, itself overrules the error, and contributes to establish the right reading. Besides, unless you admit the principle of spiritual interpretation, what internal evidence have you to determine your judgment as to whether a reading be true or false? Well, then, in case of a reading said to be erroneous, the error does not render impossible the system of spiritual interpretation, but the system of spiritual interpretation may itself assist to correct the error. The exception does not invalidate the rule, but the rule enables you to form a right judgment of the exception;—and in many cases to see that what had been imagined to be an exception, really was not one. Even, therefore, supposing that in particular instances a wrong spiritual interpretation had been given (though our critic has not proved it yet), still the system is self-compensating, and is able to correct itself; so that we need not have recourse to the theory of the failure of the system, the corruption of Scripture, or the self-delusion of the interpreter. Swedenborg affirms that he received his illumination from no angel or spirit, but from the Lord alone; and we ourselves pray to no angel or spirit, but to the Lord alone for divine illumination. This illumination is of the rational faculties, the state of which is ever changing. Even the highest celestial angels have their morning and evening of illustration; but although they do not see things so clearly in the evening as they do in the morning, still even their evening, or less perfect illustration, they ascribe to the Lord alone, and in so doing we need not become their accusers, and because of their illustration being less perfect, charge them with being self-deluded. Has our opponent forgotten that all divine illumination of the rational faculties begins with the evening and goes on to the morning?" and the evening and the morning were the first day:"-" the path of the just is as a shining light, which shineth more and more unto the perfect day"? And now to conclude:

Oh, ye generation of critics! "wheresoever the carcase is, there will ye be gathered together." What if you had lived in the time of the Saviour, when there were three versions of Scripture-the Septuagint, the Hebrew, and the Samaritan Pentateuch!-all, according to your own account, more or less differing from each other. Our Lord tells you to search the Scriptures: you ask, Which version of the Scriptures?