,

WJK?,lSP"»i

FROM THE LIBRARY

OF

JOHN WHITEHEAD1850-1930
PRESENTED TO
7*a\c UVtvers*Ay Library
BY HIS HEIRS

THB

EEV. SAMUEL NOBLE

GLORIFICATION OP THE LORD'S HUMANITY,

NATURE OF HIS RESURRECTION-BODY.

LONDON :
RICHARD BARllETT, PRINTER,
MARK LANE,

THE

REV. SAMUEL NOBLE

GLOEIFICATION OF THE LOED'S HUMANITY,

NATURE OF HIS RESURRECTION-BODY ;

^rticlts, m BMmnti, an % ot* Saljwte.

RBV. J. CLOWES,
„ R. HINDMARSH,
„ M. SIBLY,

REV. W. MASON,
DR. TAFEL,
And Mb. ARBUOIN.

REPRINTED FROM THE "INTELLECTUAL EEPOBITORT,"
Fob the Years 1618 and 18S4-36,

LONDON:
WILLIAM WHITE, 36, BLOOMSBURY STREET.
1856.

PEEFACE.

The principal object of this reprint is to present the New
Church public with the articles on the Glorification of the
Lord's Humanity, and the Nature of his Resurrection-Body,
contributed to the Intellectual Repository, by the late Rev.
Samtjel Noble. These articles were written by him as one of
the Editors of that periodical, and consist of reviews of works,
and remarks on statements, by some of his eminent contempo
raries. But while this is its leading object, it has been thought
desirable to give the whole of the correspondence which then
took place on the subject, as printed in the pages of the
magazine. The Church will thus possess, in an accessible form,
the views, in their own words, on the sublimest subject of New-
Church Theology, of some of the profoundest thinkers and
ablest writers that the Church has produced — the light of some
of the principal stars of that constellation that shone so brightly
in the " new heaven," for nearly half a century. True, it will
be found that the views of these eminent men differ, in some
cases, very considerably from each other. But we are to
remember that one star differeth from another star, not
in glory only, but in colour also. And even if some of the
different views here given may be regarded as other than
harmonious varieties of the same truth, we are to reflect that
the differences of opinion are chiefly as to the manner in which
the Glorification was effected, the grand doctrine of The
Divinity of the Lord's Humanity being maintained in its
integrity by them all. These writers having derived their infor
mation from the same sources, and formed their conclusions

VI PREFACE.
from the same evidence, what may have grown into a theory in
one mind, must almost necessarily present itself as an appear
ance of the truth to every other mind that enters on the inves
tigation of the same subject. A comparison, therefore, of the
sentiments of a variety of intelligent minds, is calculated to
correct and enlarge the views, and strengthen the convictions,
of the inquiring and earnest reader. Such uses, it is hoped, will
result from the republication of these papers.
For the sake of distinctness, and to afford facility for refer
ence, the matter has been divided into chapters. The publi
cation of the articles at intervals of three months, will account
for some repetitions, in the form of recapitulations, in several
of Mr. Noble's papers • where these have been retained, it has
been for the sake of some new idea introduced, or to preserve
the connexion.
An article, not forming any part of the series, but having an
important bearing on the subject, has been prefixed, and may be
regarded as introductory.
Those who may wish to see Mr. Noble's views of the subject,
briefly and without controversy, will find them between pages
13 and 31.

It may here be mentioned, what should have been stated in its place,
(p. 56), that the improper practices in which Mr. Nordenskjold, is believed
to have been somewhat implicated, were certain attempts to make it
appear, that Swedenborg admitted the truth of the doctrine of the transmu
tation of metals, with the view of inducing some persons in this country
to engage in the " grand operation."

CONTENTS.

PAGE.
Observations on the phrase " Incarnate God." By Mr. Noble. ix

CHAPTER I.
The Rev. J. Clowes, on the Nature of the Lord's Resurrection Body
— Review — Author's Answer — Editorial Remarks . . 1
CHAPTER II.
Letter from Mr. Arbuoin — Article by the Editor — Reply by Mr.
Clowes ... . .12
CHAPTER IV. *
Review of Mr. Hindmarsh's Essay on the Resurrection of the Lord,
and the nature of his Resurrection-Body . . . .33
CHAPTER V.
Sermon on the Lord's Appearance to Thomas, after his Resurrection,
by Mr. Noble — Thoughts on the Lord's Assumption of Humanity,
and its Glorification, by Mr. Sibly . . . . .80
CHAPTER VI.
On the Identity of the Lord's crucified and risen, or .glorified Body,
by Mr. Mason — note by Mr. Noble . ... 91
* By an oversight, discovered too late to be corrected, the third chapter
has been numbered as the fourth, and so on.

Vlll CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VII. PAGE.
The views of the Editors respecting the Lord's Resurrection, as to the
putting off of the infirm humanity, and the putting on of the
Divine Humanity, as to the Body ; being an examination of state
ments in the letters " On the Identity," &c. By Mr. Noble . 118
CHAPTER VIII.
editors' views continued.
General statement of the case, as it stands in present stage of the
discussion — Subject continued — How, and by whom, all Doctrine
is to be drawn from, and confirmed by, the literal sense of the
word — inquiry as to what is affirmed in the literal sense of
Luke xxiv. 39, " Behold my Hands and my Feet," &c. . . 144
CHAPTER IX.
editors' views continued.
Real wounds, or marks of wounds, in the Lord's Proper Divine Body,
and its Identity as to substance with the crucified body, impos
sible. The real truth on the subject . ... 185
Dr. Tafel's view, p. 212 note

ERRATA.
Page 24, line 5 of note, for malum, read human.
,, 31, line 14 from bottom, for tom, read tomb.
,, 96, line 1,/or doctrines, read doctrine.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE PHRASE "INCARNATE GOD."
By Mr. Noble.
To ihe Editors of the Intellectual Repository,
Gentlemen,
In the last number of your magazine is a paper on the meaning of
the above phrase, which contains some just remarks on the nature of
divine good, which is what is signified by the term flesh when used
in relation to the Divine Being. But independently of these useful
observations, there occur some others, which appear to me to be cal
culated, far more than the term which they are introduced to explain,
to give rise to misapprehension, and that of a most serious nature : —
should they not, therefore, have attracted the attention of the eminent
writer in whose works the phrase alluded to most frequently occurs,
or of any other correspondent more able than myself to place the sub
ject in a correct point of view, I must solicit the attention of your
readers to a few observations, which, under the impulse of a sense of
duty, I have hastily thrown together.
The passages in your correspondent's letter which appear to me
most liable to mis-interpretation, are two, the first of which is the
following : " an explanation of this phrase" [Incarnate Qod] "will
no doubt be acceptable to your readers who are of the New Church,
and to others it is indispensably needful, or they must regard it as
contradictory to conceive, that the Lord, in His state of glorification
is invested with a body of flesh, when all are taught that flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, 1 Cor. xv. 50." The
conclusion which a reader unacquainted with the subject would draw
from this remark, is, that the Lord's glorified body differs in nothing,
except in being divine, from the resurrection-body of man, which is
destitute of the ultimates here called flesh and blood : but that this
would be a most serious misapprehension, is evident from what E. S.
repeatedly affirms respecting the Lord's resurrection with His whole
body, a passage to which effect I shall have occasion to quote pre
sently ; from which circumstance " the angels know, that, in the
universal spiritual world, the Lord alone is a full man," Univ.
Theol. n. 109. The flesh and blood, therefore, which cannot inherit
the kingdom of God, are material flesh and blood, such as belong to
man in the world ; but the Lord expelled from His flesh and blood
whatever was material, and supplied its place with what was divine
and substantial from the Father, yet in the natural degree ; in this
divine flesh and blood He is therefore now God in ultimates, to whom
the kingdom of heaven belongs, as He was, prior to His incarnation,
God in first principles.
The other passage which may seem to authorize erroneous deduc
tions, is the following : " In the Church of England morning service,
on the Lord's day, it is read, the Lord was incarnate by the Holy
Ghost (Nicene Creed). And in the Gospel, the Word was made

X OBSERVATIONS ON THE PHRASE
flesh (John i. 14). As also, that God was manifested in the flesh
(1 Tim. iii. 16). From these and similar passages, and the doctrines
deduced from them, it is generally understood, that although the
Lord was incarnate, yet His incarnation ended with His passion and
glorification." Here a fact is stated as being " generally understood,"
which, I believe, was never yet imagined by any sect whatever, viz.
" that although the Lord was incarnate, yet His incarnation ended
with His passion and glorification ! " — and as this view of the subject,
mistakenly said to be general, is passed over without remark, the
inference must be, that in the opinion of the writer it is just. Yet
surely to establish such an extraordinary fact as the cessation of the
Lord's incarnation, something more is necessary than the quotation
of passages which merely affirm its commencement. To infer from
such passages, taking them in connexion with those which speak of
the resurrection, that because the Lord was incarnate whilst He was
in the world, therefore when He rose again His incarnation ceased,
would be just as legitimate as to argue, from the words of Paul, that
because " God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself,"
therefore when the work of redemption was accomphshed, God was in
Him no longer. To prove, then, that the incarnation ended with
the passion, some positive texts should be adduced : but none such
exist. The fact is, that the incarnation, which commenced at the
Lord's birth, instead of ending at His resurrection, was then per
fected ; otherwise the Humanity must have been assumed for some
temporary purpose, on the accomplishment of which it was laid aside,
the Divine Being then becoming again the same naked, unapproach
able essence, as He was before the incarnation.
Such are the erroneous conclusions into which the incautious lan
guage of your correspondent would lead the uninformed reader ; — I
say "incautious language," because I am far from supposing that he
meant to sanction such conclusions, particularly the last. He, how
ever, manifestly thinks, though he does not expressly say so, the
term " Incarnate God" an improper one : he mentions, indeed, two
passages in which E. S. has spoken of the incarnation, but affirms
that he has not used the term as applicable to the Lord since His
glorification in any work which he has seen. The passages in which
E. S. has used it are certainly but few, but I think that it is impos
sible to collect from any of them, including those referred to by your
correspondent, that its use is not applicable in the sense alluded to.
I only recollect two other passages in which the term is used, or
words tantamount to it, which, with your leave, I will quote.
In the True Christian Religion, chap, on the Trinity, after having
shown that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are the three essen
tials of one God, the following passage occurs, n. 170 : — " That this
Trinity was not before the creation of the world, but that it teas pro
vided and made after the creation of the world, when God was
incarnated, and then in the Lord Qod the Redeemer and Saviour Jesus
Christ. In the Christian church at this day is acknowledged a

"INCARNATE GOD." XI
Divine Trinity before the creation of the world, which is, that
Jehovah begot a Son from eternity, and that the Holy Spirit then
went forth from both, and that each of those three singly or by Him
self is God, because each is a person subsisting of Himself ; but this,
forasmuch as it does not fall into any rational intuition, is called a
mystery, which can only be entered into by this key, that those three
have one divine essence, by which is understood eternity, immensity,
omnipotence, and thence equal divinity, glory, and majesty: but
that this is a trinity of three Gods, and thus is not any Divine
Trinity, will be demonstrated in what follows : but that the Trinity
which was provided and made after God was incarnated, thus after
the creation of the world, and which likewise consists of Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit, is a Divine Trinity, because it is of one God, is
evident from all the preceding observations. The reason that this
Divine Trinity is in the Lord God the Redeemer and Saviour Jesus
Christ, is, because the three essentials of one God, which make one
essence, are in Him : that in Him is all the fulness of the Godhead,
according to Paul, is evident also from the Lord's own words, when
He says, that all things of the Father are His, and that the Holy
Spirit does not speak from Himself but from Him ; and moreover
from the circumstance, that He took from the sepulchre, when He
rose again, His whole human body, both as to the flesh and as to the
bones (Matt, xxviii. 1-8 ; Mark xvi. 5, 6 ; Luke xxiv. 1, 2, 3 ;
John xx. 11-15) ; differently from every other man; which He
also testified to the disciples to the life, saying, ' See My hands and
My feet that it is I Myself, handle Me and see, for a spirit hath
not flesh and bones as ye see Me have' (Luke xxiv. 39) : from this
every man may be convinced, if he is willing, that the Human of the
Lord is Divine, consequently, that in Him God is Man and Man
God." This passage appears conclusive. We are here assured, that
the Trinity, such as it exists now, results from God's having become
incarnate, and so far from His ceasing to be so at the resurrection,
we are assured that He took His flesh with Him ; consequently He
then truly became, what He must ever continue or He could not be
a Redeemer and Saviour to eternity, an Incarnate God. It is true
that His flesh was then no longer material, but, as is shown in the
Doctrine of the Lord and elsewhere, divine and substantial ; but
that this does not do away the propriety of the term, appears from
the Arc. Ccel. n. 9315. The author there gives a most luminous
exposition of the difference between what is called the Lord from
eternity, or the Divine Human previous to the incarnation, when it
could only be manifested through an angel, and the Divine Human
since the incarnation. In doing this, he quotes at length the passage
in the beginning of John's Gospel, and concludes his explanation of
it in these words : " Hence it is plain, that the Lord from eternity
was Jehovah or the Father in a human form, but not yet in flesh,
for an angel hath not flesh ; and forasmuch as Jehovah or the Father
was willing to put on all the Human [Principle, or every thing
Human,] for the salvation of the human race, therefore He also

Xii OBSERVATIONS ON THE PHKASE, &C.
assumed flesh, wherefore it is said " Qod was the Word, and the
Word was made flesh ;" and in Luke, ' See My hands and My
feet that it is I Myself, handle Me and see, for a spirit hath not
flesh and bones as ye see Me have:' by these words the Lord
taught, that He was no longer Jehovah under the form of an angel,
but that He was Jehovah Man." Hence also (I would add) it is
plain, that the flesh which the Lord is here said to have assumed,
being made divine, was never afterwards separated, and that when it
is said that the Word was made flesh, we are not to understand, as
your correspondent appears to do, that it was made the infirm human
from the mother, for this is a contradiction in terms, but that the
term flesh here implies the Divine Human from the Father, which
was at first latent in the human from the mother, but was succes
sively brought forth, or glorified, as the latter was removed. In this
Human Principle the Lord may still be truly said to be incarnate,
because it is, as to its ultimates, with respect to Him, exactly what
our bodies of flesh are with respect to us ; it stands in the same
degree respectively ; the difference is, that whilst our flesh is material
and finite, the Lord's is substantial and infinite.
On the whole I conclude, that the term "Incarnate God" is
highly useful, appropriate, and expressive : it is a term well suited
to the genius of our language, and which, while it is exactly syno
nymous with the phrase " Divine Humanity," conveys clearer ideas
to minds not instructed in the phraseology of the New- Church
writings. I cannot therefore, with your correspondent, prefer using,
on all occasions, the terms Lord, Qod, and Saviour ; for though I
agree with him that, to the members of the New Church, these ex
pressions convey similar ideas, yet I am well convinced that, to most
others, the two former of these terms convey an idea of Divinity
without Humanity, and the latter an idea of Humanity without
Divinity. Against this most awful separation, it is peculiarly the
duty of those who belong to a church which is to be, what no former
church has been, "the wife of the Lamb," — of Jehovah in the
Humanity, — most cautiously to guard • and I do not see how this
can more effectually be done, than by taking every opportunity of
directing our fellow-creatures to place their faith, love, and hopes of
salvation, on the infinite yet accommodated, and therefore approach
able and receptible mercy, of the Incarnate God.
I hope I have not~ said any thing that will give any offence to
your worthy correspondent. I am convinced that my apparent dif
ference with him is confined chiefly, if not altogether, to words only ;
but as words are used as signs for ideas, mistakes in regard to them
are not unimportant ; I trust, therefore, that he will not consider me
a trespasser, if I have taken a walk in his parterre, by following his
example in warning your readers against misconception.
I am, Gentlemen, your's, &c.
London, June 10, 1817.

THE
GLORIFICATION OP THE LORD'S HUMANITY
AND THE
NATURE OF HIS RESURRECTION-BODY.

CHAPTER I.
THE REV. J. CLOWES ON THE NATURE OF THE LORD'S RESURRECTION-BODY —
REVIEW — AUTHOR'S ANSWER — EDITORIAL REMARKS.
In 1817, the Rev. J. Clowes published his charming little work,
entitled " The Miracles of Jesus Christ, explained according to
their spiritual sense." In his explanation of the Lord's Resur
rection and Ascension, the author treats of the Lord's resurrection-
body in the following questions and answers : —
" Q. Is it to be supposed that the blessed Jesus rose from the grave
with His whole body complete, or, as some conceive, that its material
part was dissipated in the tomb, and that thus He rose merely in a
spiritual body, such as the angels have ?
"A. It is to be supposed that He rose with his whole body com
plete, and that He left nothing behind Him in the sepulchre, conse
quently, that the material body was not dissipated, but glorified ;
and this idea seems confirmed by His own words to His disciples
after His resurrection. For when, on this occasion, they were
terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit,
He said unto them, Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts
arise in your hearts ? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is
I myself ; handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones as ye see me have. ^And when he had thus spoken, He
showed them His hands and His feet. (Luke xxiv. 37 — 41.) It
is evident, therefore, that the Blessed Jesus rose from the grave
with the same identical body of flesh and bones, which had been
laid in the grave, and which might still be handled and seen,
consequently, that His resurrection-body was not mere spirit, for He
says, a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have; and this
idea is further confirmed by what He says to Thomas on the occa
sion, Reach hither thy finger, and behold My hands, and reach
hither thy hand and thrust it into My side, and be not faithless but
believing (John xx. 27.) ; from which words it is manifest that the
hands and the side of the Lord's resurrection-body were still the
same, and in the same perforated state, as when the body was depo
sited in the tomb.

*"*¦ THE GLORIFICATION OF
" Q. What, then, do you conceive to have been the peculiar
quality of the Lord's resurrection-body, as distinguished from the
bodies of men and of angels ?
"A. It is perhaps out of the reach of finite intelligences fully
to comprehend what was the precise quality of the Lord's body at
the resurrection. This only we know of a certainty, that it was
derived entirely from the Divinity in Himself, and that no particle
of it was derived from the mother Mary ; for the body which He
had from the mother Mary, was successively put off, until He became
no longer her Son, as was shown above, in treating of the miracle of
water turned into wine, at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, on
which occasion Jesus calls His mother, Woman, thus intimating
that He was no longer her Son, but was by nativity as well as con
ception the Son of God. The body, then, in which the Blessed
Jesus appeared after His resurrection, had an immediate Divine
origin, being formed successively from a Divine soul, and thus par
taking of Divine qualities, which completely distinguished it from
all other bodies, whether of men or of angels. Perhaps Divine
Substantiality is the most characteristic term by which the dis
tinction can be marked, so that whilst the body of a man is called
material, and the body of an angel, spiritual, the resurrection-
body of the Lord may be fitly and properly called a Divine Sub
stantial Body.
" Q. And what do you conceive further to have been the quality
of the Lord's body after the resurrection, as distinguished from its
quality when He was alive in the world ?
" A. By the passion of the cross, which was the last temptation
endured by the Blessed Jesus, it is reasonable to, suppose that a
deeper humiliation of the humanity was effected, than had before
taken place, and thus that hereditary evil, contracted from the
mother, was more completely and radically removed. This being
the case, it is reasonable to suppose further, that when the Divinity
began again to operate, as in the tomb, on this entirely submissive and
purified humanity, it would take a more entire possession than it
had done before, until at length the possession was complete, and
the humanity became what may most properly be called a Divine
Humanity. This increase of Divine virtue and life in the humanity
had been before hinted at and accounted for in those remarkable
words of Jesus Christ, where He says, Except a corn of wheat
fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone ; but if it die, it
bringeth forth much fruit ; (John xii. 24.) for the Blessed Jesus
is here speaking of Himself, His own sufferings, death, and resur
rection, intimating by this most significant language, that without
sufferings and death, His humanity must have abided alone, or not
fully united with its divinity ; but that by sufferings and death His
humanity became so entirely submitted, as to be capable of entering
into the closest union with its divinity, which was its bearing much
fruit. The same, also, is true in regard to man, who, it is well

THE LORD S HUMANITY. 3
known, when humbled by trials and sufferings, is rendered capable
of admitting into Himself more of spiritual life than before, and
the only difference between the Blessed Jesus and His creatures,
in this respect, is, that His creatures by trials and sufferings become
more admissive of spiritual life, whereas He became more admissive
of Divine life, thus, of the Essential Divinity."
After a highly favourable review, the editor, in reference to this
portion of the work, remarks as follows : —
" We had perused so great a portion of this work with unalloyed
satisfaction, that we were in hopes to have been enabled to close our
criticisms without feeling ourselves called upon again to put to the
test the well-known candour, forbearance, and charity towards those
who differ from him in subordinate points whilst they agree in essen
tials, by which the highly esteemed author is distinguished ; but a
regard to truth, as we are enabled to discern it, must plead our
excuse, when we confess, that, in the perusal of the article on the
Resurrection and Ascension, we met with some expressions which
we could have wished had been omitted. We object principally to
the assertion, p. 309, ' that the material body was not dissipated
but glorified :' now every thing material appertaining to the Lord
was from the mother ; it would therefore be equally correct to say,
that the human from the mother was not put off but glorified, the
opposite to which, however, Mr. Clowes justly affirms at p. 311 :
but both propositions are alike contradicted by E. S., who says ' that
the human from the mother, which in itself was similar to the human
of another man, and thus material, the Lord put off.' — Doct. of the
Lord, n. 35. From what follows, too, p. 310, it might be inferred,
(though it cannot be so intended by the author,) that the Lord's
resurrection-body might be touched by the corporeal hands of a man
in the world ; but E. S. tells us (Heaven and Hell, n. 76) that when
the Lord was seen by the disciples, after the resurrection, they were
withdrawn from the sight of the body, and the sight of their spirit
was opened ; consequently, if He was touched by them, it must have
been because their spiritual sense of feeling was opened likewise.
We should think also, that the sentiment of those who suppose the
residue of what was material appertaining to the Lord's body to have
been dissipated in the tomb, cannot be correctly stated, at p. 309,
in the words ' some conceive that its material part was dissipated in
the tomb, and that thus the Lord rose merely in a spiritual body,
such as the angels have :' for the declarations of E. S. respecting
the Lord's rising again with His whole body, differently from any
man, are so express, that it appears impossible for any one acquainted
with his writings to have a doubt on the subject. The chief cause
of the confusion of ideas which has prevailed respecting this most
important subject, appears to us to be, the want of discriminating
with sufficient care between what is divine and what is merely human
or angelic. In the Lord, as in man, there are three degrees of
b 2

4 THE GLORIFICATION OF
altitude, called celestial, spiritual, and natural ; but these degrees in
the Lord are uncreate and infinite, thus divine, consequently infinitely
superior to, or above, the created and finite degrees similarly named
in man. These three finite degrees only exist in fulness in man
whilst an inhabitant of this world, for with a spirit or angel the
ultimate of the natural degree is wanting ; in this respect, therefore,
the state of an angel is exactly the same, correspondently, with that
of the Lord prior to the incarnation ; for we are told by E. S. that
in Him the two superior degrees existed actually from eternity, but
the third only in potency, and that this was made actual by the
incarnation. Since this has been accomplished, the state of the
Divine existence is exactly similar and analogous to, or in strict cor
respondence with, that of man in the world; — the Lord has the
ultimate which angels are without ; — but then this ultimate, like
the superior degrees, is uncreate, infinite, and divine. Here, as
hinted above, the discrimination is to be made. The principles
named celestial, spiritual, and natural, in man, are not the same as
those so named in the Lord, but they are finite principles exactly
corresponding to the divine and infinite ones ; thus the ultimates of
the natural principle, or the sensual and corporeal principles, in the
Lord, called, and properly called, His flesh and bones, as being
exactly analogous to the flesh and bones of man, are still infinitely
higher than the highest principles of the inmost celestial angels.
This view of the subject does not indeed show how the merely
maternal humanity, with the materiality attached to it, was put off,
nor whether the term dissipation is properly applied to the removal
of the residue of it ; (which questions need not be here considered,
nor, being subjects that require all the wisdom of angels, can we
regard ourselves as competent to solve them ;) but it clearly shows
that not an iota of materiality, or of mere humanity, such as that
of an ordinary man, can attach to the glorified or divine humanity
of our Lord ; — yet it shows, at the same time, that in that glorified
humanity the Lord is truly, completely, fully a Man, but a Divine
Man. E. S. says, (though we cannot at this moment refer to the
passage,) that what is material cannot by any sublimation or rectifi
cation be exalted into what is spiritual ; — much less, we may add,
can it be exalted into what is divine ! — accordingly, he says, in a
passage already quoted, (Doct. of the Lord, n. 35,) that ' the human
nature' [meaning such as that of an ordinary man,] ' cannot be
transmuted into the Divine essence, nor be commixed therewith.'
But we are departing from our general rule and making our
selves parties in this discussion, — our apology must be, our sense of
its importance. Our respected friend has convinced us (had we needed
such conviction) that we incur no danger of offending him by the
freedom of our remarks ; nor will he, we are sure, nor any other
of our readers, interpret anything we have now said as at all
detracting from the general admiration which we have expressed for
the work.

THE LORD S HUMANITY.

LETTER FROM MR. CLOWES, IN ANSWER TO THESE REMARKS.
To the Editors of the Intellectual Repository.
Gentlemen,
I have to thank you for the very liberal and candid manner in
which you express yourselves, in the last number of your miscellany,
on the subject of my explanation of the Lord's miracles, and
especially for the freedom with which you object to my idea concern
ing the glorification of the Lord's material body. Be assured that
by that freedom you have neither "put to the test my forbearance
or my charity," as you seem to insinuate, because I see nothing in
it to offend me, but, on the contrary, much to please and charm me.
Your views, it is true, differ from mine ; but that is no reason why
they should provoke resentment, any more than why I should be
hurt at the colour of your eyes differing from mine. Yet it is of
importance that both your views and mine should be in agreement
with the truth, and therefore, being persuaded that you see this
importance in the same clear light that I do, I am persuaded also
that you will not charge me either with petulance or presumption,
if I endeavour to show, in as few words as possible, on what grounds
I adopted the sentiment with which you are at variance.
Now the sentiment appears to me to flow naturally from the
testimony of our enlightened author on the subject, who asserts
repeatedly and decidedly, that the Lord left nothing behind Him in
the sepulchre, but rose with His whole body complete ; from which
words I infer, and I conceive the inference must be made by every
reader, that the same identical body, which was laid in the tomb,
was raised to life again by a Divine power, without any kind of
diminution, dismemberment, or disorganization whatsoever. The
single question then is, what shall we say was the specific nature of
the Lord's body, when it was taken down from the cross, and laid
in the sepulchre ? Was it at that time material, or was it
immaterial ? If you say material, then I insist that you accede to
my idea, that the material body was glorified, or made Divine ;
since if it was material at the time of its being entombed, how could
its materiality be dissipated at its resurrection, unless something was
left behind in the sepulchre, contrary to the testimony of our author ?
How also could it be said with any degree of propriety, that the
Lord rose with His whole body complete, if materiality was removed
at the resurrection ? But if you say that the Lord's body, at the
time of His crucifixion and of His being entombed, was immaterial,
I cannot see how you will get over the difficulties attending such an
assertion, or how you can reconcile the assertion to the common
sense and reason of mankind, which revolt at the idea of an im
material body being handled, pierced and entombed by material
hands.

6 THE GLORIFICATION OF
In contending, however, for this materiality of the Lord's body,
I would not be understood to mean a materiality which He derived
from the mother, and which you conceive to be the only materiality
which ever appertained to Him ; for this I believe to have been put
off successively, during the period of His growth from infancy to
manhood, whilst He was putting on a Humanity from Himself, or
from the Father, agreeable to the testimony of our author, who
repeatedly testifies, that He put on a Humanity from the Father,
a. c. 1729, 10,830, and this even to its ultimates, which uve flesh
and bones, a. c. 10,044, 10,125. What then, I would ask, was
the substance of those ultimates, or of that flesh and those bones,
which were put on from the Father ? Was it material, or was it
immaterial ? Swedenborg asserts, a. c. 995, that corporeal and
sensual things are in themselves merely material, inanimate, and
dead ; from which assertion it follows of course, that flesh and bones
must in themselves be merely material, inanimate and dead,
unless it can be proved that flesh and bones are not things corporeal
and sensual. I conclude, therefore, in agreement with the testimony
of Swedenborg, that the flesh and bones of that body, which the Lord
assumed from the Father, were in themselves merely material flesh
and bones, and that these were glorified, or made Divine, since it is
not to be supposed that any thing, or principle, put on from the
Father, was ever put off again, or dissipated.
Again, in contending for the materiality of the Lord's body, I
would not be understood to mean a materiality similar to that of the
bodies of other men, for I conceive there are various degrees of
what is material, as there are various degrees of what is spiritual ;
and therefore, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the materiality
of the Lord's body was of the highest and purest degree, and in
that respect differed indefinitely from the materiality of the bodies
of other men, which is comparatively gross and impure. In agree
ment with this idea our author asserts, that the blood in man, from
which the matter of the body is formed, differs in different men
according to the ruling quality of their minds or spirits, and thus is
purer in a regenerate man than in an unregenerate man, (See Angelic
Wisdom concerning the Divine Love and Wisdom, n. 423). What
then may we suppose to have been the surpassing purity of the matter
of which the Lord's body was composed, when we are forced to
confess that the blood from which that matter was derived, indefi
nitely excelled in purity the blood of all other men ?
But our author asserts further, that the resurrection-body of the
Lord differed from the resurrection-bodies of other men, and that
this difference is announced in these words of the Lord to His
disciples after His resurrection : A spirit hath not flesh and bones,
as ye see Me have (Luke xxiv. 39) ; and is further confirmed by
the circumstance of His eating a piece of broiled fish and of a
honey-comb, (v. 42, 43). I would ask now, in what did the above
difference consist, except in this, that the Lord rose again with His

the lord s humanity. 7
whole material body complete, even as to flesh and bones, whereas
man rejects at death his material body, his flesh and bones, and
never re-assumes them ? For if it be said, that the Lord's resurrec
tion-body, with its flesh and bones, was not material, but only spiri
tual, I would then insist that no difference is made between His
resurrection-body and that of a spirit, and that thus the Lord's
own declaration is contradicted, which asserts a difference. Besides,
it may also be asked, how could a mere spiritual body eat a piece of
broiled fish and of a honey-comb ?
But it will perhaps be objected, that the circumstance of the
Lord's coming-in, and manifesting Himself to His disciples, after
His resurrection, when the doors were shut, is an incontrovertible
proof that His body was not a material but only a spiritual body,
since it is not to be supposed that what is material could make its
way through the opposing matter of wood and stone. In reply to
this objection I might ask, Who shall set limits to the operation of
Divinity ? or what obstacle can wood or stone present to the effect
of that operation ? But I wish rather, on this occasion, to suggest
the consideration, that after the resurrection the Lord's body was
no longer to be regarded as a merely material body, but as what our
author calls a substantial body, or a body with which Divinity was
incorporated ; and who can pretend to define the precise nature and
quality of such a body, so as to declare positively that the grosser
parts of matter were not permeable to it, when yet philosophy
teaches that those parts are permeable, in some instances, to a subtle
fluid, such as the magnetic, which is purer than themselves ? I
would not however be here understood as asserting that matter can
be so sublimated as to be converted into spirit ; for I perfectly agree
with you, that " what is material cannot by any sublimation or
rectification be exalted into what is spiritual, much less into what
is Divine." Nevertheless, though matter cannot be converted into
spirit, or into Divinity, it may still be rendered capable of admitting
into itself a spiritual and Divine principle, and of being combined
with that principle, in hke manner as what is natural and sensual,
although it cannot be converted into what is spiritual and Divine,
is still capable of admitting into itself and of being combined with
a spiritual and Divine principle, so as to become what our author
terms spiritual-natural and spiritual-sensual, also Divine-natural and
Divine-sensual. I might now proceed to a further confirmation of my argument,
as arising from the consideration of the print of the nails remain
ing in the Lord's hands and feet after His resurrection, and of the
print of the spear remaining in His side, (John xx. 24 — 29,)
which cannot be accounted for on the idea that all of materiality was
dissipated ; but having already, I fear, trespassed too much on your
patience, I shall now only beg leave to express the concern I feel
at the occasion which has given birth to that trespass, and how
ardently I wish that our views on the above important subject were

8 the glorification of
more in accord with each other. Much however as I lament that,
in this instance, the children of the New Dispensation cannot be
brought to think exactly alike, yet I am consoled with the reflection,
that the difference of their opinions does not affect the substance and
real truth of that dispensation, neither has it a tendency to diminish
the influence of that substance and truth on the minds and lives of
those who receive the dispensation. For whether we say that the mate
rial body of the Lord was glorified, or not, we are all agreed in this,
that He now reigns in heaven in a Divine Substantial Body, or
Humanity, and in that Body or Humanity is the One only
true and living God ; the One only Divine Fountain of all
life, love, wisdom, and benediction ; thus the Creator, Pre
server, Redeemer, Regenerator, and Saviour of mankind and
of all the host of heaven ; consequently the Alpha and Omega,
the Beginning and the Ending, which is, and whiqh was, and
which is to come, the almighty.
Commending you then, Gentlemen, to the blessing of this Great
and Holy God, and devoutly praying that it may be extended to
all your important labours, I remain, Gratefully and affectionately yours, &c,
Manchester, Sept. 10, 1817.

REMARKS OF THE EDITORS ON THE ABOVE COMMUNICATION.
Our revered friend seems resolved to exalt, still higher than before,
our admiration of the temper in which he receives the remarks of
those who differ with him in opinion. It is indeed impossible to
peruse the above letter without being delighted with the genuine
kindness which breathes through it, or, we should hope, without
catching a portion of the same heavenly spirit : though, therefore,
we cannot help feeling considerable regret at finding that the " colour
of our eyes" still differs, we are consoled by the conviction that our
hearts are in unison. We would, however, gladly have been excused
from again entering the lists with so highly respected a friend and
so able a writer ; but however innoxious the error which his view
appears to us to contain may be in regard to him, we cannot but
fear that it may prove very dangerous if imbibed by others ; and
this apprehension, whether well or ill founded, must be our apology
for attempting to reply.
But as the fallacies which, as it appears to us, run through our
friend's reasonings, cannot be fully detected till the important subject
itself is placed in a clear point of view ; and as this will require
more time, and occupy more room, than we can now devote to it ;
we must content ourselves for the present with making a few
quotations from our author's writings, accompanied by some brief
observations, which may tend to shew, that any mode of explaining

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 9
the nature of the Lord's Glorified Humanity which would ascribe to
it any thing of materiality, from whatever origin, must be radically
defective ; of course the reasonings that support it, however plausible,
must be unsound.
To say nothing, then, of the strong inward sensation of repug
nance, which we are sure almost every member of the New Church
must feel, on hearing the terms matter, material, and materiality, so
repeatedly used in application to the Glorified Body of our blessed
Lord, we would ask every impartial reader how it is to be accounted
for, that terms of such decided signification, had they been justly
admissible, should yet never once have been employed, as elucidatory
of this sacred mystery, throughout the New Church writings ?
After a very extensive and careful search, we have only been able to
find four or five passages in which any of the terms is used in con
nexion with this subject, and in these it is only used to caution the
reader against supposing, that the idea conveyed by it is in any
respect applicable to the Lord's Divine Humanity, or to the Human
assumed from the Father, even before this was made Divine in Itself.
The first of these passages is that in the Doctrine of ihe Lord,
n. 35, referred to in our last, in which it is said, " That the Lord
put off the human from the mother, which in itself was like the
human of another man, and thus material, and put on a Human
from the Father, which in itself was like His Divine, and thus
substantial." The second passage is towards the end of the same
number, where, speaking of the Lord's Glorified Body, it is stated,
that "forasmuch as His body was now not material, but divine
substantial, therefore He came to the disciples when the doors were
shut, (John xx. 19, 20), and after He had appeared He became
invisible," (Luke xxiv. 31). A third passage occurs in the
Apocalypse Revealed, n. 504 ; to this purport : " Though the
Lord's Humanity is called, (in the old church,) the Son of God,
born from eternity, and equal to the Divinity of the Father, still
this only enters the hearing, and not the belief, whilst the Lord is
thought of as a material man like another man, retaining like
properties of the flesh." To the same purport it is said in the
Universal Theology, n. Ill, respecting certain papists in the
spiritual world, that they wished to utter the words "Divine
Human," but " because a material idea respecting the body and
blood of Christ then suggested itself," they could not. And at
n. 92, of the same work, in contradiction to our friend's idea that
there might be a material principle from the Father, it is affirmed,
that " every thing spiritual which man has is from the father, and
every thing material from the mother." This idea is resumed
ao-ain, and explained at large, at n. 103, and is applied to the point
in question thus : "With respect to the Lord, He, whilst He was
in the world, by acts of redemption put off all the human principle
from the mother, and put on a Human from the Father, which is
the Divine Human ; hence in Him Man is God and God Man."

10 THE GLORIFICATION OF
These, as above stated, are all the passages we have been able to
find, in which the word "material" is used in connexion with this
subject ; it is possible, however, that there may be some others ; but
we will affirm, with the most certain confidence, that there are no
such passages in which it is not either said or implied, that every
thing material appertaining to the Lord was from the mother, and
of course was utterly rejected at His resurrection. For what, let us
ask, is matter 1 It is, as every one knows, a created substance ;
and though it was created by the Divine Being from Himself, still
it is created, and that, too, through the instrumentality of the sun
of this world, which, though the centre and head of this visible
creation, is still wholly destitute of life. To talk, then, of uncreate
matter, would be a solecism in terms ; yet, with the Lord, all is
uncreate ; as is affirmed by the doctrines both of the old church
and of the new. How then can we form an idea of divine matter ?
Mr. Clowes himself admits that this is impossible : and here lies
the chief objection against his view of the subject. When we talk
of matter, we exclude the idea of Divinity ; yet our scribe, in agree
ment with the clearest dictates of reason and the testimony of the
Scriptures, whioh declare that God, the Word, was made flesh,
constantly and repeatedly affirms, that in the Lord all is Divine.
" With the Lord," says he, " all is Jehovah, not only his external
and internal man, but also the external, and the very body." {Arc.
Cod. 1729). Again: "The Human of the Lord, when made
divine, was no longer an organ of life, or a recipient of life, but
life itself, such as that of Jehovah Himself ; whence it is evident,
that what was not life itself, that is, what was merely human, He
rejected." (n. 2658). Mr. Clowes indeed affirms, that though
matter is incapable of being converted into Divinity, it may still be
capable of admitting into itself a Divine principle, and of being
combined with it. How what is Divine is capable of being combined
with what is not Divine, so as to become a perfect one, we are
wholly incapable of conceiving ; and so was Swedenborg ; for he says,
(Arc. Cozl. 6849,) that any thing not divine " would be utterly
dissipated by such a union : " but that matter is capable of admitting
into itself (though not immediately) a Divine principle, is perfectly
true : it is true with respect to the Lord's human from the mother,
respecting human beings in general, and respecting the whole king
dom of nature in general : but general as the application of this
truth is, it has no -connexion with this particular subject. Accord
ingly our author says, " that the reason why the Lord from eternity,
or Jehovah, superinduced the natural degree by the assumption of a
human principle in the world, was, because He could not enter into
that degree any otherwise than by a nature similar to the human
nature, thus only by conception from His Divine and by birth from
a virgin ; for thus He was able to put off nature, which in itself is
dead, and yet a receptacle of what is Divine, and to put on the
Divine." (Div. L. 8r W. n. 234.) The general term "nature,"

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 11
here used, of course includes the most lifeless part of it, denomi
nated by the specific term, " matter :" this passage therefore alone
is sufficient to evince the impropriety of using the expression in
reference to any principle which the Lord had from the Father, even
before His glorification, and to shew the impossibility of any thing
material being attached to the Lord in His glorified Humanity.
We must here stop our pen for the present : but as it is a most
certain and glorious truth, that, as Mr. Clowes affirms, the Lord
rose again with His whole body complete, leaving nothing in the
sepulchre ; and as the natural mind, not being able to form an idea
of any flesh and bones but such as are material, is hence sometimes
inclined to reject this fact altogether, and sometimes to favour the
view we have been attempting to explode, we shall, by Divine mercy
and assistance, resume the subject in our next number. In the mean
time, we beg our most estimable friend not to impute to us, as we
fear he too justly may, the charge, so wholly inapplicable to himself,
of petulance and presumption ; notwithstanding, too, we venture to
acknowledge, without making the most distant pretensions to any
superiority of intelligence, that the confidence we feel in the justness
of the view which has most unmeritedly been vouchsafed us of this
most sacred subject, is such as to encourage us to hope, that, when
he is in possession of what we wish to lay before him, he will see
reason to concur in sentiments which harmonize with every thing
that is said on this point throughout the writings of our admired
scribe, and which tend in the highest degree to exalt the infinite
love, the boundless omnipotence and perpetual omnipresence, of that
blessed Lord, who is indeed, in our view of Him, the Beginning
and the Ending, the First and the Last, the Almighty.

12 THE glorification of

CHAPTER II.

LETTER FROM J. ARBUOIN, ESQ. — ARTICLE BT THE EDITORS— REPLY BY
MB. CLOWES.

FROM J. ARBUOIN, ESQ.
There is a portion of Scripture which seems applicable to those
who would endeavour to obtain a near approach, in order to have a
more distinct view of this divine subject : " Take off thy shoes from
off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.'' —
The natural mind, too busy in intermeddling with subjects beyond
its reach, frequently loses itself by going out of its depth ; and these
few lines are offered with an intent to call off the ardent gaze from
a sun that would occasion blindness, in order more effectually to
enjoy the beneficent rays that expand from its centre. The writings of
E. S., I am of opinion, offer to our apprehension as much as we can
conceive of this divine subject ; that the Lord in condescension to
the fallen state of the church, or of man, assumed in permanency
the Divine ultimate degree, which was before held in potency, that
an everlasting dominion might be established over heaven and hell,
and order be restored with men and angels. The Lord having taken
a miraculous birth, the Divine Natural was clothed with the infirm
human to be subject to temptations, and, by overcoming them,
gradually to throw off all that was material from the mother, and to
assume the Divine Human disrobed of imperfection, by which the
mind can approach a Deity visible in the human form, according to
its powers of perception, and for ever contemplate and worship one
only God, the source of life, and of infinite love, wisdom, and power.
I beg leave to offer the following very short quotations from the
writings. " When the Lord made His whole Human principle Divine, then
His flesh was nothing else but divine good, and His blood divine
truth : that in the Divine Being or [Principle] nothing material is
to be understood, may be manifest." — Ar. Coel. n. 5576.
" The Lord's proprium is signified by His own words, ' A spirit
hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.'" — Ar. Coel. n. 149.
" The proprium which the Lord acquired to Himself in the
Human, was divine, the divine proprium in the Human is what is
called flesh and blood, flesh is its divine good, blood is the divine
truth of divine good: the Lord's human principle, when it was

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 13
glorified or made divine, cannot be conceived as human, but as the
divine love in a human form." — Ar. Coel. n. 4735.
It is doubtless contrary to established order to suppose, that what is
material could enter through doors that were shut, and become visible
and invisible at intervals. If when the Lord entered more fully into
the Essential Divine, His ascension, as some suppose, was only an
appearance, is it not reasonable to suppose that partaking of broiled
fish was also an appearance to enforce the reality of the resurrection
to His disciples, as the apparent feeling of His wounds was to Thomas,
to overcome his unbelief? We are assured that the Lord rose with
His whole body complete from the sepulchre ; and we are informed
in the Scriptures of the elevation of Elijah apparently in a chariot
of fire to heaven ; though we are certain that the material body
could not find access to the celestial abodes, yet we have no account
of its elementary separation or dissolution ; might not this be accom
plished according to St. Paul's expression, " as in the twinkling of
an eye ?"
Having offered these few observations and quotations, and expect
ing that, according to promise in the last Repository,, the subject
will be entered upon extensively in the next, I shall retire with a few
words of advice to myself and friends.
1st. To be satisfied in our present state wHh a general view of
this divine subject, as set forth in the writings of E. S., without
attempting to enter into particulars and singulars, and thus to lose
ourselves in unprofitable speculations, which may not only be found
to lessen our veneration, but also expose us, while we are apparently
making great progress in words, not to gain a single step in distinct
and clear ideas.
2ndly. To reflect that the state even of regenerate man is not
that of angels, and that if the Divine Human is a subject to angels
of comparatively obscure as of eternal contemplation, how much
more obscure must it be to man !
3dly. To enter as minutely as possible into the particulars and
singulars of the manifold evils we are called upon to shun, and of
the multiplied good offices we are invited to perform, imploring the
divine aid to make this the grand regulator of our daily thoughts,
words, and actions.
17th November, 1817.
THE EDITORS ON THE SAME SUBJECT.
We have placed the remarks of our friend J. A. on the glorifica
tion of the Lord's Humanity immediately before our own, that they
may stand as a preface to what we propose to say on the same divine
subject ; in the hope that they will promote in the minds of our
readers, as we trust they have in ours, such a state of becoming
reverence and awe, as can alone qualify us for the profitable con-

14 THE GLORIFICATION OF
templation of so heavenly a theme. The divine command to Moses,
" Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou
standest is holy ground," should never be forgotten, when we pre
sume to meditate on the person of our Redeemer ; for though we
may, like Moses, from mere curiosity, " turn aside to see this great
sight," yet unless we elevate our minds above the sensual principle
and all that belongs to it, we shall never obtain the satisfaction we
wish for, nor hear the Lord announce His holy name, out of the
midst of the bush, I am that I am. But though our inquiries into
this subject, if conducted without due regard to the above divine
injunction, must be nugatory, at least, if not injurious, yet if they
are entered into under a deep sense of humility ; if we desire to
improve in the knowledge of our God that we may love Him more
and serve Him better ; we may hope that the desire is inspired from
Himself, and that our inquiries will be accompanied by His blessing.
Our scribe informs us, that " the first and primary thought which
opens heaven to man, is thought concerning God ;" and proceeds to
say, "the thought alone that there is a God, and that the Lord is
the God of heaven, does indeed open heaven, and occasion man's
presence there, but so slightly, that he is scarcely discernible, appear
ing as in the shade at a distance ; but in proportion as his thought
becomes more just, more true, and more full, concerning God, he
appears in the light:" he says further, "knowledge concerning the
Lord exceeds in excellence all the knowledges in the church, yea, all
that are in heaven." (A. E. n. 1007, 1008. T. C. R. n. 81.) Ex
cited, therefore, on the one hand, by a sense of the transcendent
excellence of our theme, and of the advantages resulting from a just
apprehension of it, and desiring to guard, on the other hand, against
the interference of the proprium, by bearing in mind the salutary
caution above quoted, we will resume the discussion commenced in
our last. It is scarcely necessary to say, that we draw all our views
on this as on every theological subject, from the writings of the New
Jerusalem apostle, or rather, from the Holy Word, as therein opened
and explained. We are fully convinced, that in those writings is
communicated all the information respecting the mystery of the
incarnation which the church is at present capable of receiving : but
what is thus communicated is of no use but in proportion as it is
understood: our object, therefore, in our present attempt, is, to
throw a mite into the treasury of the church, by endeavouring
familiarly to explain the little that we have been enabled to under
stand, (and we are conscious that it is very little indeed,) on this
most interesting topic.
I. Before we proceed to speak, as proposed, of the Lord's glori
fication, or of the assumption of the Divine Natural ; and before
we attempt to shew that the Lord's resurrection-body, though not in
any sense material, was nevertheless not a merely spiritual body, such
as that of an angel ; it will be useful in the first place, to explain
how we understand the terms natural and spiritual, and to point

THE LORD S HUMANITY. 15
out the various senses in which, according to our apprehension of
them, they are used in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. For
these terms are not used in one sense only, but in several, according
to the subject treated of ; a just conception of which various senses
must greatly facilitate the understanding of what is said in those
writings on the divine subject in view. It is not improbable, that
we may err in our apprehension of these various senses ; and such
error may easily be detected in a definition, though, it might other
wise involve the whole of our observations in inextricable confusion.
1. The term natural, then, in its most proper acceptation, we
understand as descriptive of all those principles of affection, thought,
and science, with their appropriate organs, which are peculiar to man
whilst an inhabitant of this lower world and the tenant of a material
body. The terms "natural body" and "material body" are,
therefore, when predicated of man, synonymous, but not when pre
dicated of the Lord, the materiality of whose body, according to our
understanding of the New Church writings, was wholly " put off"
at the resurrection, and divine substantiality, in the same degree,
" put on " in its place. To avoid confusion, when we use the term
" natural,'' in the course of our remarks, in this first sense, we shall
call it the outer natural.
2. The term natural, in its second sense, we understand as
designating that principle of man's spiritual part, which, when
regenerated, forms the external of angels, but, when not regenerated,
forms both the internal and external of infernals. To avoid con
fusion, we shall call this principle the inner natural. We adopt
the terms " outer natural " and " inner natural " rather than "ex
ternal natural " and " internal natural," because these latter terms
are used by our author in senses different from those which we here
have in view.
3. In a general sense of the term natural, both of the above
specific principles are included, on account of the intimate connexion
subsisting between them whilst man remains in this lower world.
4. The term natural is also used in application to the first or
lowest heaven and the angels there, and likewise to the first or lowest
degree of man's spiritual mind ; but these are more correctly called
spiritual and celestial natural.
The signification of the term spiritual is not less various.
1. In its most general sense it includes every degree and principle
of man's life, except the outer natural. In this sense, therefore, it
is used in contradistinction to the term " natural," when by that
term the outer natural only is understood : thus we may say, " man,
while he lives in the world, is in a natural body, and thinks and
speaks naturally ; but after death, when he becomes either an angel
or an infernal, he is in a spiritual body, and thinks and speaks
spiritually." The term "spiritual" is here used in this wide
sense, and the term " natural" refers to the outer natural only.
2. In a sense less general, by the term spiritual is implied what-

16 THE GLORIFICATION OF
ever belongs to the heavenly internal, in all its three degrees, which
in this sense is called the spiritual mind. In this sense, therefore,
it is used in contradistinction to the term " natural," when by that
term the inner natural is understood : thus it is said, that " all the
inhabitants of heaven are spiritual, and all the inhabitants of hell
are natural : " also, that " man has a spiritual mind and a natural
mind, and that the spiritual mind is a form and image of heaven,
and the natural mind (before regeneration) a form and image of
hell. The term " spiritual " is here used in this restricted sense,
and the term "natural " refers to the inner natural only.
3. In a specific sense, the term spiritual is used in reference to
the second or middle degree of the spiritual mind only, and to the
second or middle heaven.
4. In a universal sense, the term spiritual denotes whatever has
relation to truth, of whatever degree, whether belonging to the
spiritual mind or to the natural mind. In this sense it is used in
contradistinction to the term celestial, which in like manner implies,
in a universal sense, whatever has relation to good.
II. As the Lord, by the incarnation, assumed every principle that
exists in human nature, the next thing requisite to our obtaining
some clear views of this great arcanum, appears to be a correct idea
of the principles constituent of man. Some sketch of these is afforded
in the above definitions ; but such is the importance of this mental
anatomy, that it is necessary to fill up the outline a little more com
pletely. In addition, then, to the internal and external degrees enumerated
above, man has a certain inmost principle, which is the veriest
dwelling-place of the Lord with him. This principle is too near to
the Divine for man or angel ever to be enabled, by any regeneration,
to ascend into it, or to have any sense of what is passing therein : it
is sacred to the Lord alone : it is the only recess in which He dwells,
and from which he operates into those principles of the mind to which
man can be elevated, and gives him the perception of love, wisdom,
and life, as if they were his own. It is solely in consequence of his
possessing this receptacle of the Divine that man is capable of being
regenerated and elevated into heaven ; and it is solely in consequence
of their still retaining this invaluable gift, that they who are not
regenerated are distinguished from the beasts ; as they hence receive
the faculties of liberty and rationality, which, however they may
abuse them, they can never utterly destroy. Considered with reference
to the spiritual world, of which man is an image in miniature, this
principle (which, after our author, we shall call the human internal,
to distinguish it from the spiritual or heavenly internal), correspond
to that region which appears to intervene between the abodes of the
highest angels and the Lord Himself.
Below this is the spiritual mind of man, or heavenly internal, con
sisting of three distinct regions, according to the three degrees of
altitude, called celestial, spiritual, and celestial and spiritual-natural.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 17
Into all these degrees, man is capable of being elevated, provided he
acquires a corresponding external by the regeneration of his natural
principle. This spiritual mind is a heaven in miniature, answering
to the three angelic heavens ; and it constitutes, with the inmost
recess, the internal man.
Next in order follows the inner natural mind. This, when created
anew, by regeneration, becomes an image of the spiritual mind, and
of a like heavenly quality ; but when separated from the spiritual
mind, by the confirmation, in doctrine and life, of the evils and falses
which inhere in it from nativity, its nature is infernal. This natural
mind consists of three degrees, beside an extreme boundary, called
the corporeal or lowest sensual principle, which is the deepest seat of
man's proprium, and hence is incapable, like the superior regions of
this mind, of being wholly renewed, but can only be subdued and
removed by regeneration. Before regeneration, this natural mind
corresponds to the world of spirits, such as it is at the end of a church,
immediately before the Lord makes His advent to perform a general
judgment, at which period it is entirely filled with evil spirits, who
construct imaginary heavens, and intercept and pervert every ray of
divine influx as it descends from the real heavens to the church on
earth. After regeneration, it corresponds to the world of spirits after
the performance of the judgment, when the influx flows freely through
it for the illustration and vivification of a New Church on earth ;
and being then conjoined to the spiritual mind, its possessor ascends,
after death, to the mansions of heavenly felicity. But if man does
not suffer his evils and falses to be ejected, but confirms them in
doctrine and life, this natural mind, being entirely separated from the
spiritual mind, corresponds to hell, of which it is then an exact
image ; a judgment is performed, not in it, but upon it ; and its
infatuated possessor, on quitting the body, sinks to the regions of
infernal wretchedness.
The rudiments of all the above principles, as to their organical
forms, man derives from his father.
Last of all is the outer natural principle, consisting of the natural
substances of the natural mind, and material body. The substances
of this mind, not being spiritual, it is not capable of thinking itself,
but the inner natural mind, which consists of spiritual substances,
and through this the spiritual mind, think in it, whilst man lives in
the world ; and the material body speaks and acts what is thus
thought and determined. This outer natural mind is thus the seat
of man's natural memory, and of course of all his natural knowledges,
including his natural apperceptions of spiritual things ; in short, it
is the residence of every acquirement he makes, that comes to his
manifest perception, whilst he inhabits the body. Man carries this
mind with him into the other life ; but being then deprived of the
material body, which formed its covering and ultimate basis, he can
no longer make use of its acquirements, the organical substances of
this mind then forming the outward covering and ultimate basis of

18 THE GLORIFICATION OF
his spiritual form, and the seat of his affection and thought being
transferred further inwards. This is the true cause of the im
mutable nature of man's state, as to its essential quality, after
death. This natural principle being then quiescent, no change
whatever can be made in its organization ; and being the ultimate
basis of the interiors, according to the form of which the interiors
flow, no radical alteration can take place in these ; they may be
perfected, indeed, by impletion, or by the introduction of things
nomegeneous, but the order in which they flow must continue the
same for ever. A spirit or angel may indeed, for some especial pur
pose, be occasionally let into this natural mind and memory, but this
is effected by his close adjunction, for the time, with men who are
still in the natural body, who thus afford the ultimate basis which is
necessary for the exercise of natural thought ; but this does not
supply the means of making any change in its structure. This
natural mind is manifestly the connecting link between the natural
and spiritual worlds, communicating above with the latter and below
with the former, and, like all mediums, partaking of the qualities of
both : it partakes of the qualities of the inner natural, which belongs
to the spiritual world, in affording it the means of thinking and will
ing in the body, and in being capable of existing separate from the
body and accompanying the spirit when it quits the realms of time
and space ; and it partakes of the qualities of the material body,
which belongs to the natural world, in its incapacity of thinking and
willing by itself, and of being brought into any exercise indepen
dently of its earthly companion. It constitutes the door, by which
the spiritual world enters into nature.
This outer natural, both as to its mental and corporeal part, is
included in the general term " body," and is received by man from
his mother.
Both these natural principles, or rather, the natural principle in
general, as consisting both of spiritual and natural substances, con
stitutes the external man, which thus consists of the same number
of parts as the internal man, of which, when regenerated it is a
beautiful image, corresponding thereto in direct order ; but when in
a state of separation, it is a distorted and inverted image of the
internal man, corresponding only in opposition.
III. Such are the principles of which man is " fearfully and
wonderfully made ;" and all these principles exist in man, because
they have their prototypes in the Lord Himself, who is the Essential
and Only Man, after whose image and likeness finite man was
created. A view of this correspondence will advance us an important
step in our present inquiry.
The human internal in man, corresponds, in the Lord, to the
Divine Esse Itself, the All-begetting Divinity, the Alpha, the
Beginning, the First. Of this principle, neither man nor angel can
form any idea : it is altogether incomprehensible even to those of
the most ancient church, called Adam, prior to its declension : it

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 19
cannot be considered in reference to anything but itself, and its own
Divine Human : the latter alone, which is the clothing assumed by
the inscrutable Esse, first for the purposes of creation, and after
wards brought into ultimates for the purposes of redemption, is
the only Divine principle in any measure adapted to human appre
hension. The three degrees of the spiritual mind in man, correspond to the
three degrees in the Lord from eternity, or the Divine Human as it
existed prior to the incarnation, in which were these three spiritual
degrees actually, and the three natural degrees in potency. The
Divine Natural, thus held in potency, was sufficient for man's salva
tion, so long as there were any remains of a church on earth to afford
an ultimate basis for its operation ; but when this was no longer the
case, this potency was held in check, and could no longer be exerted,
but by making it actual by the assumption of the Human principle
in ultimates.*
* It is stated in the Divine Love and Wisdon, n. 233, "that in the Lord from
eternity, who is Jehovah, before the assumption of the Human in the world,
were the two prior degrees [the celestial and spiritual,] actually, and the third
degree in potency, as they also are with the angels : but that by the assumption
of the Human in the world, He put on in addition the third degree also, which
is called the natural degree, and thereby became a Man like a man in the world,
but with this difference, that this degree, like the former is infinite and uncreate,
whereas these degrees, with angel and man, are finite and created. For the
Divine, which, had filled all spaces without space, penetrated even to the ultimates
of nature ; but before the assumption of the Human, the divine influx into the
natural degree was mediate, through the angelic heavens, but after the assump
tion was immediate from Himself." Here only two degrees are mentioned as
existing in the Lord prior to the incarnation : but the sense here assigned to the
term " degree" is explained in the previous paragraph n. 232, whence it mani
festly appears, that these two degrees include the same principles with respect
to the Lord and man, as the terms " celestial and spiritual kingdom'' do with
respect to the whole angelic heavens ; and that these latter terms include all the
three heavens, consequently all the three degrees of the spiritual mind, is evident
from the chapters on " the two kingdoms of heaven," and on the " three heavens,"
in the Treatise on Heaven and Sell, n. 20 and 29. In like manner, in the above
extract, the natural principle is spoken of as constituting one degree : but that
this general degree includes three particular degrees, is plain from n. 232
referred to above, compared with n. 66 and 67 of the same work. We have
preferred to treat of the three spiritual degrees and three natural degrees dis
tinctly, for a reason that will appear in the sequel.
As the subject respecting the Divine Human prior to the incarnation is one
of great importance, we subjoin in addition the following extract: "That the
Lord was from eternity, manifestly appears from the Word, although He was
afterwards born in time : for He spoke by Moses and the prophets, He also
had appeared to many, upon which occasions He was called Jehovah. But this
great arcanum cannot be revealed to any others, than such as are in divine
perception, thus scarcely to any but the men of the most ancient church, which
was a celestial church, and in that perception ; from them I have heard, that
Jehovah Himself was the Lord as to the Divine Human, when He descended
into heaven and flowed-in through heaven ; for heaven resembles one man, as
to all his members, wherefore also it is called the Grand Man : the Divine Itself
in heaven, or in the Grand Man, was Jehovah Himself thus clothed with the
Human Principle. But when the human race became of such a quality, that
the Divine Itself clothed as the Divine Human could no longer affect them, that
is, when Jehovah could no longer come to man because man had so far removed
himself, then Jehovah, who is the Lord as to the Divine Essence, descended,
C 2

20 THE GLORIFICATION OF
Man's inner natural principle, in its three degrees, corresponds,
in respect to the Lord, to that principle which He assumed, in His
descent, as Divine Truth, between the lower boundary of the heavens
and the upper limit of the world of nature.
Now as this region, when the Lord made His advent, was entirely
filled by infernal spirits of every possible degree of malignity, who
were enabled to occupy it by the total departure of mankind from
everything that constitutes a church, and the consequent want of any
basis for an influx from heaven, it is evident that the Divine Truth
could not descend below the heavens without instant perversion until
such a basis was provided ; therefore the Lord was pleased to assume
the outer natural also by nativity of the virgin. But neither did
this, at first, afford a basis into which Divine Truth itself could
flow ; for this external, as is the case with every man, was wholly
taken from the mother, and hence was not only of a material and
finite nature, but was of the same hereditarily evil quality as that of
other men : hence, though it had within it from conception the
whole Divine Esse, and the Divine Human in the heavens, it still
was admissive of the influx of the infernal crew which occupied the
world of spirits, the whole of which may be said to have been inter
posed between it and its Divine Father. Considering the subject in
this point of view, we see how truly the prophet might say, " Surely
He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows ;" and, " the Lord
hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." And well might the Lord
Himself, when telling His disciples that He had a " baptism to be
baptized with," utter the exclamation, " How am I straitened till
it be accomplished." How grand a picture does this view present,
of the nature of the great work of redemption, and of those mighty
acts by which it was accomplished ! And how tremendous an idea
does it convey of the direful conflicts experienced in the outer
natural during the performance of these acts, and by which, exactly
in proportion as the Divine, by victories in these conflicts, descended
from within, the outer natural was brought into order and prepared
for its reception ; until, every intervening obstacle being wholly
removed, the Divine descended into this also, made this Divine by
the expulsion or putting off of its finite and material nature and by
the substitution or putting on of what was infinite and divinely
substantial in lieu thereof, and thus ascended with it, as the Omega,
and assumed a Human which by conception was Divine, and by birth of a
virgin was such as that of another man ; but this He expelled, and by divine
means made the Human so born Divine, from which all that is holy proceeds.
Thus the Divine Human became an Essence by Itself, which fills the universal
heaven, and effects the salvation of those who before could not be saved. This
is now the Lord." A. C. n. 3061. When it is here said that "the Divine
Human became an Essence by itself," we are not to understand that it became
an Essence by itself separate from Jehovah, but an Essence by itself indepen
dent of the Grand Man of heaven, which was not the case, prior to the incarna
tion. For further information see the same work, n. 3195, 4180, 5663, 6280
6371, 6373, 9315, 10679.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 21
the Ending, the Last, to perfect union with the Essential Divine
called the Father !
This is the grand conclusion to which we wish to conduct the
reader. Much, however, remains to be said to bring it distinctly to
the apprehension. Our apology for having been so diffuse must be,
the desire we felt that our sentiments, whatever may be thought of
their correctness, might at least be clearly understood. We commend
what we have written to the Divine Blessing and the devout attention
of our readers ¦ and shall only add at present, that if the perusal of
it shall have on the reader the same effect as the writing has had on
ourselves, the contemplation of the immensity of the theme will
exalt his veneration for Him who is its subject.

In our remarks on this sacred theme, we have endeavoured, 1st,
to explain the different senses of the terms natural and spiritual;
2ndly, to draw a sketch of the various general principles constituent
of man ; and, 3rdly, to take a view of the corresponding prototypes
of these principles, as existing in the Lord Himself as the Essential
and Only Man.
Thus prepared, let us proceed with the contemplation of the
heavenly subject : and as no other method seems so likely to conduct
us to clear ideas respecting the object in view, we will adhere to the
track in which we set out, and resume the parallel before indicated
between the Lord and man.
We have already seen that there exist the same degrees of life in
man as in the Lord, with no other difference than that all-important
one which exists between what is finite and what is infinite ; this,
likewise, is the only difference between man's regeneration and the
Lord's glorification. As then the Lord made His Human Divine
in the same manner as He makes man spiritual ; or, in other words,
as the Lord's glorification is imaged, as in a mirror, by the regene
ration of man ; let us take a brief sketch of the order in which the
latter process is accomplished : for in proportion to the correctness
of our notions respecting this, will be the accuracy of our ideas
concerning its divine counterpart, which, except so far as it is seen
in this its reflected image, is wholly incomprehensible.
IV. The circumstance respecting man's regeneration which we
wish more particularly to notice, as eminently tending to remove
misconceptions respecting the Glorification of the Lord's Human, is,
that it is effected, not by continuous degrees merely, which differ
imperceptibly as what is denser from what is rarer, or as shade from
light, but by discrete degrees, which differ as prior and posterior, or
as cause and effect ; in consequence of which, man is regenerated as
to the interior degrees of the natural principle long before the
exterior are subjected to the same process. Thus after man, by
external instruction, and by wonderful Divine operations in his

22 THE GLORIFICATION OF
internal which do not come to his manifest perception, has been
brought to a state of full rationality, which takes place when he
arrives at adult age, the interior seat of his thought and affection is
placed in the middle between his inner natural mind and his spiritual
mind, whence he is in full liberty of turning either to the oneor to
the other. If he turns towards the spiritual mind, or, what is the
same thing, towards the Lord, the lowest degree of that mind is
opened ; but he cannot enter into it unless he procures for it a
corresponding external. The upper degree of the inner natural mind
is accordingly opened at the same time, and he is let into combat
with the evils and falses therein residing, which are excited by an
influx from hell ; and in proportion as he prevails over them, the
interior seat of his affection and thought is elevated into the spiritual
mind, and corresponding affections of good and truth are introduced
into the natural mind, in lieu of the evils and falses which are
expelled : and if he dies in this state, he becomes an angel of the
first heaven. But if, when he has proceeded thus far, he desires to
continue his upward progress, the second degree of his spiritual mind
is opened, and the second degree of the natural mind also, and the
process above described is repeated, with the difference, that the
combat being now waged between more interior goods and truths and
deeper evils and falses, is far more grievous than before ; the reward
of victory, however, is proportionally more excellent, the interior
seat of the affections and thoughts being raised to the second or
spiritual degree of the mind, and the man who dies in this state
becoming an inhabitant of the second or spiritual heaven. If,
however, the man remains in the world, and desires to go on in the
regeneration, the inmost degree of the spiritual mind is opened, and
at the same time the lowest degree of the natural mind, and new
combats, of a still more grievous nature, take place, which terminate
in the renewal of the whole natural mind after the exact image of
the spiritual mind, accompanied by the elevation of the interior seat
of man's affections and thoughts into the third or celestial region,
and his consequent exaltation, when his material covering is thrown
aside, to the highest heaven.
We have here said, that the interior seat of man's thought and
affection is placed between the inner natural mind and the spiritual
mind, and afterwards elevated into the spiritual mind ; because
these minds, being what constitute the spiritual part of man, are
clothed with the outer natural, in the mental part of which is the
actual seat of man's affection and thought whilst he lives in the
world ; not, as has been observed before, when treating expressly
on this subject ;* that this principle is itself capable of affection and
thought, but because the inner natural mind, and through this the
spiritual mind, think in it, whilst man inhabits the body. In like
manner it is to be observed, respecting the removal of evils and
* See the former part of our remarks, p. 15.

THE lord's humanity. 23
falses in the inner natural, that of this work man does nothing at
all, but it is wholly done for him by the Lord. But the Lord
cannot do it for him, except in proportion as man co-operates with
Him in the outer natural, in which he is together with the Lord,
by abstaining from the commission of actual evils, and by rejecting
all evil thoughts and inclinations as soon as they come to his
apperception.* For when man, conjointly with the Lord, does
this, he removes the plane in which the evils and falses of the
inner natural have their ultimate basis, into the place of which
evils and falses, the Lord is then able to introduce goods and truths,
and to provide for them a corresponding basis in the outer natural ;
and this process is carried on continually, till the whole of the inner
natural is regenerated in the manner before described. But there is
this difference to be observed between the renovation of the outer
natural and that of the inner natural, that the latter, being com
posed, as well as the spiritual mind, of organized spiritual substances,
is renewed by a descent from that mind, the substances produced
from which, when thus let down into a lower sphere, undergo no
other change than that of taking a more compounded form ; but the
organized substances of the outer natural, being taken wholly from
the world of nature, and being thus derived from an entirely different
origin, are no otherwise renovated by regeneration, than by the
extirpation of less pure natural substances arranged in a disorderly
form, and the substitution of purer substances, taken from the same
origin, and arranged agreeably to order. When, therefore, this outer
natural is wholly renewed, and brought into complete correspondence
with the spiritual mind and the fully regenerated inner natural, it
is still as destitute of life as before, — as incapable of receiving a
thinking principle, or of being any thing more than a covering to
such substances as are recipient of life and subjects of thought and
affection. These observations are made in relation to what we have
called the mental part of this outer natural : were the case otherwise,
and this, as well as the inner natural, could be made receptive of
spiritual Ufe, that life would in like manner descend to the instru
ment of speech and action proper to this outer natural, which
is the natural body, which also would thus acquire immortality,
and ascend to the regions of bliss : — but although this, with those
who are fully regenerated, is also renovated, and becomes quite
different in its quality from the bodies of those who remain in evil,
yet we know that it is not the more, on that account, exempt from
the power of death. If spiritual life could be made to descend so
low, its ascent would be correspondently high, since, as we have just
seen, the height of man's ascent into heaven is exactly proportioned
to the depth to which he permits heaven to descend into him ; such
a man, therefore, would rise after his departure hence, not to the
celestial heaven merely, but to the heaven of human internals. But
* See this subject copiously explained in the Angelic Wisdom concerning
Divine Providence, n. Ill to 122, paying particular attention to n. 120.

24 THE glorification of
this, instead of increasing his felicity, would destroy all conscious
ness of it :* for he would then be so swallowed up in the immediate
presence of the Divine, as to lose all sense of his individual existence ;
whereas the perfection of created natures consists in the full sensa
tion of life as their own accompanied by a clear perception that it is
the Lord's.
Thus we see, that as spiritual life, with man, can descend no lower
than to the ultimate degree of the inner natural mind, so neither can
it ascend any higher than to the supreme degree of the spiritual
mind. Not so with the Lord. His divine life descended into, and
made divine, the body also : and this presents a striking difference
between the Lord and man, between Infinite and finite, between Life
Itself and a mere recipient of life. Man, whilst he lives in the
world, is in last principles only, and not manifestly in interior
principles : spirits and angels are in middle principles only, and
neither in last principles nor in first : the Lord alone is in all ; He
is the Last because He is the First, and He also is the First because
He is the Last.
But to see this clearly it is necessary to take up the other part of
the comparison here instituted, and endeavour to point out how the
above view of the order of man's regeneration tends to illustrate the
subject of the Lord's glorification.
V. If the glorification of the Lord is imaged in the regeneration
of man ; and if, as we have just seen regeneration advances suc
cessively by discrete degrees ; it follows, that the interior degrees of
the Lord's Human Principle must have been made divine, long
before the glorifying process descended to the exterior. Many
passages of Scripture might be quoted in proof of this fact, but there
is one so plain as to render all doubt upon the subject quite im
possible: the Lord prayed, "Father, glorify Thy name. Then
came there a voice from heaven, saying, I both have glorified it, and
will glorify it again " [John xii. 28] ; plainly alluding to a process
or processes already completed, and to another or others still to be
accomplished.*]- As then the natural body is the last and lowest
part of man, it is evident that this must have been the last thing
appertaining to the Lord in which what was merely human could be
superseded by what was divine. This is a consideration, which, as
far as we know, has not in general been sufficiently attended to by
* We are informed by E. S that when the Lord spake the Word to the
prophets, or manifested Himself in a personal appearance to them and others, it
was effected by filling an angel with His presence, who then knew no other than
that he was the Lord. This, no doubt, was done, by raising the seat of the
angel's perception, for the time, to the inmost principle of his mind called the
mahun internal, the result of which would be the extinction of individual con
sciousness. t The Writings of our Scribe, also, contain many declarations of this truth,
of which it will be sufficient to quote the following :—" The Lord's Natural
Principle could not be made Divine, before truth was adjoined to His Rational,
and this was made Divine ; for the influx into the Natural must be from the
Divine Good of the Rational by Divine Truth there."— A. C. n. 3283.

the lord's humanity. 25
those who have meditated on this subject ; and it is a consideration
which,»in our apprehension, will go far towards removing the diffi
culties with which the subject has been clogged: — it therefore
deserves a particular investigation.
In the former part of our Remarks we gave a faint sketch of the
general principles which enter into the composition of the Lord's
Human : — it here becomes necessary to give a little fuller descrip
tion of it as it existed at the period of His birth, preparatory to a
view of the changes which it afterwards underwent.
We are informed by our Author, that the Lord derived from the
mother Mary nothing but the body (in which term, however, he
includes all that we have called the outer natural) ; and that His
soul (by which term is meant His inmost principle of life, not His
whole spiritual form), was the Divine Itself, or Jehovah. But how,
at His first entry into the world, was the interval between these
remote principles filled ? Doubtless in the same manner, in some
respects, that the interval between the human internal and the
body, which are the only parts that are developed in any perfection
at the period of birth, are filled in an ordinary infant ; and that
is, by the rudiments, merely, of the three degrees of the spiritual
mind, and the three degrees of the natural mind, derived from the
father : but in other respects His state was widely different. The
Lord it is true, at this period, had no more than the rudiments of
those principles of the Divine Human ; but with respect to the
infirm human, the outline was not only filled up much more com
pletely than in other infants, but in indefinitely greater fulness than
can possibly be the case with any full-grown man : for the three
degrees of His spiritual mind were filled with good and truth of
every possible kind as extant in all the heavens, thus in incom
parably greater abundance and perfection than they can ever exist
in the most completely regenerate person, yet rendered finite, and,
with respect to the Divine Itself, impure, by their transit through
the angelic mediums ;* and the three degrees of His inner natural
* We here mean what the author frequently calls " the Divine Human from
Eternity," and sometimes " the Lord from Eternity." That this principle was
assumed by the Lord when He came into the world, is affirmed in many pas
sages, as in the following : " What the ancients adored was the Divine Human,
for Jehovah in the Divine Human manifested Himself to them, and the Divine
Human was the Divine Itself in heaven, for heaven constitutes one man, which
is called the Grand Man : this Man is what the Lord took upon Him, and
united to the Divine Itself, as He had been united from eternity," &c. A.C.
n. 5663. — See the whole number, as also n. 4180. Respecting the weakness and
impurity of the Divine Human under this manifestation, the following extract
is decisive : " Why the Lord was called Shiloh (which signifies tranquil),
appears from what was said above, n. 6371, concerning the celestial kingdom
and its power ; for when the Divine was manifested through that kingdom,
there was intranquillity ; for the things in heaven and those in hell could not,
by it be reduced to order ; for the Divine which flowed through that kingdom
was not pure, because heaven is not pure, thus neither could that kingdom be
strong enough to keep all things in order ; wherefore also infernal and diabolical
spirits then rose from the hells, and ruled over the souls which came from the

26 THE glorification of
were filled with good and truth apparent only, not genuine, and also
with good and truth in every possible state of perversion, in con
sequence of passing through the world of spirits, then filled with
imaginary heavens constructed by every species of infernal spirits in
a state of insurrection. Thus the Lord, at His incarnation, when
clothed with a body like that of an ordinary infant, not only differed
from other infants in having the veriest Divine Esse as His inmost
soul, in lieu of that principle in mere men called the human in
ternal, but also in this respect, that in lieu of the rudiments of the
three spiritual and natural degrees as possessed by common indi
viduals, this inmost principle, in Him, was clothed with all the
heavens and all the world of spirits — His spiritual mind consisting,
as just observed, of good and truth of every order and degree, that
angels are capable of receiving, and as received by them, and His
inner natural of good and truth of every order and degree that
infernals, whilst out of hell,* are capable of perverting, and as
perverted by them. It is true that all this immense complex of
genuine but finite, and of apparent or perverted, good and truth,
had not, in Him, any hereditary ground, as it is clear that it was
not, so far as it was finite and perverted, derived from the Father,
nor yet actually, from the Mother Mary ; yet it is a certain fact
that the whole was interposed betweeen His divine soul and natural
body, to the latter of which it adhered, and that it formed, beyond
comparison, the most considerable part of His infirm humanity .f
This may be illustrated by the following consideration.
world ; whence it came to pass, that no others could then be saved than the
celestial, and at length scarcely they, had not the Lord assumed the Human,
and made that principle in Himself Divine," n. 6373.
* It is necessary to attend to this distinction ; for infernals, when in hell, are
in mere evils and falses without any apparent or external goods and truths, and
being thus destitute of any communication with heaven, they correspond to
confirmed evils and falses in man, for whom, when fully arrived to such a state,
there is no salvation :— nothmg of this kind, therefore, was admitted by the
Lord into His infirm Humanity. But infernals, while out of hell, are in pos
session of many goods and truths, which outwardly appear genuine, though
inwardly they are adulterated and falsified ; and whilst, by means of these, they
retain communication with heaven, they correspond to such evils and falses in
man as are not confirmed, and from which he may therefore be delivered, by
virtue of the redemption wrought out for him by the Lord : it is such evils and
falses as these that the Lord suffered to adhere to His infirm humanity. As to
the fact, that evils and falses did adhere to the hereditary principle received
from the mother, although the Lord, as is well known, was without sin, that
is, without actual evil, see A. C. n. 1414, 1444, 1573 : in the latter number it is
shown, how, in this sense, the common saying is true, that He bore the sins of
the whole world.
+ As the Lord's internal man, or spiritual mind, consisted, from birth, of
what was called the Divine Human from Eternity, that is, of genuine goods and
truths in all the fulness in which they exist in heaven, it is evident that this
was, even at birth from the Father, or from the Divine Itself, though it was not
Divine in Itself till every thing was put off, or separated from it, which it
derived from the angels : accordingly we find, that it was necessary for the Lord
to undergo temptations even from the angels [see A. C. n. 4295] ; and we are
also informed, that He made his Human Divine by mediums, but did not take
[as to his Divine Human] any thing from mediums [A. C. n. 4065, 4075].

THE lord's humanity. 27
The descent of the eternal Jehovah into the world of nature by actual
incarnation, is an event of such stupendous magnitude, that it is apt
to confine our thoughts, when reading the account of it in the Word,
to the literal expressions in which it is related, and to prevent our
reflecting, that the Word, in these passages as in all others, contains
a spiritual sense, the contents of which must be calculated to exalt
our admiration yet higher. Then what, in this sense, is signified by
the mother Mary ? Mother, we know, is a term that is predicated
of the church, by virtue of whose marriage with the Lord, all spiritual
births, or goods and truths, are produced in the mind of man. Now
the church exists not only on earth, but also in the world of spirits
and in heaven, the whole of which together, in the sight of the Lord,
appears as one grand human form. What the quality of the church
in this great complex was at the time of the incarnation, may appear
from what has been said above : — its quality was exactly similar to
that of the church particular in an individual man, prior to regenera
tion, but when all things are prepared for the accomplishment of that
work, — that is, when goods and truths in sufficient abundance have
been stored in his internal, while his external is still occupied by
evils and falses mixed with goods and truths not genuine. By the
divine transflux through the internal of this great mother, or the
angelic heavens, the Lord assumed His interior man or spiritual
mind : by a transflux through the external of this mother, or the
world of spirits, he assumed his exterior man or inner natural mind ;
and by a descent into an individual in the world of nature, He
provided a suitable basis for the whole in the assumption of a natural
body. Thus whilst He took an ultimate form from the natural
mother, the Virgin Mary, and a spiritual form from the spiritual
mother, the universal church, He in fact invested Himself with every
principle appertaining to every individual of the whole human race.
But as all that He thus condescended to assume, whether of finite
good, of apparent good, or of evil, was to Him impure, the whole
together constituted His infirm humanity, all of which therefore, was
to be put off, and superseded, from first to last, by what was infinite
and divine.
Such, we conceive, is the idea afforded by the doctrine of the New
With respect to the evils and falses in the Lord's exterior man, or inner natural,
these, it is obvious, were not derived from the Father, nor, actually, from the
mother, since nothing but the outer natural was literally taken from her, conse
quently, being thus destitute of any hereditary ground, they are scarcely to be
considered as forming an integral part even of the infirm humanity ; yet then-
presence was not, on this account less real, as is shown in the text. These
answer to the interior evils which man receives hereditarily from his father ;
the Lord could not receive anything of the kind from His Father ; yet, had they
not in some way been present with Him, He could not have overcome them and
removed them from man ; but as in Him they had no hereditary ground of their
own to rest on, but only adhered to that derived from the mother, He was able,
in the process of His glorification, utterly to expel and put them off, not merely
to remove them to a distance, as is all that is done in the case of man, of whose
constitution they form an integral part.

28 THE GLORIFICATION OF
Jerusalem on the subject of the Lord's incarnation ; — an idea of such
sublimity and grandeur, that, we should hope, even the most fastidious
rationalist, could he be induced to listen to it, must acknowledge it
to be as worthy of Infinite Majesty as of Infinite Mercy and Com
passion. And the stupendous operations necessary for the glorification
of all that was thus assumed, must, it is easy to discern, be equally
worthy of Infinite Wisdom and Power. These are what now demand
our attention.
In the accomplishment of this work of Omnipotence, our Author
informs us, that the Lord first made Himself Truth from the Divine,
[or, as He elsewhere calls it, Truth Divine,] afterwards Divine
Truth, and at length Divine Good* The Divine Itself, it is evident,
cannot dwell in anything not divine without the intervention of
mediums : thus the Lord Himself can only dwell in angels or in men
through the medium of His Divine Truth, which is the Divine that
proceeds from Him, and in which He Himself is.f Again ; the
Divine Truth, such as it is in itself, cannot come into contact with
anything false and evil, without the intervention of another medium,
which is Truth Divine, or Divine Truth finited by a transflux
through a finite medium, such as the angelic heavens. J Now with
the Lord at His birth, the Divine Itself, immediately encompassed
with the highest order of Divine Truth, formed His human internal :
and the three degrees of His spiritual mind were composed of Truth
Divine, or of every species of good and truth in a state of conjunction,
as enjoyed by the angels.§ These growing gradually weaker in their
* A. C. n. 7014.
f That what our author calls the Divine Truth is the same as the Divine
Proceeding, may be seen in the A. C. n. 9199, and Heaven and Hell, n. 13. In
the latter place it is shewn, that what is called Divine Truth is not Truth alone,
but Divine Truth in conjunction with Divine Good, proceeding from the Lord's
Divine Love. Divine Good and Truth, as thus proceeding from the Lord are
simply called Divine Truth, because they bear the same relation to Divine Good
and Truth, as existing in the Lord, as truth bears to good. So again our author
often says, that in the Lord is nothing but Divine Good, when yet it appears,
from other places, that in Him are both Love and Wisdom in the closest union ;
but these principles, as dwelling in Him, are simply called Divine Good, because
they bear the same relation to the same principles as proceeding from Him, as
good bears to truth.
% " Truth Divine, in the Lord's Human Divine, which underwent temptations,
is not Divine Truth Itself, for this is above all temptation, but it.is rational truth,
such as appertains to the angels, consisting in appearances of truth, and is what
is called the Son of Man, but before glorification ; but Divine Truth in the Lord's
glorified Divine Human, is above appearances, nor can it ever come to any
understanding, much less to the comprehension of men nor indeed of angels, thus
never to anything of temptation : it appears in the heavens as the light which
is from the Lord."-A. C. n. 2814.
§ The above view of the state of the Lord's internal man at birth, enables us
to understand a passage in the A. C. which appeared to us very obscure before we
attained our present views, but which, by their aid, becomes perfectly clear, and
affords a strong evidence of their correctness. It is said, n. 4594, that " the
reason why the Lord was born at Bethlehem, was, because He alone was born a
spiritual-celestial man, all others being born natural, with the faculty or power
of becoming, by regeneration from the Lord, either celestial or spiritual. The
reason why the Lord was born a spiritual- celestial man, was, that He might be

the lord s humanity. 29
descent, in proportion to their degree of remoteness from their origin,
were finally, on their entry into the natural mind, brought into a
state of perversion. Before then any open communication could be
established between the Divine Itself and the (rater natural, in which,
as with men, was the actual seat of the Lord's perceptions whilst in
the world,* it was necessary that this perversion should be rectified,
by making Truth Divine descend into the inner natural in direct
order, which could not be donew ithout strengthening the influx from
the spiritual mind by exchanging Truth Divine therein for Divine
Truth Itself. This great work, which was attended, as may be
supposed, with most grievous conflicts, was accomplished by the Lord
in the interval between infancy and manhood. At this latter
period, the Divine had descended so as to fill the whole of His
internal man or spiritual mind ; — " Jehovah had bowed the heavens
and come down, and darkness was under His feet " [Ps. xviii. 9] ;
— and the strong influx thence descending into His external man,
had overthrown the imaginary heavens in the world of spirits, and
cast down their inhabitants to the earth of that world, — " He sent
out His arrows and scattered them, He shot out lightnings and
discomfited them" [ib. ver. 14] ; — thus opening a way for the divine
influx to flow even to His outer natural in direct order, and conse
quently elevating the interior seat of His perceptions and thoughts
to the middle between His natural and spiritual minds. But the
able to make His Human Divine, and this, according to order, from the lowest
degree to the highest, and thus to arrange in order all things in the heavens and
in the hells ; for the spiritual-celestial is the intermediate between the natural
or external man and the rational or internal, thus below it is the natural or
external, and above it is the rational or internal." This appears to describe the
state to which man attains when goods and truths are stored in his internal
in preparation for their descent into the external ; in this state the Lord was
born ; but this did not preclude the necessity for His coming to Bethlehem again
in His return towards union with the Father, after He had passed through the
states described by the history of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; but He was not
then, as at first, merely a spiritual-celestial man, but a Divine Spiritual-Celestial
Man, — His internal man then consisting of Divine Truth Itself, which was also
about to descend and take the place of Truth Divine in His external man.
* Many persons ask, on being told that it was the eternal Jehovah that assumed
the Humanity in the world, " How then was the universe governed during this
interval? Must not heaven have been left without its sovereign ? " To this it
may be replied, that the Divine Itself remained in and above heaven as before,
but that, as commonly supposed, the Lord had really, whilst in the world, a
distinct perception, though derived from the Divine. The case herein was
exactly similar to what exists with ordinary men. They, in like manner, have
an internal and an external, which, whilst they are in the world, are quite
distinct, though this does not make a single man two distinct persons. The
interior seat of man's perceptions is in his internal, and higher or lower therein
according to his state in the regeneration ; but of this he has no consciousness,
the actual seat of his perceptions being still in what we have called the outer
natural, thus just within the body, which only thinks and wills from the internal,
into which man comes actually after death. Thus whilst the Lord was in the
world, He, though not a distinct Person from the Father, had distinct per
ceptions, but not when, by the glorification of His external man, the internal
seat of His perceptions became also their actual seat, which was after His
ascension.

30 THE GLORIFICATION OF
infernals, though ejected from their artificial heavens, were not yet
cast into hell,* nor could be, before Truth Divine in the Lord's
natural was also made Divine Truth. The Lord, likewise, though
now in manifest communication with the Father, and thus possessed
of the power of performing divine works even in the natural world,
was still far from having arrived at union with Him. He had, as
He tells His disciples, " left the Father and come into the world ;"
but the chief portion of the other no less necessary part of the work
of salvation was still to be performed, which consisted in His
" leaving the world and going to the Father." This was to be done
exactly in the manner in which man is elevated to nearer and nearer
conjunction with the Lord, which is, as has been shewn above, by
the successive opening of the three degrees of the spiritual mind, and
the transfer of the interior seat of the perceptions thither, in conse
quence of the removal of the clogs in the natural mind which had
previously drawn them downwards, and by the substitution of a new
external in perfect correspondence with the heavenly internal, and
which, instead of being the rival of its power, is the willing instru
ment of its service. It was thus that the Lord, by admitting the
infernals to assault with temptations continually more grievous, the
Truth Divine in His natural mind, not only expelled from Himself
all of evil and false, but all of flniteness, substituting Divine Truth
for Truth Divine, and thus opening and entering into, first His
Divine Celestial -and -Spiritual -Natural, afterwards His Divine
Spiritual, then His Divine Celestial, and finally, when the deifying
influence had performed its work in the body also, returning into
the bosom of the Father or Inmost Divinity, together with and in a
Divine Humanity, adapted for the accomplishment of all His pur
poses of salvation in time and to eternity.
We have here again to keep the attention of the reader fixed on
the main object of this dissertation, anticipated the conclusion that
we have in view, though we have not yet expressly considered the
order of the glorification of the outer natural ; but our observations
have again grown to such a length, that we must reserve this till
another time. We do not offer our suggestions as being certainly
true, but we trust they will not be found injuriously erroneous.
Enough may perhaps have been said, to give some faint, though
totally inadequate idea, of the immensity of the work accomplished
by the Lord for the redemption of mankind; and enough, it is
hoped, to awaken attention to the grandeur of the process to be
accomplished in us, if we are willing to follow the Lord in the
regeneration, and in which, if it takes place at all, we must strenu-
* That the first stage of the work of a general judgment consisted in the
rejection of infernal spirits from their imaginary heavens, and the second sta<re
in their detrusion into hell, appears from various parts of our author's works
particularly in his explanations of the Apocalypse, where it is described by the
castmg down of the Dragon and his crew, first from heaven to earth, and after
wards into hell.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 31
ously co-operate with Him. Let us regard this as the real business
of our lives ; and then, however obscure our views may be at present
respecting subjects of such deep enquiry as that before us, we may
console ourselves with the assurance, that if we thus secure conjunc
tion with the Lord in His Divine Humanity, we shall eventually
(making allowance for finite imperfections), attain some clear views
of its nature. Editors.
letter in reply to the above by mr. clowes.*
To the Editors of the Intellectual Repository.
Gentlemen,
I have received your Repository for the present month, and have
been much gratified by the perusal both of your's and of your
correspondent J. A.'s Remarks on the Divine Human ; and since
I am compelled to suppose that they were intended as a reply to my
sentiments on the same subject, I think it right to observe, that I
see nothing in them which militates at all against my former state
ments. For I entirely agree with you both, that the Lord's
resurrection-body was not material, but Divinely Substantial.
The only point in question, therefore is, did materiality at all enter
into the composition of that Divinely Substantial Body ? You are
inclined to assert the negative, and I the affirmative of this question ;
and if I am not greatly mistaken, our enlightened author asserts the
affirmative also, when he so repeatedly declares, that the Lord left
nothing behind Him in the sepulchre, but rose with His whole body
complete, different from other men. For how shall we reconcile
this declaration with the idea of all materiality being cast off and
dissipated ? It is agreed by us all, that the body deposited in the
tomb was a material body. What then, shall we say, became of
this materiality 1 If we contend that it was dispersed in the tom,
or otherwise separated, we deny the declaration of our author, as above
stated, that the whole body was raised complete, and that nothing
was left behind in the sepulchre. It appears therefore evident to
me, that the assertion of E. S. can only be reconciled on this
principle of belief, that the complete body, which was laid in the
tomb, was glorified, or made Divine, and since that body was
confessedly a material body, therefore the material body was
glorified, or made Divine, on which occasion it became no longer
material, but a Divinely Substantial Body, in like manner as
the Lord's natural and sensual principles, which, we all agree, were
never dissipated, became at His glorification no long merely natural
and sensual, but Divine.
Pardon me, Gentlemen, for these further remarks on a subject of
* The above letter has been removed from its original place to prevent an
interruption in the preceding article by Mr. Noble.— W. B.

32 THE GLORIFICATION OF
so much delicacy and difficulty of apprehension, and impute them to
their true and real motive, which I can solemnly assure you in the
sight of our now Glorified Saviour, is nothing else but a real
sincere desire to obtain, for myself as well as others, a just and proper
idea of the Lord's glorification. That this glorification extended to
something, which previous to it was not Divine, we must all allow,
for in what other sense can the term glorification be applied ? Why
then might it not extend to the purest principles of matter, as well
as to the purest principles of nature ? I confess I see nothing in
this idea contradictory either to Scripture, to reason, or to the
testimony of our enlightened scribe. But I desist from pressing the
argument further, well aware of the holy ground on which I stand,
and of the necessity, as your respectable correspondent J. A. justly
observes, of taking off my shoes from off my feet. I will be content
therefore with thinking, that your readers are now acquainted with
my sentiments, and if I am in an error, I shall feel much obliged to
any of them if they will convince me of it.
Devoutly praying that, with all our variety of speculative views,
we may all of us, in heart, in soul, in mind, and strength, be
firmly and sincerely united in love to our Divine Lord, and to one
another, I remain, Gentlemen, Affectionately yours, &c,
Manchester, January 20th, 1818.
NOTE BY THE EDITORS.
The Editors feel much pleasure in laying the above very kind
and candid communication before their readers ,- and beg leave to
return their thanks to the esteemed author for the favourable
manner in which he speaks of their imperfect observations on this
Divine subject, and to express their hopes, that, before the dis
cussion is closed, the sentiments of both parties will be brought
into more perfect harmony.

THE LORDS HUMANITY. 33

CHAPTER IV.
REVIEW.
An Essay on the Resurrection of the Lord; being an humble Attempt to answer the
Question, With what Body did the Lord rise from, the dead ? With an Appendix,
containing the Authorities consulted in relation to tliat Subject. To which is added a
Supplementary Essay on the Analogy or Coincidence between the Lord as u, Person
and the Lord as the Word. By Robert Hindmarsh, Author of various Worhs
in defence of the New Jerusalem.
Many are the obligations which the venerable Author of the impor
tant work now before us has conferred upon those who are interested
for the establishment in the world of the Lord's New Church,
signified in the Revelation by the New Jerusalem ; and his name
will be mentioned with respect, by those who succeed them, to remote
generations. If the name of a Justin or a Tertullian has here
tofore been held in honour, for the noble apologies in which they
vindicated the first Christian Church, in its early years, from the
calumnies of heathen and Jewish adversaries, not less honour will
hereafter be considered to be due to him, who, in apologetic or vin
dicatory works of a like unanswerable kind, has defended the new
and true Christian Church, in its infancy, against the cavils of a
Priestley and a Pike ; who, in the first of those works, gave the
earliest specimen of New Church polemic theology, and a specimen
which has not yet been surpassed ; and who in other able publica
tions, and by his personal exertions, as well in his ministerial
capacity as otherwise, has contributed so much towards the building
up of the walls of our Jerusalem. Now also, that the excellent
Clowes is gone, Mr. Hindmarsh is, we believe, of all persons in this
country, the oldest receiver of the divine verities of the New Jeru
salem, — the man whose eyes were opened to recognise, before any
other man now living, the heavenly truths discovered in the writings
of the Lord's servant, Emanuel Swedenborg. On every subject
connected with those truths, the opinions of such a man must be
entitled to the highest respect ; and if, in regard to the more abstruse
parts of the doctrines of the New Church — those which, according
to the testimony of the enlightened Herald who announced them,
cannot be brought fully within the comprehension of either men or
angels, — some should have formed views not in all respects the same
as those of Mr. Hindmarsh, the discovery that they have done so
should induce them to review their conclusions afresh ; and if they
still find themselves unable to see such things in the same light as
he does, they should avow this with modesty ; in the full conviction
that, if truth could be determined by human authority, and weighed

34 THE GLORIFICATION OF
by external probabilities, the highest living authority is against
them, and, according to external rules of probability, they are likely
to be in error.
Such, we are sorry to be constrained to confess, do we find to be
our situation, after having perused the work of Mr. Hindmarsh
now before us ; and it is with the feelings of modesty and self-
distrust which should be the experience of all who find themselves
in such circumstances, that we presume to state in what respects we
cannot altogether coincide with some of the ideas presented in this
volume. We well know that our much respected friend wiU take
ao offence at our humbly doing so. Among the many admirable
qualities by which he is distinguished, the perfect temper and con
siderate kindness, which he is in the habit of displaying towards
even rude opponents, are not the least conspicuous. Among the
pleasing traits, also, of the volume before us, none is more striking,
than the modesty with which he puts forth his own views, and the
deferential regard which he manifests to the sentiments of others.
Far from presuming, as many so situated would do, on his age, his
character, his standing in the Church, and the thorough knowledge
which he is universally known to possess of everything that can
assist towards a right understanding of the subjects before him ;
far from, on these or any other grounds, pretending to dictate what
others should believe ; he even in his title-page designates his work
" an humble attempt ;" he declares in his preface that " this work
has been undertaken, not without much fear and diffidence on the
part of the author, lest anything contrary to the truth of revelation
should find a place in it ;" he admits that "it is possible that some
undefinable bias of mind may on this occasion have betrayed him
into a partiality for sentiments, which, in the judgment of others
more enlightened than himself [such is his modest estimation of
himself] may be founded in error, and prove rather disadvantageous
than beneficial to the true interests of the New Church ;*' and he
everywhere shews the same candid, liberal, and humble spirit. It is
impossible not to feel the highest respect, both for such a man, and
for opinions so unobtrusively propounded. It is equally impossible
to doubt, that truth alone is the object of such a writer ; and that
it is without any preference for an opinion, because of his own in
vention, but with the purest sincerity and disinterestedness, that he
desires " to unite all the professors of the new doctrines in one con
sistent view of the process, whereby the Lord rejected the mere
Humanity which died on the cross, and invested himself with the
Divine Humanity which never could die, but which, by disengaging
itself from all connection with mortal forms, triumphantly rose from
the dead, and ascended into heaven." In this desire we most cor
dially participate ; and in whatever we may say respecting some
parts of* Mr. Hindmarsh's suggestions on the subject, we beg that
we may not be considered as opponents of him, but as fellow-labourers
with him, whose only aim is to contribute a mite, however small,

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 35
towards the accomplishment of the object, which alone, we are satis
fied, he has in view.
The chief design of the work cannot be better stated than in the
following extract from the preface :
" While some have contended, that the Lord rose with the same material Body
which was crucified and buried, others have maintained that he rose with a
Divine Body perfectly distinct from the former. In the first of these cases, it
has been thought, that the infirm Body must, in some miraculous way, have
been deprived of its materiality, and changed into a Divine Body ; and in the
second case, which does not allow of such a change, another question naturally
suggests itself, namely, ' What then became of the material Body, if it neither rose
from the dead, nor was tobe found in the sepulchre?' This difficulty, as before
observed, has in a great measure been overlooked, or at least not so fully con
sidered, as its importance seems to demand ; and until it be cleared up in a
manner consistent with all the preceding stages of the Lord's glorification, in
which he successively put off the infirmities, properties, and substances of the
mere Humanity from the mother, and put on the perfections, properties, and
substances of the Divine Humanity from the Father, it is conceived, that the
true doctrine of the Lord's resurrection will still be held in suspense and
uncertainty. "To remove, therefore, if possible, all doubts on this most interesting subject,
and to shew the eternal distinction between the infirm, earthly Body of frail
mortality, and the Divine Body, which came down from heaven, and returned
back to heaven, this work has been undertaken."
After which follows the avowal of " fear and diffidence" cited above.
To this the author subjoins, very properly, because, no doubt, truly,
that the work " is now offered, not hastily, but after more than
fifty years' deep reflection upon all the bearings of the question, to
the acceptance of the Church,'' with the view already stated. We
cannot boast of so long a study of the subject ; yet perhaps an
attention to it during about thirty-six years may be sufficient, so far
as an understanding of it is to be hoped for from one's own reflec
tions, to enable a man to discern some of its principal truths. We
are not sure, however, that long-protracted study is of the very first
importance in regard to such a subject. We well remember the
time when the chief light which we ever obtained respecting it flowed
into our mind ; and though, we think, we have since seen several of
the subordinate particulars in clearer light than we did then, yet
we have never found cause to doubt the grand features of the view,
which then, as we believe, from the divine mercy of the Lord, was
opened to our apprehension. We know, also, that the study of
the subject, still longer continued, never brought the intelligent
Clowes to the conclusions which have been formed by the no less
intelligent Hindmarsh; and yet there is no man who, a priori,
might appear more likely to be favoured with the most genuine
perceptions, on such a subject, than that pious and distinguished
character. In regard to the particular point in which Mr. Clowes
and Mr. Hindmarsh thought differently, the view which we have
obtained constitutes a medium : and as it can hardly be supposed
that, on such a subject, men of such knowledge and sincerity as
both of these should be greatly mistaken, there is, we think, a
strong presumption in favour of the opinion which combines the
d 2

36 THE GLORIFICATION OF
main feature of the view held by each with that held by the other,
only discarding defective adjuncts which impart, perhaps, to both
views the attribute of error. And the presumption, in the present
case, is rendered stronger by the fact, that the view which we would
recommend, and which combines those of Mr. Clowes and Mr.
Hindmarsh, so modified, into one, was not devised, or thought of,
with reference to that object. It occurred to us, originally, as a correc
tive of that of Mr. Clowes, but before we knew specifically what that
of Mr. Hindmarsh was ; and now that we have seen this fully de
veloped in the work before us, it is equally adapted, we apprehend, as
a corrective of his. Take away from each the particular in which they
eem to contradict plain declarations of Swedenborg, and which they
only surmount by unsatisfactory reasoning ; and bring together the
great point about which each was most solicitous, but which each
maintains in a way that renders it incompatible with the other ; and
you will have the idea of the grand subject which appears to us to
be that of the Word, and of the doctrines of the New Church, as
thence deduced, in heavenly light, by the divinely instructed
Swedenborg. The great object which Mr. Clowes had in view, plainly was, to
maintain inviolate the truth, without which the New Church, as
such, cannot exist ; — that the Lord, in his Humanity, is in all
respects a Divine Man, and thus has the very ultimate of the Human
Principle as fully and completely as man in the world has. He
appears to have thought that such a view as that of Mr. Hind
marsh presents the Lord as a Divine Man no farther than as angels
and spirits are men, and not, also, as man in the world is* To
secure the idea of his being as much a man as man in the world is,
he deemed it necessary to maintain, that " the same identical body
which was laid in the tomb was raised to life again by a divine
power, without any kind of diminution, dismemberment, or dis
organization whatsoever ; "¦*- and thus, that if it was material at the
crucifixion, it remained material at the resurrection."!: The declara-
'' * Our authority for this statement is the following, (see p. 7,) "If it be said
that the Lord's resurrection-body, with its fiesh and bones, was not material, but
only spiritual, I would then insist that no difference is made between his resur
rection-body and that of a spirit, and that thus the Lord's own declaration is
contradicted, which asserts a difference" (meaning Luke xxiv. 39)
+ Ibid.
% His words are, " The single question then is, What shall we say was the
specific nature of the Lord's body, when it was taken down from the cross, and
laid in the sepulchre ? Was it at that time material, or was it immaterial ? If
you say, material, then I insist that you accede to my idea, that the material
body was glorified, or made Divine ; since if it was material at the time of its
being entombed, how could its materiality be dissipated at its resurrection,
unless something was left behind in the sepulchre, contrary to the testimony of our
Author ? How also could it be said with any degree of propriety, that the Lord
rose with his whole body complete, if materiality was removed at the resurrection *>"
(Ib.) He afterwards, however, asserts, that this was not a materiality " derived
from the mother," this having been previously put off, but " assumed from the
Father."— (pp. 6, 7.)

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 37
tions of Swedenborg which he herein seems to contradict, and which,
as appears to us, he only surmounts by unsatisfactory reasoning,
are those which assert that the Lord's resurrection-body was not
material.* Mr. Hindmarsh, also, wishes to maintain the grand New- Church
truth, that the Lord, in his Glorified Humanity, is a Divine Man
in all fulness. But he thinks (in our opinion, justly), that if the
Lord's resurrection-body were material, or if materiality entered
into the composition of it in any way whatever, though he might
therein be a Man in all fulness, he could not be fully a Divine
Man ; which part of the doctrine is not less important than the
other. But to establish this essential truth, and to get completely
rid of the notion of there being anything of materiality attaching
to the Lord's resurrection-body, he seems to consider that the
Divine Body was fully formed, or brought down from the Father,
within the material body, before the latter was "laid down." This
is an unauthorized expression, which he frequently uses, and which,
to our minds, cannot be used without suggesting the idea, that the
Divine Body, in as ultimate degree as it ever descended to, and the
material body, were capable of subsisting together, and that the
former was extricated (a term which he also employs without autho
rity) from the latter, much in the way that man's spirit is separated
from his body at death. These modes of speaking certainly imply,
that the Lord has not the ultimates of Humanity in equal fulness
with man in the world, and thus seem to contradict those declara
tions of Emanuel Swedenborg which assert this, and which affirm
that he rose with his whole body complete ; which are only sur
mounted by reasonings that we cannot regard as satisfactory.
* See Doct. of the Lord, n. 35 (twice) Apoc. Revealed, n. 504, True Christian
Religion, n. 92, 103, 111, Arcana Celestia, n. 5576. When pressed with these
and similar passages, Mr. Clowes afterwards writes (Intel. Rep. vol. iv. p. Ill),
" I entirely agree with you that the Lord's resurrection-body was not material,
but Divinely Substantial." Yet he still argues, upon the same grounds as
in the passages cited in the preceding note, that " materiality did enter into
the composition of that Divinely-Substantial Body ;" which appears to render
nugatory his admission just made. This communication is dated "March,
1818." But if, at this time, he appeared to waver in his opinion, he seems
afterwards most decidedly to have returned to his first conviction. In his work
on the Gospel of John, printed in 1819, he cites, on ch. xx. 19, the author's
remark from A. C. n. 10825, that the Lord " rose again with his whole body,
for he left nothing in the sepulchre, and although he was a man as to flesh and
bone, still he entered through the doors when shut, and after he had manifested
himself he became invisible." To this Mr. C. appends this note : " That the
Lord's body, at his resurrection, was a material body, and that though material,
it still entered through the doors when shut, is here expressly declared ; for it
is said that " He was a man as to fiesh and bone, and that nevertheless he entered
through the doors when shut. But the flesh and bones of a man are surely
material." " That the Lord's body at his resurrection was a material body," is
certainly "here expressly declared;" only, however, by Mr. C, not by Swe
denborg. The inference deduced by the latter from the circumstances mentioned
is, not that the Lord's body was material, but, " Hence now it is evident, that
even the Human [principle] in the Lord is Divine." It is because man's flesh
and bones are material that they cannot pass through closed doors, and cannot
become invisible.

38 THE GLORIFICATION OF
It is with great pleasure that we are able to record our conviction,
as already intimated, than nothing can be farther from Mr. Hind
marsh's intention, than in any degree to invalidate the grand truth,
without which the New Church can have no existence, that the
Lord, in his Glorified Humanity, is a Divine Man in all fulness.
He is too well acquainted with the writings in which the truths of
the New Church are developed by the Lord's servant Emanuel
Swedenborg, and too sincerely admits their authority, to question
this for a moment ; and when he directly states his views upon
that subject, without reference to any collateral question, none can
do it more clearly and decidedly. Thus we think that the general
doctrine of the New Church upon the whole subject cannot easily
be more clearly and beautifully stated than is done by Mr. Hind
marsh in the following passage of Sect. II. —
" As every intelligent being consists of an essence and a form, so the Lord
himself, or Jehovah, must in like manner consist of a Divine Essence and a Divine
Form. We say nothing here of the Divine Esse, because that is far beyond the
reach of human thought.
" The Divine Essence consists of love and wisdom united, both infinite,
eternal, and consequently incomprehensible by any finite capacity, except as
revealed in the Word, or in the works of creation, in a way accommodated
respectively to angels and to men.
" The Divine Form may be considered as a substantial concentration, or modi
fication (*) of the Divine Essence, equally invisible and imperceptible to finite
beings, until by influx into and through angelic forms it became an object of
sight and perception. And as these angelic forms were at length found in
capable of retaining and reflecting the Divine Form, in such manner as to be
efficient in curbing and restraining the growing power of evil, it therefore
became necessary that the Divine Essence, together with its Divine Form,
should proceed further towards the ultimates of nature, and therewith and
therefrom clothe itself with a Body of flesh, similar to that of man, and such
as was alone qualified to promote those divine purposes for which it was
assumed. " The accomplishment of these great ends was effected by the Divine Essence
and Divine Form together, more especially by the latter, called the Word or
Divine Truth. At length the Lord, after having, by his descent into the
natural principle, not only given to the human race all needful facility of access
to the Divinity, but acquired to himself from the Divinity within him a Divine
Natural Humanity, together with the actual and permanent capacity of com
municating to his creatures all the benefits and blessings suited to their several
states, separated from himself the infirm material Body, which had been
assumed as a temporary and subordinate medium, and returned back to his
original glory in and with a purely Divine Humanity.
"Thus the Divine Form is presented in three several and distinct points of
view, viz., first, as existing before the incarnation; secondly, as dwelling in a
tabernacle of frail mortality, or mere Humanity, assumed in the world ; and,
thirdly, as an all-glorified Body perfectly Human, yet at the same time perfectly
Divine. In the first state it was an Emanation from the Divine Essence flow
ing into and through the heavens, and capable of being perceived therein only
through -the medium of some angelic form. In the second state it may be
considered as the same Divine Emanation descending from the heavens through
(*) The terms substantial concentration and modification are here used for want of
better and more appropriate terms. The idea intended to be conveyed is, that the
Divine Essence in its first tendency towards manifestation arranges itself into a
substantial form or figure, too pure to be seen by any finite eye, uritil by a, further
extension of the external sphere wherein angels dwell, and by its influx through that
sphere, it becomes visible or perceptible to those in and under heaven.

THE lord's humanity. 39
the world of spirits into the natural worid, and clothing itself with substances
derived therefrom, first in the womb of the mother, and afterwards in the usual
way of bodily nutrition. With the body so derived from the mother, and
continued under the successive changes and natural resolutions to which it
was subject, the Lord also inherited a variety of affections, propensities, and
inclinations, such as are common with other men ; so that he may be said not
only to have put on the infirmities, but also the evils of human nature, yet
without being chargeable with their actuality or guilt, which constitutes sin ;
for, saith he, ' Which of you convinceth (or convicteth) me of sin f — John
viii. 46. In this second state, also, besides the external Humanity from the
mother, the Lord derived the rudiments of a Divine Natural Humanity from
the Father ; and while he was continually in the effort of putting off the
former, he was as constantly engaged in putting on, perfecting, and glorifying
the latter. But in process of time, when the third state took effect, not only
all the evils, infirmities, affections, propensities, and inclinations, but together
with them all the substances and forms so inherited and derived from the
mother and from finite nature, were completely removed, expelled, and exter
minated from his Person ; and in their stead were derived, substituted, and
permanently fixed, Divine Substances, Divine Forms, and Divine Human Prin
ciples, all from the pure and Essential Divinity within him, which was from
first to last his Divine Soul.
"The last observation, That all the substances, forms, and principles of the
Lord's Divine Humanity were derived solely from the pure and Essential
Divinity within him, calls for the particular attention of the reader. It would
appear, indeed, upon a slight or superficial consideration of the subject, as if
they were derived from the material or maternal Humanity, because in the act
of derivation this latter was in request, for the purpose of effecting their acqui
sition and consolidation. But this is only an appearance, the real truth being,
that nothing whatever appertaining to the Lord's Divine Human Body was
derived from the mother, or from the material substances and forms of the
infirm Humanity, but only by means of them ! —
" So that the Lord's Humanity, when perfectly glorified, thus perfectly sepa
rated from everything evil, impure, and infirm, from everything merely human,
and consequently from every matter, substance, and property, by the necessity
of its nature finite, became in ultimates, as it ever had been in first principles,
purely, substantially, and permanently, the proper Form of Divinity ; in other
words, it became the Divine Humanity."
We have omitted in the above extract (which otherwise would be
continuous) the similes of a building erected by means of scaffold
ing, and a golden vessel cast in a mould ; because, if they illustrate
the subject in one respect, we think they at least equally obscure it
in another ; as they suggest the idea already adverted to, that the
Divine Humanity was wholly formed within the material or mater
nal humanity, and thus could not come fully into ultimates. The
author, however, admits them to be " very inadequate compa
risons ;" perhaps on account of their conveying this erroneous idea.
Something of the same notion also appears to adhere to the phrase
"separated from himself" applied to "the infirm material body,"
though capable of being taken in a sense which is true. "" Glorify
ing the latter," spoken of the " Divine Natural Humanity," is an
inaccurate term ; since " to glorify (E. S. says) is to make Divine ;"
consequently, that which is Divine cannot be glorified or made
Divine. With these slight exceptions, we think the whole extract
conveys a most striking and luminous description, both of the
nature of the Divine Humanity and of the process of its assump
tion. And similar pure and delightful - exhibitions of genuine

40 THE GLORIFICATION OF
truth abound throughout the volume. We just add another short
specimen upon the same subject.
" As the Lord thus rose with a Divine Body, after expelling the infirm Human
ity, it can no more be said that this latter Humanity, derived partly it may be
from the substance of the mother, and partly from other elements of matter,
was converted into a Divine Form, than those substances were, which in the
former periods of his life had contributed to form the first Humanity from the
mother, and which had been previously and successively put off. The former
and the latter substances were undoubtedly resolved into the elements of matter
 • while divine substances and forms succeeded to those put off, and became
fixed in the Divine Natural Person of the Lord, even to the ultimate degree of
life, called flesh and bones. Thus the Divinity, which from all eternity had a
Divine Natural Humanity, in potency, now descended and invested itself with
the same in actuality."^
Here we think the genuine truth, respecting the putting off of
the infirm humanity, and the putting on of the Divine Humanity,
is stated with most admirable accuracy, and in its full extent.
It is abundantly plain from the above passages, and from many
others which might be adduced, that the author intends to uphold
in its full extent the great truth, that the Lord assumed, "in
actuality," the " Divine Natural Humanity," " even to the ulti
mate degree of life, called flesh and bones.'' Whenever he speaks
directly upon the subject, he affirms this most positively. It is
equally obvious, that the great drift of his work is, utterly to
abolish the notion, that the Lord took anything whatever from the
mother, or from any created origin, into union with himself, and
consequently, that the body which rose could not be the same in
substance with that which was crucified, — of course, not material,
as that was. The design, in our estimation, is laudable, and, in
many respects, the execution of it excellent. Still, the author's
solicitude on this point has, we think, though we say it with great
deference, carried him too far, and has led to expressions, and even
trains of reasoning, the tendency of which to us appears to be,
however meant by him, that, after all, the Lord in his Glorified
Humanity is not so fully a man as man in the world is, — not much
more so than angels ; thus lending some countenance to the mis
taken though well-intended conclusion of the venerable Clowes,
that " to say that the Lord's resurrection-body, with its flesh and
bones, was not material," is equivalent to saying that it is "only
spiritual," and makes " no difference between it and that of a
spirit." We have already noticed how something of this seems to be in
volved in the use of the terms laid down, and extricated from, in
reference to the putting off of the infirm humanity. We think it
also is implied in such language and reasoning as the following : 
" It is indeed difficult to give up the appearances of truth, especially when these
have become the matter of religious faith, and have perhaps been confirmed bv
length of time, and by the authority of respectable names. Hence we account
tor the still prevailing opinion, that, after the crucifixion and burial of the
Lords material Body, and his complete separation from it, he again re-entered

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 41
it, and by an act of omnipotence raised it from a state of mortality to an
instantaneous participation in the divine attributes. But with what law of the
divine order, either respecting man's regeneration, or the Lord's glorification,
was it consistent, that he should have returned back again into this world, or,
which amounts to the same thing, into the infirm material Body, after he had
once departed out of it, in his progress towards the heaven of heavens, or
towards his full and final union with the Divine Essence f Certainly not with
any that has hitherto become the subject of revelation. Nor does such retro-
gradation of state at all comport with the ever-advancing process of regenera
tion so urgently inculcated in the Scriptures as necessary to the well-being
of man ; still less does it agree with that divine process of glorification, which
is continually held out as the perfect pattern and example, in imitation of
which the regenerate man is ever rising from a state of natural and carnal
appetite into a state of spiritual and heavenly affection."
The respected writer commences the above paragraph with a
reference to a " prevailing opinion :" — whether he means in the Old
Church or in the New we are not certain ; but in either case his
reasoning assumes as true the Lord's "complete separation from"
his " material body" " after its crucifixion and burial ;" so that,
supposing it ever to have been resuscitated, he must have " again
re-entered it." We mean, he assumes as true, or his reasoning
tends to nothing, that the Lord had left the material body, so that
this remained separate (or at least might have so remained), — a
mere dead body, like that of an ordinary man when the spirit has
departed. But if it were so, then, as in ordinary men, it could be
nothing but the Lord's spiritual body that was resuscitated, or rose
to union with the Divine Essence, partaking as little of the ulti
mates of humanity, called, in the Word, flesh and bones, as any
ordinary spirit. Much more reasoning of the same sort follows,
which is all nugatory unless the same supposition be assumed as
its basis ; and, if such a supposition be ungrounded, it is nugatory
anyhow. All proceeds upon the assumption, that the Lord's
Divine Form was separated from the material body, when, or soon
after, the latter was laid in the tomb ; whence to think of its return
ing to it again, were as preposterous as to think of an angel's
returning from heaven to resume his body of clay. " Why," he
asks farther, " should the Lord return back into the world, after he
had obtained the end for which he came into it, and in consequence
had entirely quitted it ?" — (P. 49.) Which supposes, what there
is no attempt to prove, that he had obtained the end for which he
came into the world, and had entirely quitted it, before the material
body had disappeared from the sepulchre. If it was so, we repeat,
the Lord rose again as a Divine Spirit, not as a Divine Man ; or in
a Divine Spiritual Body, not in a Divine Natural Body. Mr.
Hindmarsh, we have seen, means to prove the latter ; so his
reasoning here, if we rightly understand it, is all beside the question.
This reasoning, however, is continued for some time, not without
many real evidences interspersed of the Divinity, consequently, of
the non-materiality, of the Lord's resurrection-body. It at length
branches into a dissertation on miracles, particularly with reference
to the miraculous restoration of deceased persons to life. The

42 THE GLORIFICATION OF
intelligent writer is of opinion, that no recovery of a person abso
lutely dead is within the limits even of miraculous possibility, and
thus that the instances recorded in the Word were merely extreme
cases of suspended animation ; not, however, on that account, the
less truly miraculous, as in them the spirit had so far withdrawn
from the exteriors of the body, only lingering, ready to depart alto
gether, in its inmost recesses, that no human means whatever would
have been able to bring it back, and restore the disordered body to
a state fit for its inhabitation. The author submits his views on
this subject with apologies, and seems to expect that they will be
disputed. We know not why. To us they appear clearly founded
in truth ; and we regard the whole of the protracted disquisition
in which they are developed and illustrated, as so luminous and
interesting, that it cannot fail, we think, equally to satisfy and to
delight every reader. But while we so much admire it for its own
sake, we cannot at all discern what it has to do with the grand
subject. If it is meant to be insinuated, that as, consistently with
the laws of divine order, a body once absolutely dead cannot by any
means be restored to life, therefore there could be no resurrection of
the body of the Lord laid in the sepulchre ; we ask for proof of the
proposition that is wanting to connect the conclusion with the pre
mises, —namely, that the Lord's body was so absolutely dead. No
such proof is anywhere offered. The contrary is indubitably true.
According to the knowledge on such subjects derived from the
spiritual experience of Swedenborg, the ordinary period at which
the spirit is extricated from the cold body is on the third day after
the apparent death of the latter. In certain cases, or when the
Lord sees fit, the spirit remains still longer in connexion with the
body, or the body in a state admissive of its return into it ; thus
Lazarus was resuscitated when he had been dead four days. The
whole time which intervened between the Lord's death on the cross
and his resurrection was only about thirty-six hours. Consequently,
had such been the mode in which the Lord's resurrection was to
take place, there could have been no impediment in the way occa
sioned by the circumstance, that the body had been too long dead.
Our opinion is, that at the very moment when, had the case been
that of an ordinary man, he would have passed, in a spiritual
body into the spiritual world, the Lord, in a Divine Natural Body,
rose from the dead.
We have now got through the second Section, which, we omitted
to state, is headed, " A General View of the true Doctrine of
the Lord's Resurrection."" (The first Section is a brief Introduc
tion.) We have passed over many subordinate particulars that we
should have liked to notice, that we might not be diverted from
the leading argument. We have seen that the Author does clearly
state the " true doctrine'' when he has nothing else in view ; but
that, when his chief aim is to evince that the Lord's resurrection-
body was not material, much of the reasoning, proceeding, in our

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 43
apprehension, on a groundless assumption, does not really prove
even that ; while it tends greatly to obscure the truth first clearly
laid down, that the Lord rose with a " Divine Natural Person,"
" even to the ultimate degree of life, called flesh and bones ;" and
to raise an apprehension in the reader, that the Lord's resurrection-
body, if Divine, was not a Divine Natural Body, but only a Divine
Spiritual Body, after all. We say this with sorrow, because we
know the excellent author does not mean to support any such
opinion ; but we know that we are not the only individuals on
whom his reasonings and illustrations have made this impression.
Let us see then whether this impression is likely to be strengthened
or weakened by the subsequent parts of the volume.
Section III. is headed, " Objections answered." We find on
perusing it, that the objections alluded to are only such as may be
made to the doctrine, that the Lord's resurrection-body is not
material. Two are brought forward, and replied to at great length.
The first is that drawn from the case of Thomas, to whom the Lord
appeared with the marks of the wounds made in his body on the
cross. We think the observations of Mr. Hindmarsh on this cir
cumstance display all his well-known ability, intelligence, and
power of making what he writes interesting. Were we to examine
it particularly, we perhaps might find a few passing remarks against
which we might be disposed to write Qucere; but, as a whole, we
regard it as excellent and satisfactory.
We regret that we cannot speak in the same terms on the answer
to the " second Objection." This is the difficulty raised from the
circumstance, that when the Lord appeared among the disciples
after the return of the two from Emmaus, " they were terrified
and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit ;" on which
occasion he said, " Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I
myself ; handle me and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones
as ye see me have." Mr. Hindmarsh treats this as a transaction
which took place in the spiritual world, and cites other passages to
prove that the relations of the Word are not always to be taken as
literal facts. He supposes that the disciples "imagined that a
spirit was some strange fantastical form, without substance indeed,
yet capable of inflicting upon them serious and dangerous mischief :"
He represents the Lord's words to them, as designed " to correct
such mistaken notions of the state and condition of spirits," and
that " therefore the Lord, who was himself a Spirit, and at the
same time a Divinely-substantial Body," thus addressed them.
He therefore paraphrases the words, to give them this turn, through
nearly a page and a half, concluding thus : " Such a spirit, such an
imaginary form as ye suppose a spirit to be, hath not flesh and
bones, as ye see me have." With all respect for the writer, we
really perused this paraphrase with concern. It would better
express the sense of the words paraphrased, had these been, " A
spirit hath flesh and bones as ye see me have ;" instead of being,

44 THE GLORIFICATION OF
" A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." The
words express a decided contrast ; and this, in the paraphrase, is
drawn as if between a real spirit, such as the Lord is represented to
be, and an imaginary phantom, such as, it is assumed, the dis
ciples conceived a spirit to be : whereas it is quite obvious, that the
contrast drawn in the divine words themselves, is between a spirit,
or an inhabitant of the spiritual world only, as being without the
ultimates of the human principle, called, in the language of the
Word, flesh and bones, and the Lord as a Man in a Divine Natural
Humanity, and thus having those ultimates, as a man in the world
has. The sense given in the paraphrase, however, the author considers
as the lowest in which the subject can properly be understood. He
next proceeds to inquire, " whether a spirit in the spiritual world
has, or has not, anything about his person analagous to flesh and
bones, and which in common language may be called so, though not
understood to consist of such gross material substances as usually
bear that name." Now, with submission, we would suggest, that
this, also, has little to do with the subject in hand. The question
is not, whether a spirit has anything about his person which in
common language may be called flesh and bones ; but whether his
spiritual body is composed of what in divine language, as here
spoken by the Lord, is called flesh and bones. Many passages of
Scripture are adduced and commented on in which flesh and bones
are mentioned ; but we cannot see that they bear any allusion to
the spiritual bodies of angels and spirits, and we apprehend that
Mr. H. himself would be little daunted by them, if quoted with the
same view by an opponent. Finally, a passage from E. S. is cited,
which states, that the angelic heaven, in the sight of the Lord, is
as one man, and is in every form a man, even as to skins, mem
branes, cartilages, and bones, the latter provinces of this grand man
being composed of those who have never heard the gospel, but yet
have lived according to the precepts of their religion. But the
being in the province of the cartilages and bones, does not, that we
can see, prove that angels have what the Lord here denominates
flesh and bones. It may indeed be questioned, whether the angelic
heaven, if not considered as including the Church on earth, com
prises those provinces : for in another place we find the author
stating, not only that the angelic heaven forms a grand man, but
also, with it, the church on earth : "moreover, the Church on earth
not only, with the angels, constitutes the interiors of that man, but
also the exteriors, which are called the cartilaginous and bony
parts. The church constitutes these, because men on earth possess
a body, in which the ultimate spiritual principle is clothed with
the naturali"— (A p. Ex. 1222.) And doubtless the Lord said,
" A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have/' to intimate
that, beyond the spiritual principle possessed by spirits, he had the
natural clothing of it peculiar to men on earth.

THE lord's humanity. 45
Mr. Hindmarsh, however, proceeds as follows : —
" Having thus demonstrated, by the highest authority which the nature of the
thing is capable of, that spirits in the spu-itual world have bodies consisting of
what may be fairly denominated flesh and bones, equally as well as men in the
natural world, but that the former are spiritual, while the latter are material,
we now come to consider in what sense it may be truly and super- eminently said
of the Lord, that he alone hath flesh and bones, and that a mere spirit hath them
not. " Flesh in the highest or most interior scriptural sense of the word, denotes the
proprium or selfhood of the Lord's Divine Humanity, thus divine good itself in
its ultimate form : while bones, in the same sense, denote the Lord's proprium
as to divine truth, also in its ultimate form. In the lower sense, as having
relation to man, flesh denotes the proprium of man's will, and bones the proprium
of his understanding, both vivified by the Lord's proprium, and depending on
that alone as the continued cause of their existence and subsistence. In a still
lower sense, opposite to the two former senses, flesh denotes the dead, unvivifi-ed
proprium of man's will, which in itself is nothing but evil ; and bones in like
manner denote the dead, unvivified proprium of his understanding, which in
itself is nothing but what is false. Now as everything which exists as an effect,
whether it be in the natural or in the spiritual world, can only so far have being
or existence as the cause is in it, and continues to be with it ; and as such
originally-producing and still-preserving cause is the all in all of the effect, in
somuch that the effect of and in itself, without the presence and perpetual
agency of its cause, may be considered as a non-entity ; so it follows, as the
necessary consequence of this universally admitted maxim, that the vivified
proprium of man can only so far be said to have a real spiritual existence, as the
divine proprium of the Lord, signified by flesh and bones, is in it and with it,
an ever-constant principle of life. Thus it may with truth be said, that the
flesh and bones, which are predicated of the Lord as ultimate forms of his
Divine Human Essence, have in themselves an actual, positive, and divinely-
substantial existence ; while the flesh and bones, which in the way of analogy,
relation or courtesy only, can be predicated of spirits, have no such substantial
existence in themselves, but derive whatever they appear to have from him, who
alone is not only the First and the Last, but the AD of life, the All of substance,
and the All of form.
" Hence again it follows that as the Lord is the Only Man in first principles, so
he is also the Only Man in last principles, which are the ultimate forms of the
body ; all other men being such only in appearance, and by derivation from
him. Thus we come to the same conclusion as that to which we are referred
in the Gospel, and rationally perceive the import and truth of the Lord's words,
when he says, ' A spirit hath not flesh, and bones, as ye see me have.' " — See Arc.
Ccel, n. 142.
All that is said in the two latter paragraphs is very true in itself,
yet we cannot view it as the specific truth meant in the passage
before us. As the contrast made in that passage is not, as before
supposed, between a real spirit and an imaginary phantom, so
neither is it, as now assumed, between the flesh and bones of a
spirit and those of the Lord. To support such a meaning, the
words must again be altered. They should be, not, " A spirit hath
not flesh and bones, as ye see me have ;" but, "A spirit hath not
flesh and bones, such as ye see me have :'' but although this forced
rendering, to support the very interpretation here given, has some
times been supposed by illiterate persons, Mr. H. is too well-in
formed a biblical scholar to have recourse to it. Neither does the
passage teach that " the Lord alone hath flesh and bones ;" though
this is true, in the same sense as it is true that the Lord is the
Only Man. It teaches that the Lord has the ultimates of Humanity,
as man in the world has, and thus beyond what spirits have : and

46 THE GLORIFICATION OF
it is so explained wherever it is quoted by E. S., except in the
passage referred to by Mr. H. ; nor is anything to the contrary
said there.
Thus far, then, we are still constrained to think, the impression
on the reader's mind is likely to be, that, according to these views,
the Lord's resurrection-body differs little, except in being Divine,
from the spiritual bodies of angels. What has led the esteemed
writer to allow anything which seems to suggest such a sentiment to
come from his pen, obviously is, his anxiety to abolish the notion
that the Lord's resurrection-body was in any sense material. We
fear, however, that they who hold that opinion, when they see it
combated from such equivocal grounds, and interpretations pre
sented of a text on which they build that appear manifestly un
tenable, to get rid of that which they regard as the true one, will
be more confirmed in their apprehension than before. Now,, how
ever, he emerges from these clouds, and offers a view which at least
very closely approximates to the full meaning of the passage. He
proposes it thus :
" We will now take another view of the same subject, and endeavour to point
out an essential difference between the resurrection Body of the Lord and that
of a deceased man ; whereby it will be made evident, that the Lord actually
rose in more fulness, having in his Divine Person not only more interim; but also
more exterior principles of^Humanity, than an angel or spirit ; consequently
that in this respect also it is true, that a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as (we
shall presently see) the Lord hath."
He then presents a copious, just, and beautiful description of the
state of man in this world as compared with his state after death,
and shews that though man carries with him his natural memory,
he cannot enter into it, the lowest or ultimate principles of life
being either laid aside or permanently suspended. He afterwards
contrasts with man's state after death, that of " our Risen Lord in
his Glorified Form." All that he says on this subject we think
excellent. A summary of it is comprised in the concluding para
graph of the section.
" "If, as we have aheady demonstrated, it be also admitted, that the Lord rose
with all the characters and perfections of a Divine Mind, and at the same time
with all the substantiality of a Divine Body, it is but reasonable to expect, that
the Word, when treating of the divine goodness, wisdom, omnipotence and
omnipresence, should express itself in such terms as have a natural tendency
to heighten our ideas of theh superlative pre-eminence ; and further, that
equally suitable and appropriate language should characterize the reality,
actuality and substantiality, of the Lord's risen Body. Accordingly we find,
that this latter is described as having hands, feet, a side, flesh and bones; terms
evidently expressive of different portions of the human frame, and conveying
the idea of actual, positive substance. But in addition to this view of the
subject, we have further seen, that the Lord, on rising from the dead, and de
parting out of the world, (unlike every other man, with whom former principles
are quiescent after death, still retained the most intimate perception of all
preceding states, and was equally omniscient and omnipresent in all that relates
to the natural world, as well as to the spiritual. And hence, since flesh and
bones are predicable not only of things material and corporeal, but also of things
external, sensual, and natural, such as the scientifics and lowest affections of
the human mind ; and since the Lord, by virtue of his divine good and truth in
their ultimate forms, is equally present with those who are immersed in such

the lord's humanity. 47
external scientifics and affections, as with those who are elevated above them ;
therefore, in allusion to this circumstance also, it is said, that the Lord after his
resurrection h.&tl flesh and bones, but that a spirit hath them not."
To this we would only wish to add, that the reason why a spirit
in the spiritual world, or a man who has " laid down'' his material
body, cannot afterwards use his natural memory, though he carries
it with him, is, because thought can never be exercised by any
being, whether spirit or man, in the world, in the most exterior
substances of his frame. The natural mind of man, we learn from
E. S., is composed both of spiritual substances, and of substances
taken from the purest principles of nature. The latter are the seat
of his natural memory, and are immediately in contact with the
material body. So long, therefore, as he retains this ultimate
clothing, his natural memory can be exercised. When the material
body is "laid down" at death, these pure substances, in which
inheres all his natural memory, recede, and become the ultimate
clothing of his spiritual body : thus he no longer thinks in them,
but in a sphere above them. If then, as is said in the above ex
tract, the Lord, on rising from the dead and departing out of the
world, retained, and, as had been said before, retains still, the most
intimate perception of all preceding states, the reason is, because he
also retained, and retains still, the ultimate clothing of that region
of his Humanity, which was the seat of them ; thus, because " he
rose again with his whole body complete which he had in the world ;"
though this, now, like all the interiors of his Humanity, " was no
longer material, hut Divine Substantial.'' Otherwise, though, by
virtue of his Omniscience, he might know them, yet, if it is lawful
to conclude as to the states of his Divine Humanity, the Prototype,
from those of man, his image, there could not be, as Mr. H. ex
presses it, a " most intimate perception" of them — a perception of
them as one with himself. How delightful the idea, which doubtless
was divinely revealed to the Apostle, and which he has expressed
with such sweetness, that " we have not a high priest who cannot
be touched with a feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points
tempted as we are, yet without sin ;'' — that the Lord, in his Divine
Humanity, retains eternally the most intimate perception of all
that he sustained in his work of redemption, and in the process of
the glorification of his Humanity, and thus, from fellow-feeling, so
to speak, " is able to succour them that are tempted ?" All which
would be impossible, had he not risen again with his whole Body
complete. We have now arrived at Section IV., in which the grand question
is discussed, " What became of the Lord's infirm, material Body,
which was crucified and buried, if it did not rise again and ascend
into heaven V We have, however, already occupied as much room
as can possibly be devoted to one article in this Number. Here,
therefore, we must break off for the present. We most respectfully
and deferentially submit what we have written to the consideration
of Mr. H. and to that of our readers ; requesting them, however,

48 THE GLORIFICATION OF
not positively to conclude upon it, till they have seen what we have
yet to offer. We regret that we should seem to have dwelt more
upon what we do not fully approve than upon what we do ; yet this
was unavoidable, as it is the former only that requires particular
observation. Neither have we as yet had opportunity to state, how
we think the object mainly aimed at by Mr. H. — the total exclusion
of all idea of materiality as adhering to the Lord's " Risen Body,"
— may be secured, without admitting the weak points which appear
to us to adhere to some of his arguments. Before we have concluded,
the difference between us will not, we expect, appear so considerable,
as perhaps it may do at present. The perusal of the work has
increased, not diminished, our respect for our valued friend ; we
hope the perusal of our observations will not have any contrary
effect on him. If we have used any expression that can give him
pain, we heartily retract it.
We will only add, that we hope all who exercise their thoughts
on this most holy theme, will approach it with the humble and
devotional feeling which it so indispensably demands.

SECOND NOTICE.
We return to the consideration of this able and important work.
We request our readers to bear in mind the general observations
which we made in our last, both respecting the work itself and its
much respected author ; and to recollect that, if we still find it
necessary, occasionally, to intimate dissent from some of its state
ments and reasonings, it is with every sentiment of deference to
him and of distrust of ourselves. The grand doctrine of the Lord's
assumption, and glorification of the Humanity, to illustrate which is
the chief design of the book, is, we have observed, and shewn by
extracts, repeatedly stated in it in the clearest and most satisfactory
manner. It is abundantly plain that the author, as we said before,
" intends to uphold in its full extent the great truth, that the Lord
assumed ''in actuality,' the ' Divine Natural Humanity,' 'even to
the ultimate degcee of life, called flesh and bones.' " In contend
ing also, that the Lord's resurrection-body was not in any respect
material, we are satisfied that he contends for an important and
genuine doctrine of the New Church. Yet, we have thought, that
in some of bis observations and reasonings, having the establish
ment of the latter great truth for that object, he has so expressed
himself as to seem to diminish the certainty of the former ; that he
has advanced statements and arguments which, if admitted to be
just, render it difficult to conceive how the Lord, since his resurrec
tion, can be as much a man in ultimates as man in the world is, —
how he can have much more of the ultimates of humanity than
spirits and angels have, who are without the natural body, having
only a spiritual one. The chief of the remarks which appear to
have this tendency, oc6ur, however, in the second and third sections ;

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 49
and have thus been noticed in our former article. Although the
author, in his fourth section, which we are next to consider, treats
of what is regarded as the most critical question in the whole sub
ject, we have remarked little, either in it or. in any of the remainder
of the work, which, of itself, is liable to the same objection, —
which, of itself, leads to the apprehension, that the (Lord put off
anything of the infirm, maternal and material humanity, without
putting on something of the Divine and substantial Humanity in
its place. What aspect it may have of this kind, is chiefly owing,
we think, to the doubt which had been excited by some of the
preceding parts of the work ; connected with which, indeed, it may
tend to lead some to the conclusion, that the Lord put off the body,
which was crucified, and assumed no other in its place. Yet such a
conclusion would again be at variance with many of the writer's
explicit statements, and certainly most abhorent from his sentiments.
That the Lord was engaged, during the whole of his sojourn in
the world, from his birth till his resurrection, in putting off the
Humanity from the mother, and putting on the Humanity from the
Father, can be questioned by none who admit the doctrine of the
New Church upon the subject, as laid down in every part of the
writings of the Lord's servant Emanuel Swedenborg. As little can
it be doubted, that the final stage of this process — the final putting
off and the final putting on — took place between the crucifixion and
the resurrection. We are expressly told, that " the Lord's burial
signified the rejection of the residue of the humanity taken from
the mother, and his rising again, his glorification."* The chief
things that we have to guard against are, on the one hand, any
notion which would imply that there was no such rejection, and, on
the other, that there was any rejection of the Humanity from the
mother, without a corresponding bringing down into its place of the
Humanity from the Father, — any putting off without a correspond
ing putting on. These two landmarks of the true doctrine on the
subject, as delivered in the writings of Swedenborg, being secured,
it appears to us of no great importance what ideas are formed as to
the manner how, provided they are reverentially conceived, and not
allowed, in any degree, to infringe upon the holiness of the sacred
subject. It is for this reason, possibly, that, in the printed works
of E. S., nothing whatever is said respecting the manner how.
From a manuscript treatise, or rather notes for a treatise, written
after the publication of the Arcana Ccelestia and the Heavenly
Doctrine, but before the works of the year 1763, he does appear to
have contemplated breaking through this reserve : but, though hr
afterwards treated expressly on the Doctrine of the Lord, both in
the work bearing that title, and in the True Christian Religion,
and largely in other works, he never published anything exactly
equivalent to what he appears to have written in those manuscript
notes ; whence it would seem, that he deemed it better not to define
• Doct. Lord, n. 16.

50 THE GLORIFICATION OF
too nicely this delicate point. Perhaps he thought, that the real
truth respecting it, if capable of being explained, could not easily
be received ; and it being sufficient for man's salvation to regard the
Lord as a Divine Man in all fulness (whence he rose again with his
whole body)* ; in bis doctrinal writings he chiefly insisted upon
this point, with the accompaniments necessary to guard it from
beino- misunderstood, viz., That his body, when he rose, was no
longer material but Divine Substantial-)- , and that this was effected,
not by changing or transmuting the Human Nature into the Divine
EssenceJ, but by " putting off the Humanity taken from the
mother, which in itself was like the Humanity of another man, and
consequently material, and putting on the Humanity from the
Father, which in itself was like his Divinity, and consequently
substantial. "§ These points are laid down with unequivocal
certainty, and they who fully acknowledge them, without feeling
any internal repugnance against any of them, — any desire to evade
the force of the testimony on which any of them is presented, — and
such persons alone, — possess, in our judgment, all that is most
essential in the doctrine of the Lord's resurrection. If any cannot
rest in the belief of these positive points without forming some idea
for themselves in regard to the manner how the residue of the
Humanity from the mother was put off, and the corresponding degree
of the Humanity from the Father was put on, by the Lord's death
and resurrection, it appears to us, that they are at liberty to satisfy
themselves in such manner as they may deem most in accord with
what is certainly known : but nothing that any individual may
conclude respecting it, — not even, as it appears to us, if supported.
by unquestioned manuscript authority of E. S., — can be considered
as part of the authentic doctrine of the New Church. The authentic
doctrine of the New Church — all that its members are bound to
receive — must be regarded, we think, as completed in our great
author's printed works. Some of. his manuscript writings are ex
tremely valuable, as illustrating the doctrine delivered in his
published works, and, when evidently prepared by him for publica
tion, may be considered as of nearly equal authority : but the same
cannot be said of mere notes and memoranda for his own use. Yet
these also must be allowed to contain his thoughts at the time of
writing ; and when the expression is sufficiently plain to leave no
doubt as to the meaning, it will be difficult for any who believes that
the writer enjoyed particular divine illumination, to feel comfortable.
in maintaining an opinion contrary to any which this enlightened
herald has even thus recorded. Still, nothing taken solely from such
a source can be insisted on as a doctrine necessary to be believed.
It must be judged of from the printed works. If it clearly har
monizes with all that is there stated, yet places something in a fuller
light, it may be thankfully received. If it is absolutely incon-
* lb. n. 35 ; True Christ. Rel. n. 109. + Doct. Lord, n 35
% Ib. n. 35. § Doct. Lord, n. 35.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 51
sistent with anything there to be found, it must be set aside. How
clearly soever it may seem to be expressed, it is yet possible that the
author, by mistake, has put one word for another, or has omitted
something which he intended to have said, and which would have
given a quite different turn to the sentence. We have reason to
believe, that the passage brought forward by Mr. Hindmarsh, as
we shall presently see, from a manuscript book, will be judged of in
both these ways by different classes of readers.
With .these general observations, we proceed to consider Mr.
Hindmarsh's fourth section, which is commenced, and the subject
of it stated, in the following words :
"Having proceeded thus far with the subject of the Lord's resurrection from
the dead, and shewn that it was a transaction in the spiritual world, and not in
the natural ; having also proved that the Body with which he rose, was not
material, but substantial and divine ; and having at the same time obviated the
most considerable objections to which the doctrine here maintained seems
liable ; it may be expedient to give some answer to a question, which very
naturally rises on the occasion, and which was before stated, to the following
effect : 'What became of the Lord's infirm, material Body , which was crucified,
and laid in the sepulchre, if it did not rise again, and ascend to heaven ?' For
until that body is in some reasonable way disposed of, many, who might other
wise approve of all that has been advanced, may still be held in a state of
doubtful suspense ; and on that account may not inaptly be compared to the
eleven disciples of the Lord, concerning whom it is written, that, ' when they
saw him, they worshipped him ; but some doubted.' Matt, xxviii. 17."
To the statement with which the above paragraph opens, that
'' the Lord's resurrection was a transaction in the spiritual world
and not in the natural," and which had repeatedly been made
before, we are disposed to put in a caveat. But this point we
reserve. The author presently states " Six different opinions concerning
the Resurrection of the Lord ;'' the first five of which he refutes
at some length, and the sixth he proposes to establish. The first is
that of members of the Old Church. The others, we suppose,
have been entertained by individuals of the New Church, but,
excepting the third and the sixth, they are to us new, and we doubt
if any person professing to belong to the New Church holds them
at present. Thus we do not clearly see the intention of this state
ment and refutation ; especially as it does not include all the
different opinions that have been entertained, and omits one or two
that are actually avowed at present.
The third opinion adduced is that of those who maintain the
resurrection of the Lord's material body, but who, as is here stated,
" suppose that, when it rose from the dead, it was wholly divested
of all its earthly matter, properties, and qualities, and was gifted
with new substance, new properties, and new qualities, adapted to
its existence in the spiritual world, and yet that it still retained its
former identity, or was still the same body that was crucified and
buried." Really, with all respect for the individuals here alluded
to, if any such exist, we cannot but regard this statement as
e 2

52 THE GLORIFICATION OF
nothing but an assemblage of glaring contradictions. To say that
the " material body" was raised, yet "divested of all its earthly
matter, properties and qualities," is surely the same thing as saying,
that the material body was not raised, but a body not material in
its place. To say that it was "gifted with new substances, new
properties, and new qualities, and yet that it still retained its former
identity, or was still the same body that was crucified and buried,"
is to say that it was at once material and not material, ihe same
and not the same. If any really do maintain such incompatible
propositions, and this is what some intend when they say we must
believe in simplicity without self-derived reasonings, we can only
say in return, that this is again to rivet on the mind the chains of
mental slavery forged by the Old Church ; this is to revive in
increased density the maxim, " That the understanding is to be kept
under obedience to faith," and to abolish the grand charter of New
Church freedom, " Now it is allowable to enter intellectually into
the mysteries of faith.'' It is a prostration of freedom and reason
of precisely the same order as is submitted to by Roman Catholics,
when they affirm that the bread and wine in the Holy Supper, which,
to the evidence of all the senses, appear as bread and wine still, are
literally the body and blood of the Lord, made such by actual tran-
substantiation. This strong comparison is somewhere made, we
think, by Mr. Hindmarsh ; and really there is in it not the smallest
exaggeration. We hope, however, that none will own the opinion
here so strongly represented. If they do, we are prepared to bear
with them, and will readily own, that the opinion is harmless to
those who can receive it. Others, however, are at liberty, either to
look for a more intelligent way of understanding the subject, or to
remain content with rejecting such incredibilities, without attempt
ing to define the matter at all.
They (if any) who maintain the opinion just described, do so,
no doubt, to support the fact, which they suppose to be asserted by
Swedenborg, that the body which rose is the same body as was
crucified. In a certain sense, we admit that it was so ; but not in
the sense which this theory assumes. Swedenborg affirms, indeed,
many times, that the Lord rose again " with his whole body," and
sometimes, "with his whole body, which he had in the world;"
but if, while repeating statements of this kind so often, he meant
what the present theory supposes, how is it that he never says pre
cisely what the proposers of this theory find so necessary to the
exact definition of their meaning, viz., that he rose again with his
material body ? — or, with his body that had been crucified ! — or
even, with the same body that he had in the world / Never does he
employ any such expressions ; because these expressions would be
incompatible with his meaning. He expressly tells us that he put
off all the Human, and the body taken from the mother* : that it
* Ap. Ex. n. 899, 1108.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 53
was the Human from the mother in which he was when he suffered
temptations, including the last of his temptations, which was the
passion of the cross, by which passion, and by death, he finally put
it off — finally put off the body taken from her* ; and that thus he
put off nature (a term which includes matter) which in itself is
dead, and yet a receptacle of the Divine, and put on the Divine. -f-
Now as it was only the Human from the mother that suffered on
the cross (for what other Human could so suffer ?) and only the
material body, formed of the elements of nature, which thus died
(and what other body could die ?) — and we are positively assured
(if such assurance be needed) that the Human or body from the
mother with all of nature was thus eternally put off, and a Divine
Human or Body from the Father put on ; with what propriety of
speech, or consistency of meaning, can it be affirmed, without great
qualification, that the body that died was the same as the Body
which arose ? It is then, we conceive, a great mistake to suppose,
that when the enlightened Swedenborg says that the Lord arose
with his whole body which he had in the world, it is the same as if
he had said, that the body which arose is the same body as was
crucified ; and they who have so understood him will, we should
think, be glad to be delivered from a misapprehension, which compels
them to maintain such inconsistencies and impossibilities. The
meaning intended by Swedenborg in his expressions, we shall
humbly attempt to explain in the sequel.
The above " third opinion" being so self-contradictory, it was not
difficult for Mr. Hindmarsh to expose its untenableness. Yet one
argument on which he relies, is not, in our judgment, of much
validity. " It has been argued," he says, " by the advocates for
this third opinion, that the process of glorification must have passed
upon some body or thing which was not previously divine ; and
therefore, as the Humanity from the Father had always been Divine,
that it must have been the infirm, material, or maternal Humanity
of the Lord, which was glorified, and not the Divine Humanity,
which, as here supposed, needed no such process." Mr. H. meets
this argument, by denying the premises and both parts of the con
clusion : we, on the contrary, think the premises indubitable, with,
consequently, the latter or negative part of the conclusion, which
regularly follows from them ; but we deny the affirmative part of
the conclusion — that it was the infirm or maternal Humanity which
was glorified, — the premises being too wide to make this the only
alternative. What other alternative there can be, we also shall
attempt to shew in the sequel.
The other opinions, till we come to the sixth, are not of sufficient
importance to detain us. The sixth is that of the Author himself,
which he states to be, " The dissipation of the material body in
the sepulchre, at or before the time of the Lord's resurrection in
* Doct. Ld. n. 35, Area. Coel. n. 2818, Ap. Ex. n. 1108.
t Div. L. & W. n. 234.

54 THE GLORIFICATION OF
and with a Divinely Substantial Body perfectly distinct from the
former." We must hear a little of what he has to say in its
recommendation. " We now come, in the last place, to consider the sixth opinion, which, we do
not hesitate to say, is, in our humble judgment, more likely to satisfy the
inquiries of a candid, rational mind, than either of the others. It implies
neither the resuscitation nor the annihilation of any portion of matter, wliich
are the two extremes of the case ; but adopts, as its basis, the same kind of
process as that which actually took place in all the stages of the Lord's glorifi
cation during his whole life in the world. It supposes the entire dissipation, in
the sepulchre, of the remainder of the infirm, material, or maternal Humanity ;
to effect which, no doubt, some extraordinary power, either within the sphere
of nature, or above it, must have been applied. And who will say, that the
Divine power, which on other occasions has been so wonderfully exerted, as to
excite the utmost astonishment of man, might not on the present occasion have
maintained its prerogative of acting by means unknown and incomprehensible
to the human mind. At any rate it must be admitted, that a very high degree
of probability attaches to the doctrine, when we reflect, that in all the pre
ceding states of life prior to the crucifixion, the like process of dissipation was
perpetually going on ; for while the infirm Humanity was constantly suffering
a change in the identity of its forms, the successive resolutions of matter, to
which it was subject, may be considered as so many repeated dissipations of its
natural substance ; and if so, the last act was no more than the winding up and
conclusion of one uniform progressive course of operation. The only difference
consisted in this, that whereas the former were gradual and partial, the last
act of dissipation, in the sepulchre, was instantaneous, total, and complete."
Though we deem it a matter of no great consequence to be known,
whether the " putting off" of the infirm body — a fact that is indu
bitable — was finally completed by dissipation, or some other means,
we cannot but think that what the Author has here advanced
is a piece of sound reasoning. We are not so sure that the same
observation will apply to his explanation, that follows, of what
R. S. meant by his assertion, that the Lord left nothing behind
him in the sepulchre ; nor can we acquiesce in his idea respecting
the disposition of the linen clothes. But we are not the less con
vinced of the truth of his conclusion, when he says,
" For certain it is, that the material Body, as such, neither rose again, nor was
transmuted into a Divine Body, the one supposition being perhaps equally
distant from the truth with the other.' '
What next follows we think of great weight.
" But let us hear what Emanuel Swedenborg himself says on this important
subject. In numerous places he speaks of the rejection, expulsion, and exter
mination of the infirm, material, or maternal Humanity, together with all its
properties, forms, vessels, and substances, interior as well as exterior ; and
asserts in the most positive manner, that such rejection, expulsion, and extern
urination, took place successively during the whole process of his glorification.
The terms made use of by the Author, on this occasion, are singularly striking,
and evidently appear to be the strongest he could lay his hands upon, to shew
the high sense he entertained of the infinite dissimihtude and contrariety
between the substances or anything else, derived from the maternal or material
Humanity, and the Lord's proper Humanity when glorified, as well as the utter
impossibility of mere human substances positively and perfectly uniting with
divine substances in one Person, much more of the former being converted into
the latter. Hence we read, that everything appertaining to the infirm or
maternal Humanity, and to dead nature, was put off, cast out, entirely removed,

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 55
ejected, separated, expelled for ever, rejected for ever, extirpated, utterly exter
minated, dissipated, blotted out, and altogether destroyed, as being wholly incom
patible with the presence of those self-subsisting living principles, forms, and
substances, which ever did and ever will distinguish the Divine Humanity of
the Lord from all that is earthly, finite, and created.
" Can such language as that used by the Author be explained away, or made
to countenance and support any other doctrine, than that which has been
attempted to be established in these pages, viz., the gradual extermination and
dissipation of the maternal Humanity, during the successive stages of the
Lord's glorification while in the world, and at last the sudden and complete
dissipation of the remainder of that Humanity in the sepulchre at the time of
the resurrection. This, then, must surely be the true and genuine doctrine of
the New Church, with respect to the final destination of that infirm Body,
which was crucified and buried, after it had administered to all the uses for
which it was assumed. This surely was the very idea which Swedenborg
himself entertained, and has infused into all his writings, especially the Arcana
Ceelestia, wherein his illustrations of the internal sense of the Word led him so
repeatedly, so amply, and so minutely, to discuss the subject."
The terms above printed in italics, it is to be remembered, are all
employed by Swedenborg, and they certainly are quite as strongly
expressive of the utter removal and abolition of the maternal
Humanity — of all that could be scourged, crucified, speared, die,
and be entombed, — as the word dissipation can be ; the only diffe
rence is, that this term is speoific, and defines the mode, whilst the
others are general, and do not. But now Mr. H. brings forward a
testimony which he considers decisive, and which, if received as
authority, certainly is so. It is stated to be "a memorandum in
the Baron's own handwriting, carefully copied from an unprinted
manuscript volume, now in the possession of the Rev. Mr. Sibly,
of London." As this is, in any point of view, a document of great
importance, we subjoin a copy, with Mr. H.'s note upon it, and his
translation of it.
" Quod Dominus exuerit omne maternum, in sepulchro, et inde resurgens se
glorificaverit, et quod ideo mortuus sit, constat ex eo, quod Dominus loquutus sit
de semine terrse injecto, quod primum moriatur, tum quod dixit ad mulierem,
quod non adhuc tangerent Ipsum, quia noniium ascendit ad Patrem ; in sepul
chro enim omne tale dissipandum erat. Quod Dominus in sepulchro, ita per
mortem, rejecerit omne humanum ex Matre, et dissipaverit, ex quo tentationes
subiit, et quoniam id non conjungi cum ipso Divino potuit, et sic Humanum ex
Patre assumserit, ita quod Dominus cum Humano probe et clare glorificatus
resurrexerit."* The same translated.
" That the Lord put off all the maternal principle, in the sepulchre, and rising
thence glorified himself, and that for this purpose he died, is evident from what
the Lord spake concerning seed cast into the earth, that it first dies ; and
likewise from what he said to the woman, that she should not touch him as
yet, because he had not yet ascended to the Father ; for all such [maternal
principle] was to be dissipated in the sepulchre. [Hence it follows], that the Lord
in the sepulchre, thus by death, rejected and dissipated all the Humanity from the
Mother, from which he underwent temptations ; and since that could not be
conjoined with the Essential Divinity, he therefore assumed a Humanity from
the Father, and thus the Lord rose with a Humanity well and fully glorified."
(*) The Latin reader will observe, that one or two expressions in the original
are incorrect, and that the last sentence is incomplete ; which, however, are
remedied in the translation.
[The fragment containing the above was printed, from Mr. Sibly's manuscript,
by the Swedenborg Society in 1840, under the title of " De Domino, et De
Athanasii Symbolo." A translation by the late Mr. Maxwell has been pub
lished.— W. B.]

56 THE GLORIFICATION OF
On the above we have to remark, in the first place, that its
authority is not quite so unquestionable as Mr. H. regards it,
because we have not access to the original " Memorandum in the
Baron's own handwriting." The manuscript in Mr. Sibly's pos
session is a copy, made by Mr. A. Nordenskjold. Of this we have
satisfied ourselves, by calling on Mr. Sibly for that purpose. We
did not see the manuscript, he having left it at his office in the
Bank ; but this is the information he gave us. We have seen other
copies of Swedenborg's Manuscripts by Mr. Nordenskjold, as well
as original Manuscripts by the former ; and we know that there is
no resemblance between the two handwritings. So that there can
be no mistake as to the Manuscript in question being, not the
original, but a copy.*
The first question then is, Has the original manuscript been
faithfully transcribed ? Judging from Mr. Sibly's translation, and
from the printed copy of the passage given above, we see no reason
to doubt it. Mr. A. Nordenskjold is known to have copied many
other manuscripts of Swedenborg's, and is said to have possessed a
readiness in making out the Author's handwriting which few others
have possessed. We believe that he was somewhat implicated in
the improper practices imputed to some of his countrymen by our
correspondent JEgiochus in an article above ; but we never heard
any imputation on his fidelity as a transcriber of our Author's
• Mr. Sibly kindly granted us the loan of a translation of the whole,
executed by himself ; so that we are enabled to give a full account of it. It
occupies (in the translation) eighty-nine pages of post (or letter) paper. The
first eleven pages contain notes or loose thoughts for a treatise " On the Lord ;"
the remainder consists of similar materials for a work " On the Athanasian
Creed." It makes several references to the Apocalypse Explained, one to as
late a part of that work as n. 899. This evinces, that the author had proceeded
at least as far with that work as to the latter part of the third volume — (of the
original— the fifth of the Enghsh) when this manuscript was written. The
part " On the Lord" commences with hints for a " preface" bearing a good
deal of resemblance to the subjects of the Author's preface to the " Doctrine of
the New Jerusalem respecting the Lord," printed in 1763 ; but it resembles it
in little beside. The part " On the Athanasian Creed" has very Uttle in
common with the treatise on the same subject in the latter part of the Apocalypse
Explained, and, as it makes no reference to anything therein, was no doubt
written before it. The whole Manuscript contains a large body of truths
relating to the Doctrine of the Lord, many of them presenting ideas not else
where developed by the Author, and others opening views which, though sub
stantially to be found in his other works, are nowhere else so clearly and
decidedly set forth. Yet the whole, as appears to us, is perfectly in harmony
with his other writings. To the diligent student of those writings, then, we
think this volume would be a great treasure ; yet it is not at all adapted for
the general reader ; consisting, as it does, purely of memoranda prepared by
the author for his own use, not arranged into any regular series, the ideas often
only just hinted, sometimes more fully drawn out, but all intended to be after
wards re- written, and then to be amplified or retrenched, arranged and digested,
as the author, on reflection, should see best. Upon the whole, we think it
should be printed. The Latin original should be given, and we think a trans
lation might be . framed, which should accurately express the sense, without
retaining all the abruptness and elliptical phraseology. The sense, as far as we
have observed, is never doubtful.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 57
manuscripts ; on the contrary, we have always understood that he
regarded them with a veneration almost approaching to idolatry,
and was therefore little likely to falsify them by design. Nor are
we aware that, in the present case, he was under any temptation to
do so ; as we never heard that he held any strong opinions of his own
on the subject. There are passages, also, in the manuscript, which,
fully as much as any others that are known, might, by themselves,
be thought to favour the resurrection of the material body ; were he,
then, capable of opposing this doctrine by dishonest means, he would
here, also, have exercised his ingenuity. In the passage in ques
tion, likewise, the decisive words, for the most part, are not so
introduced as that they might be taken out without making a sen
sible hiatus, but are so woven into the construction of the sentences,
as to bear every appearance of standing as they proceeded from the
hand of the author. If introduced by the transcriber, the whole
form of the sentences, as originally written, must have been totally
different ; and in making the alteration, the falsifier has displayed
the most consummate skill ; as the style of the whole, even as to
the very defects, is precisely similar to that of the remainder of the
volume. Altogether, then, we think the copy may be regarded as a
fair representative of the original. Still, this amounts to no more
than very high probability ; certainty can only be had by getting
the original examined, if still in existence,* by credible witnesses.
The question then is, How far is the member of the New Church
bound to accept the doctrine which this passage teaches ? This
we have answered sufficiently in our general observations at the
commencement of this article. We are not required, as it appears
to us, to accept anything as the doctrine of the Church, which is
not contained in the works printed by our divinely illuminated
Author, because of them alone can we be certain that he deemed
all their contents proper for publication ; and because, also,
it is possible, in all unre vised manuscripts, that some words
may have been inserted, wrongly written, or omitted, by mis
take, which alter the sense from what was really intended.
Where, therefore, anything occurs even in a genuine manuscript
of the Author's, which we are satisfied is really incompatible
with some statement in his published writings, we certainly are
at liberty to reject it. The author might deem some things
that he had committed to paper not proper for publication, either
because he was afterwards dissatisfied with his mode of expressing
them, and thought it capable of being misunderstood, or because he
considered the things stated not adapted for reception, and of too
exalted a nature to be, as it were, forced upon the mind : which we
know was the reason why interior truths were so entirely concealed
* We do not find it mentioned in the hst which we have seen of the Author's
manuscripts at Stockholm. The nearest in title is one " On God the Saviour,
Jesus Christ."

58 THE GLORIFICATION OF
from the Jews, and so much so from Christians of the former
Church. If, however, we suppose a passage in a manuscript not to
have been repeated in print, only because the Author deemed it
not proper to bermade public, we still shall suppose it to be true in
itself, and shall feel annoyed by it if we cannot receive it. All who
reject such a passage, therefore, will, right or wrong, form some
theory to persuade themselves of its erroneousness. And even if
wrong, we regard them as excusable, for the reasons already stated.
To such, then, we have no wish to represent the passage in question
as certainly conclusive. But to those who incline to favour the
view it propounds so unequivocally, and who see nothing incom
patible with it in the unquestioned doctrines of the New Church,
we would say, that we see nothing in the passage itself which tends
to authorize the notion, that, with respect to the grand point stated
in it, it does not express the actual opinion of its heaven -
enlightened author.
In the first place, we think that, as to the statement of the
assumed fact, — that everything from the mother was to be, and was,
dissipated in the sepulchre, — there is no vagueness or obscurity in the
expression whatever ; nor in any other particular. There is but one
word in the whole that is certainly incorrect, and that evidently a
mere slip of the pen, either of the author or the transcriber,— the
writing of tangerent for tangeret. Nor is the second sentence
really incomplete, as Mr. H. supposes, from not having adverted
to its particular nature, — most probably, through not having exten
sively examined the manuscript of which it is a part. Consisting
of hints to be enlarged upon in a work afterwards to be written, a
great portion of that manuscript is put in the form of a mere state
ment of propositions — as heads of subjects to be proved or explained
in the work itself. Strings of them sometimes occur together, as in
this example : —
" That the Lord in many places calls himself the Divine Truth, or the Word ;
as by the Evangelist John, in his transfiguration before his disciples, and else
where ; and that by the Son of man this is signified, as also by the Son of man
in the Old Testament. That the Lord, by his death, rejected all the Human
from the mother, and put on a Human from the Father ; concerning which see
Ap. Ex. n. 899, at the end. That the Lord said that he was free to die and not
to die. That it was from his own proper power that he glorified his Human,
thus, that it was from liberty."
So, in the second sentence of the passage in question, he an
nounces this proposition :
" That the Lord, in the sepulchre, thus by death, rejected and dissipated all
the Human from the mother ; from which he underwent temptations, and the
passion of the cross, and by reason that it could not be conjoined with the
Divine itself; and so assumed a Human from the Father : thus, that the
Lord, with the Human, rose again, perfectly and purely glorified."
It no doubt was his intention, in the projected work, to have
illustrated this proposition at some length. How strongly is one
tempted to wish that he had done so ! But, doubtless for wise
reasons, it was not permitted.

the lord's HUMANITY. 59
But though the sense of both sentences is so perfectly clear,
there is, in the first, a manifest oversight. For the Scripture ground
of this statement, that the " Lord put off all the maternal (prin
ciple or Human) in the sepulchre, and, rising thence, glorified
himself, — for everything of that sort was to be dissipated in the
sepulchre," he refers to two passages. The first is, what the Lord
said about the seed, which, to bear fruit, must be cast into the
ground and die. This is exactly in point, and may be supposed to
include all that the Author builds upon it. The other allusion is
to the Lord's saying to Mary Magdalen, that she must not touch
him, because he was not yet ascended to his Father. But this took
place after his resurrection, and so can have no relation to what was
transacted in the sepulchre. The oversight, no doubt, arose, from
his not recollecting, at the moment when he hastily penned this
slight note, that such was the fact. Yet the inapplicability of this
quotation does not in the least affect his general argument. Several
similar instances occur in his manuscript and posthumous works,
occasioned by his writing at the time from memory, and not after
wards verifying the quotations. They only prove that Swedenborg
was left to exercise his natural powers as other men do, and that
the divine illumination of which he was the subject did not induce
any miraculous constraint on his natural mind and memory. Such a
lapse, however, is the more remarkable in the present instance, be
cause, in a previous part of the manuscript (that quoted a little above),
he refers to " Ap. Ex. n. 899, at the end," where he had adduced
the same passage about Mary Magdalen without any error, and said
that " by ascending to the Father is meant, the union of his Human
with his Divine, the Human from the mother being fully rejected."
In the passage then, viewed by itself, we see nothing whatever to
excite a suspicion, that it does not express the actual opinion of its
imputed author. Its very inaccuracies, instead of weakening, add
to the evidence of its genuineness and credibility ; being such as he,
in his manuscripts, not unfrequently made, yet not such as cast any
cloud over its meaning, But the other great question recurs, Is it,
or is it not, compatible with the unquestioned doctrines of the New
Church, as delivered in the author's acknowledged authentic works ?
We cannot see any obstacle in the way of an affirmative answer.
We know of nothing in the whole of the New Church writings
which at all contradicts it- We have already seen, that Swedenborg
affirms,* what reason dictates, and what scripture indicates, that
the body which suffered on the cross, and which was laid in the
sepulchre, was the infirm Human taken from the mother, and conse
quently material ¦ that this was put off successively, and finally by
death ; and that the body which rose the third day was the Divine
Human from the Father brought into ultimates, and consequently
not material, but Divine Substantial. This also Swedenborg, in
his printed works, affirms, reason springs to accept, and Scripture
* Some of the references are given above.

60 THE GLORIFICATION OF
evinces. Swedenborg never says, that the infirm Human was
changed into the Divine Human ; on the contrary, he declares such
change to be impossible, but affirms that the former was put off,
and the latter put on. Now, why is he to be willingly heard when
he says that the maternal Human was put off, and refused a hearing
when he says that it was dissipated ? Is there the least shade of
incongruity between the two ideas ? Is there the smallest approach
to contradiction ? Neither. The statement which is universally
accepted says, that a certain thing was done. The statement which
is thought so hard of belief, suggests the mode of doing it. In some
mode, it must have been done ; what is there to be alleged against
this mode ? Reason, most certainly, has nothing to object. Scrip
ture, in its literal sense, has nothing adverse ; in its spiritual sense,
we apprehend, it gives an approving testimony. And not the most
distant hint at any other mode of accomplishing the process is any
where to be found in Swedenborg, in any of his works, manuscript
or printed. In every conceivable respect, then, the presumption, as
it appears to us, is strongly in its favour.
But it is not by absolute silence, as it appears to us, that the
printed works of the New- Church Apostle give testimony to the
credibility of this manuscript authority. One very striking passage
does occur, which, many years since, arrested our attention, and
impressed us with the very same view of the subject, as, in the
manuscript statement, is explicitly asserted. Mr. Hindmarsh has
given it in his Appendix, but has rather weakened it by curtailment :
we will adduce it a little more fully.
" The Divine itself is pure love, and pure love is as a fire more
ardent than that of the sun of this world ; wherefore, if Divine Love
in its purity were to flow in with any angel, spirit, or man, he would
utterly perish. Hence it is, that Jehovah, or the Lord, is so often
called in the Word a consuming fire. Lest therefore the angels in
heaven should be hurt by the influx of heat from the Lord as a
sun, they are individually veiled by a thin and subtile cloud, by
which the heat flowing in from that sun is tempered.  From this
circumstance, viz., that the presence of the Divine is of such a
quality, that no angel can bear it without being protected by a
cloud, which tempers and moderates the rays and heat from that
sun, it may manifestly appear that the Human of the Lord is
Divine ; for unless it were Divine, it never could be so united
to the Divine itself, which is called the Father, as that they
should be One, according to the Lord's words, John xiv. 10 &c.
For what so receives the Divine, must needs be Divine : ' any
thing not Divine would be utterly dissipated by such a union.
To speak comparatively, what can be let into the solar fire and not
perish, unless it be of a like solar nature ? Thus, who could be let
into the ardency of Infinite Love, save he who is in the ardency of
similar love ? thus, save the Lord alone V*
* A. C. n. 6849.

the lord's humanity. 61
It is impossible to read this sublime passage without emotions of
awe. The Divine itself is pure Love, and pure Love is as a fire
more ardent than that of the sun of this world, whence the Lord is
called in the Word a consuming fire ! Only that Human of the
Lord which is Divine could be so united to the Divine itself as that
they should be one : for what so receives the Divine, needs must be
Divine : anything not Divine would be utterly dissipated by such a
union, just as anything not of the nature of the sun would be
dissipated on being brought into contact with the sun ! Really, it
appears to be by a process more rapid than that of reasoning — by
perception itself — that the conclusion is made, on receiving these
ideas, that it must then have been thus that the Infirm Humanity
was put off.
But how, then, was an infirm Humanity ever assumed at all ?
How did it ever subsist a moment ? Because between it and the
Divine Itself there was a succession of mediums, performing the use
of the " thin clouds" mentioned in the above extract. Thus, we
are told, there existed in the Lord successively, the Human Divine,
and the Divine Human ;* that he first made himself Truth from
th Divine, then Divine Truth, and, finally, Divine Good.f Now,
no doubt, all these gradations of the glorifying process existed in
succession with every principle of his Human Essence, from the
highest celestial to the lowest corporeal, and the very body. The
glorifying process necessarily went on from interiors to exteriors,
and thus a principle that was Human Divine would be constantly
interposed between the Human already fully glorified, or the Divine
Human, and the mere Human from the mother. The Human
Divine is a principle of which the internal is Divine and the ex
ternal merely human, finite, and impure ; and Truth Divine is
Divine Truth finited and rendered respectively weak and impure by
being received in finite and merely human subjects, whether angels
or men. The reason why the Divine Itself does not flow in and
consume even the angels, is, we have seen stated, because they are
protected by a thin interposed cloud. Now the natural principle of
man, which belongs to him as a man in the world, consists of an
internal and an external. The external of it is the body of flesh
and bones ; the internal, or perhaps rather the inmost, is composed
of those substances from the purest principles of nature, which,
together with spiritual substances, form his natural mind, in which
he thinks while he continues on earth.*]: By Death, the pure
natural substances which thus formed the inmost of his natural
principle as a man in the world, and by which life from his spiritual
part and from the spiritual world flows into the body, recede, and
afterwards constitute the cutaneous covering of his spiritual body,
which lives after death. § They properly are an intermediate
between his natural and his spiritual part ; but though natural in
« A. C. n. 6371. t A. C. n. 7014.
J Divine Love and Wisdom, n. 257. § Ibid.

62 THE GLORIFICATION OF
their essence, they form after death the ultimate basis of his
spiritual part, to prevent this from flowing off, and losing distinctly
conscious existence, as it would do, if not fixed by such a natural
ultimate. Now suppose, at the period of the crucifixion, this
interior of the Lord's natural principle as a man in the world,
together with all his spiritual interiors, and thus everything that
constitutes the spirit of man, even to its cutaneous covering, that
lives after death, to have been fully glorified : — and the accom
plishment of the glorifying process, to this extent, was shewn to
the disciples, we conceive, by his glorious manifestation to them,
called the transfiguration. He then displayed his glory as a Divine
Man in a Divine Spiritual Body : for his natural body, we know,
was not yet Divine, but had to suffer and die before it could be
" made Divine." Being seen in his Divine Spiritual Body, there
were seen with him Moses and Elias, now two angels or glorified
men, in their spiritual bodies ; whereas, no such circumstance as his
being seen together with angels ever occurred after his resurrection
and before his ascension ; — a remarkable particular this, which,
duly considered, will throw great light on more points than one
connected with this glorious subject. Still, though thus fully
glorified, or made Divine, as to his Spiritual Body, including the
inmost of the natural body which recedes with the spirit at death,
he was yet in a natural body that was merely human— the ultimates
of his natural body, still unglorified, were retained unhurt, notwith
standing all was Divine within ; — doubtless, because a veil or thin
cloud was still kept interposed between what was yet merely human,
and what was Divine. Whether this was effected by a change of
state induced on the immediate interiors of the material body — the
brain and nervous system, — or by whatever means, we pretend not
to conjecture ; only, by some means, there certainly was a guard
provided, to prevent the premature descent of the Divine from
within. Whatever the veil was, it seems that nothing was required
for its removal but the death of the material body. It appears to
have been something of a Human Divine quality, existing in the
material body, but incapable of existing independently of this basis ;
whence it ceased to act as a protecting medium as soon as the life
of this was extinct. Yet it also appears to have been something
which had brought the Divine life beyond the limits of all that
constitutes the spiritual body ; whence this could not be separated,
so as for the Lord to resuscitate, as man does, in the spiritual world
only, a Divine Spiritual Man, but stood ready to descend into the
sphere of the material body, as soon as the life of this, which resisted,
was totally extinguished. The consequence must have been, what is
described in the above extract as the inevitable result of the immediate
presence of the Divine in anything not Divine. The material body
" would be utterly dissipated," not " by such union," for no union
could be effected ; but by such presence. But the Divine having
now descended into the same sphere, — into the very ultimates of

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 63
nature, would there become a Divine Body, in the same degree of
life as the material body, which was expelled to make way for it :
and thus, when he rose, the Lord was a man even as to flesh and
bones — as to the extreme ultimates of the Human Principle, though
these, like all the interiors, were now purely Divine.
We have really written this with a sense of holy awe. We offer
it with self-distrust, not pretending to say that it is in all respects
correct. This, however, is the way in which we have long viewed
this glorious subject ; and we see not how it can be viewed in any
very different way, if the passage above cited, from Arc. Coel. n.
6849, is admitted to be true ; which is disputed by none. Supported
by this passage, we think that the extract from the manuscript is
also likely to be the expression of the author's real sentiments ; and,
with those who think so, the question, as to the final disposal of the
material body, is decided. As just attempted to be explained, it will
be seen, that the idea of the dissipation of the material body in the
sepulchre is perfectly compatible with the assertion of E. S., that the
Lord is more ultimately a man than any angel or spirit, that he
glorified his body even to flesh and bones, and that he left nothing
behind him in the sepulchre. We intended now to have endeavoured
to shew, how it is that, according to this view, the Lord rose with
his whole body which he had in the world (with Mr. Hindmarsh's
views of which we are not quite satisfied) ; and also, to have con
sidered the other points which we have reserved as we went along :
but we are again compelled to break off for the present. It will now,
however, be seen, as remarked at the conclusion of our former article,
that the difference between our views and those of our valued friend
Mr. H., are not so considerable as might then, perhaps, be supposed.
We think his deficient, in sometimes seeming to admit, that the
Lord might have risen in as much fulness as he did, had the mate
rial body been " laid down " completely, and left in the sepulchre, —
that the Divine Natural was brought down to all the fulness to which
it ever descended, before the infirm body was completely put off;
which appears to leave room for the inference, that the body which
rose was more a Divine Spiritual than a Divine Natural Body, after
all. Sooner than admit any idea approaching to this last, we would
so quell our understanding in obedience to faith, that we would
believe in transmutation, transubstantiation, or any other incompre
hensible mystery, which would leave us in possession of the all-
necessary idea, that our Risen Lord is a Divine Man, having the
ultimates of humanity in as much fulness as man in the world has,
to the very flesh and bones, with no difference as to degree, but only
as to quality. We must, however, retain the belief, also, that he is
a Divine Man, consequently, not a material man ; consequently,
that he put off all the humanity originally taken from the mother,
and the residue of it by death and burial ; and thus that the Body
in which he rose was altogether put on, or put forth, from the
Essential Divinity, which was his soul ; so that, in Him, God is

64 THE GLORIFICATION OF
Man, and Man is God.* And how to connect these equally indis
pensable ideas, we at present see not, but in some such way as is
proposed above. THIRD NOTICE.
In the two articles on this important and interesting work which
appeared in our last two Nos., we stated pretty fully our views upon
the most important points in the subject which it discusses, — both
those in which we partially dissent from its much respected author,
and those in which we coincide with his views.
We finally endeavoured to shew, that prior to the crucifixion, all
in the Lord that, in man, constitutes the spirit which lives after
death, was already fully glorified ; but that, instead of withdrawing
on the death of the material body, and leaving this behind (as is the
case with ordinary men), preparation had also been made for the
descent of the Divine Humanity into the sphere of the latter.
Whatever the medium was which interposed between the Divine
Humanity, as already formed in the interiors, and the ultimates of
the body, it appears to have been removed as soon as the life of the
body was totally extinguished ; and this seems to have taken place
about thirty-six hours after its apparent death on the cross. Then,
the Divine from within descended into the sphere of the body of
material flesh and bones ; the consequence of which, according to
the view which has been taken, must be, the putting off, by utter
dissipation, of the latter, and the putting on of a divine body, by
this descent of the Divine from within, in lieu of the material body
thus expelled to make way for it, " Thus, when he rose, the Lord
was a man even as to flesh and bones — as to the extreme ultimates
of the Human Principle, though these, like all the interiors, were
now purely divine."
Of the ideas which we have offered respecting the preparatory
stages of this divine process, we feel diffident : of the final result, we
confess that we have a most assured confidence. We have no
shadow of doubt, that the material substances of the Lord's body
were completely "expelled" (and we strongly incline to believe, in
agreement with the extract from the manuscript, by " dissipation ")
at the resurrection, and that Divine natural substances were pat on,
by a descent from within, in their place : and we are as certain as
we can be of any truth whatever, that the Lord in his resurrection-
body is as fully a man, though a Divine and Infinite Man, as man
in the world is ; and thus more a man than any spirit or angel,
because having the ultimates of humanity, called in the Word flesh
and bones, which they are without.
We beg to support this view by a passage from E. S., in which,
to our apprehension, he delivers his view of the relation of the Lord's
Divine Humanity to the human persons both of angels and of men,
• Tr. Chr. Eel. u. 109.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 65
with more clearness and fulness than in any other single passage
throughout the whole of his writings. We cite it the more readily,
as it does not occur among the copious selection of extracts which
Mr. H. has given in his Appendix, — we suppose, because he there
cites no works but those published by the Author himself ; whereas
this is from his posthumous work, The Apocalypse Explained. But
its authority is not less on that account, as it contains no ideas but
what are also to be found in the works published in the author's life
time, though nowhere else so luminously concentrated. It is as
follows : " Let us now inquire what sort of Trine it was that God
had before the Lord assumed the Humanity, and made that Divine
in the world. God was then also a Man, and had a Divine Principle,
a Divine Human, and a Divine Proceeding, or a Divine Esse, a
Divine Existere, and a Divine Procedere ; for without a Trine there
can be no God. But the Divine Human was not then Divine to its
ultimates ; the ultimates are what are called flesh and bones : these
also were made Divine by the Lord when he was in the world : this
was an accessory : and this, now, is God's Divine Human. This
may also be illustrated by this comparison. An angel is a man : he
has a soul, he has a body, and he has a proceeding : but still he is
not a complete or perfect man, for he has not flesh and bones, as
man in the world has. That the Lord made his Humanity Divine
even to its ultimates, which are called flesh and bones, he himself
manifests to his disciples, when they thought that, in seeing him,
they saw a spirit ; saying, * See my hands and my feet, that it is I
myself : handle me and see : for a spirit hath not flesh and bones,
as ye see me have ' (Luke xxiv. 39). Whence it follows, that God
is now a Man more than the angels are."* Here we have it most
explicitly stated, that the Lord, by the assumption and glorification
of the Humanity in the world, is now more a man than the angels
are, because he has the ultimates of humanity, called flesh and bones,
which man in the world has, but angels have not. (The Author
afterwards states, to guard his meaning from misconception, that the
Lord differs both from angels and men in this respect, that they are
but recipients of life, whereas he is Life itself, both as to his Divinity
and his Divine Humanity.)
To the above we will add one other passage, which, we think, still
further sets the above grand truth in a most clear and striking
light. Mr. Hindmarsh has given part of it, in his collection of
passages from the writings of Swedenborg, which, he intimates,
deliver only apparent, not genuine truth (the validity of which
assumption we shall examine presently) ; but the whole together
certainly contains genuine truth of the most important kind. It is
from his last work, The True Christian Religion (n. 109) ; and
must therefore be regarded as presenting his last, and surely not
least enlightened perceptions on this most glorious subject. In it,
he explains the difference between the state of the Church before the
* Ap.Ex. 1112. F

66 THE GLORIFICATION OF
Lord's Incarnation and since, and accounts for the remarkable change
which he describes, from the Lord's having then invested himself
with a Humanity, the same, in degree, with that of man in the
world :
" All the churches, which existed before the coming of the Lord,
were representative churches, which were unable to see divine truths
otherwise than in the shade ; but after the Lord's coming into the
world, a church was instituted by him, which saw, or rather, was
endowed with the faculty of seeing, divine truths in the light. The
difference is like that between evening and morning. The state of
the church before the coming of the Lord is also, in the Word, called
evening, and the state of the church after his coming, is called
morning. Before his coming into the world, the Lord was indeed
present with the members of the church, but only mediately, through
the instrumentality of angels who represented him ; but since his
coming he is present with the members of the church immediately :
for in the world he put on also the Divine Natural, in which he is
present with men. The Lord's glorification is the glorification of
his Humanity which he assumed in the world ; and the Lord's
Glorified Humanity is the Divine Natural. That this is the case,
is evident from this circumstance ; that the Lord rose from the
sepulchre with his whole body which he had in the world, and left
nothing behind him therein ; consequently, that he took with him
thence the Natural Humanity Itself from its first elements to its last.
On this account he said, after his resurrection to his disciples, when
they supposed they saw a spirit, ' Behold my hands and my feet,
that it is I myself : handle me and see : for a spirit hath not flesh
and bones, as ye see me have' (Luke xxiv. 37, 39). From these
words it is evident, that, by glorification, his Natural Body was made
Divine ; wherefore Paul says, that ' in him dwelleth all the fulness
of the Godhead bodily ' (Col. ii. 9) ; and John, that, ' the Son of
God — Jesus Christ — is the true God and eternal life ' (1 John v.
20). From these evidences, the angels know, that, in the whole
spiritual world, the Lord alone is a full Man."
We do not see how any testimony more express than this can be
given. An immense change in the state of the Church, as existing
before, and since, the Lord's coming into the world, is described.
The ground of it is said to be, because, before his coming, the Lord
was only mediately present with the members of the Churoh, whereas,
since, his presence with them is immediate. The reason of this,
again, is declared to be, because the Lord put on in the world, "also,"
— that is, in addition, or as "an accessory," to the Divine Human
in the celestial and spiritual degrees, such as existed before, — the
Divine Natural, — that is, the degree of life which is peculiar to
man as existing in the world, this, however, being in the Lord
" Divine," and thus Life Itself, whereas in man it is merely natural,
and thus only a receptacle of life. To prove that he actually did
put on the Natural Degree, which is peculiar to man in the world,

the lord's humanity. 67
it is stated that he rose from the sepulchre with his whole Body
which he had in the world, and thus took with him the Natural
Humanity or the Human Natural, itself, from its first principles to
its ultimates, whence also he said to the disciples, that a spirit has
not flesh and bones, as they saw he had. And to prove that though
he was thus a man in fulness, his body was no longer material, but
Divine Substantial, he adverts to his sudden appearing among his
disciples, in such a manner as they supposed was only possible to a
spirit, and which would not have been possible to him, had not his
Natural Body, by glorification, been made Divine. Further to evince
that his Body was no longer material, or like that of an ordinary
man, he quotes the declaration of Paul, that " in him dwelleth all
the fulness of the Godhead bodily," since it is obvious that all the
fulness of the Godhead cannot dwell in any but a Divine Body. He
corroborates this with the saying of John, that the " Son of God,"
which is the title of the Divine Humanity, " is the true God and
Eternal Life," — is Divine Itself and is Life Itself. As with this
Humanity, thus complete even to the lowest elements of all, the
Lord ascended into heaven, yea, into the centre of the sun of heaven,
he finally states, that the angels, from these evidences, know, that,
in the whole spiritual world, the Lord alone is a full Man, or is a
man in fulness, he alone, in that world, having the ultimates of
Humanity, called flesh and bones, peculiar to man in this world, and
which all angels and spirits are without.
It is known to all the readers of the writings of the New Church,
that they abound, throughout, with passages to the same effect as
the above : but these two are sufficient for our present purpose, as
rendering the truth indubitable, if any reliance is to be placed on the
testimony of the heaven-taught Swedenborg, that the Lord rose
again, and thenceforth exists eternally, in the Human Natural, as
complete in the ultimates as it is with man in the world ; and yet
that this Natural Principle, in him, is at the same time Divine in
Itself, consequently, is entirely free from any combination with
material elements.
This brings us to the consideration of the important question, How
is it to be understood that, as stated in the last extract and in other
places, the Lord, rose from the Sepulchre with his whole body which
he had in the world, when yet, as is declared in so many other
passages, he put off all the Humanity which he had from the Mother,
and put on a Divine Humanity from the Father; that this was
effected, finally, by crucifixion and death ; and that he was in the
Humanity from the mother when he suffered, and in the Humanity
from the Father when he rose again? A too exclusive attention to.
passages of the former class has led some to conclude, that the
identical body — identical as to-the substances and matters of which
it was composed — which suffered on the cross, was that which rose
again : and a too exclusive attention to passages of the latter class
has inclined others to think, or at least to speak as if they thought,
f 2

68 THE glorification of
that the body which rose had not the ultimates of humanity in the
same fulness as that which was entombed ; and thus that, but for
the avoiding of some accidental inconveniences, such as that of its
being afterwards venerated idolatrously as a most sacred relic, the
body which was put off might have been left entire in the sepulchre,
and all that actually did rise, have risen notwithstanding. These
last ideas are actually suggested by Mr. Hindmarsh himself.
The first point of inquiry is, Is there any real contradiction
between the two classes of passages ? Mr. H. seems to think that
there is at least something very Hke it, and appears to intimate,
that those of the one class deliver only apparent, — those of the
other, genuine truth. Thus he writes,
" We are further of opinion, that those few passages in the writings which
apparently ascribe divine properties to the infirm or maternal Humanity, as if
that which was put off and rejected was also put on and united with Deity, are
to be understood in subordination to the other passages of a contrary tenor ; so
that the former be made to agree with these latter by proper interpretation, and
not vice versa these latter be made to agree with the former by stripping them of
theh true meaning. That one set of passages here alluded to, or the other set,
must be so dealt with, we judge no rational or intelligent person will deny ;
and which of these is entitled to the pre-eminence, can scarcely be made a
matter of doubt by those who know the value of genuine above that of appa
rent truth."
Now, upon careful consideration of all the passages, we are
decidedly of opinion that they all deliver genuine truth. Indeed,
it would be to admit a most dangerous principle, were we to con
clude, that the writings of Swedenborg, like the Word in the letter,
in some places, even when professing to deliver most important
doctrines, only speak according to apparent truth. Once admit this,
and every one is at Uberty to interpret them as he pleases. We are
quite certain that our excellent friend, though embarrassed by
thinking that there is something approaching to a real contradiction
in the two classes of passages referred to, is far indeed from admit
ting such a principle as really applicable to the statements of our
great Author. We are fully satisfied, that, so far from there being
even a "few," there are no "passages in the writings which [even]
apparently [in their true grammatical sense] ascribe divine properties
to the infirm or maternal Humanity, as if that which was put off
and rejected was also put on and united with Deity.
Mr. Hindmarsh connects with such passages as that which we
have cited above from Tr. Chr. Rel. n. 109, which assert that the
Lord rose with his whole Body that he had in the world, those
which he speaks of in the extract just adduced, which, he thinks,
apparently affirm that the infirm or maternal Humanity was glori
fied or made Divine. But that in no such passages can the Author
have spoken carelessly or unadvisedly, but that, in his own under
standing of his meaning, they are all in the strictest harmony with
those which affirm that everything from the mother was put off,
may appear from this circumstance ; that it is not in one or two
instances only that he has spoken in this manner, but that such

the lord's humanity. 69
passages occur from almost the beginning of his writings to the end.
Thus, he only first begins to treat of the Lord's glorification in his
explication of the twelfth chapter of Genesis ; and in the fourteenth
chapter (also in the first volume of the Arcana Ccelestia as pub
lished by himself in Latin), occurs already the first of the passages
quoted by Mr. H. as seeming to imply, that the Lord rose with the
same material and infirm body which had been crucified and buried.
It is in these words : " With the Lord, all is Jehovah, not only his
internal and interior man, but also his external man, and his very
body ; wherefore he is the only one who rose up to heaven with the
body also ; as plainly appears from the Evangelists, speaking of his
resurrection, and likewise from the Lord's own words'' — [those
about " a spirit hath not flesh and bones," &c. quoted above].
(This passage, however, and in fact all the similar ones, most plainly
imply, that the body which rose was not, as to substance, the
material and infirm body, which had been crucified and buried. For
the body which rose, as well as the Lord's internal man, was, it is
declared, Jehovah ; and it were profane indeed to imagine that
Jehovah was crucified and buried. The reason, also, everywhere
assigned, why the Lord is the only one who ever rose with his body,
conclusively proves that the body which rose was not, as to sub
stance, the same as was buried ; namely, because his body was now
divine ; whereas every one knows that the reason why the bodies of
men do not rise, is, because they are, and remain, material.) Another
of the passages of this kind adduced by Mr. H., is that from the
True Christian Religion, which we have given more at length
above. The first volume of the Arcana Ccelestia, printed in the
year 1 749, was the first of the Author's theological publications : the
True Christian Religion, printed in 1771, was the last. Similar
passages occur in nearly the whole of his intermediate works (for
there are many more of them than Mr. II. has selected). There
cannot be a more remarkable instance of uniform consistency.
Whatever the Author meant by his statement, that the Lord rose
again with his very body, or with his whole body which he had in
the world, he steadily perseveres in it from first to last ; certainly,
then, he was quite unconscious that he was herein contradicting
other statements, wliich he begins as early and continues as long.
Precisely the same is the case with the passages which, as Mr. H.
states, have been thought to imply, that the Humanity from the
mother was made Divine. The first which he adduces of these is
also from the first volume of the (Latin) Arcana, (n. 1815). It
is there said, " Man receives from his father all that is internal,
that is, his very soul or life ; but he receives from his mother all
which is external. In a word, the interior man, or the spirit itself,
is from the father ; but the exterior man, or the body, is from the
mother. The Lord, as to internals, was Jehovah ; but the external,
which he received from the mother, was to be united to the
Divinity, or Jehovah, and this by temptations and victories.'' The

70 the glorification of
latest passage of this kind to which he refers, is again in the True
Christian Religion (n. 92), where it is said that "the Divinity
from the Father, and Humanity from the mother, both united in
one, are the Son of God." Similar statements occur in his inter
mediate publications. Here then is the same perseverance in one
consistent testimony, and the same utter unconsciousness, that by
this steadiness of assertion he was contradicting another series of
statements, which he often was making in the same breath.
Certain then it is, that such statements as the above cannot be
regarded as casual inaccuracies of expression. Most certain it is,
that, as understood by the author, there is no incompatibility
between them and the collateral train of passages, in which he
declares, from first to last and always, that the maternal humanity,
and the body taken from the mother, were put off and utterly
exterminated. What External, then, or what Humanity, was it that was glorified ?
In our last we noticed (p. 53), that Mr. H. mentions that some
have argued, " that the process of glorification must have passed
upon some body or thing which was not previously divine ; and,
therefore, as the Humanity from the Father had always been
Divine, that it must have been the infirm, material, or maternal
Humanity of the Lord which was glorified, and not the Divine
Humanity, which, as here supposed, needed no such process." Mr.
H., we observed, meets this argument, by denying the premises and
both parts of the conclusion ; whereas we think the premises (that
the process of glorification must have passed upon something not
previously divine) indubitable, with, consequently, the latter or
negative part of the conclusion (that that which was glorified was
not the Divine Humanity) ; still denying the affirmative part of the
conclusion (that it was the infirm or maternal humanity that was
glorified), this being not the only alternative comprehended in the
premises. What the other alternative is, which, we conceive, is the
true conclusion, we shall notice presently. Mr. H.'s solution of
the question is, that that which was glorified was " the Divine
Human, or perhaps, more strictly speaking, the Human Divine
which existed before the incarnation." (p. 134.) So far as this
Human Divine was not Divine in Itself, from its partaking of the
infirmities of its angelic mediums, no doubt it was glorified, or made
Divine in itself, by the Lord's taking upon him, and also glorifying,
the ultimates of humanity in the world. So, that, even in this
respect, that which was made Divine was something which was not
previously Divine. But, as Mr. H. truly observes, the Human Divine
which existed before the incarnation only included in actuality the
Celestial and Spiritual Degrees : the Divine Natural, from first to
last, was wholly put on, or brought from its existence in potency
into existence in actuality, by the Lord's coming into the world.
How then was this natural degree glorified or made Divine, when it
did not exist at all in actuality in the Human Divine before the

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 71
incarnation ? Mr. H. says, that the Divine Natural came into
actuality " in an unglorified state," having " adjoined" to it " the
infirm human nature derived from the mother :" to us it appears,
that so long as the Natural Principle appertaining to the Lord was
in an unglorified state, that is, was not yet made Divine, it was
not the Divine Natural ; and also, that so long as there remained
adjoined anything of the infirm human nature derived from the
mother, so long was there a corresponding principle of the Divine
Natural not put on from the Father. According to the uniform
testimony of Swedenborg, every putting on was preceded by a put
ting off ; just as, in human regeneration, the first step is to desist
from evil, the second, to do good. But the theory we are examin
ing supposes the reverse, and that, in the Lord's glorification, the
Divine Natural was first put on, and afterwards the infirm human
nature from the mother put off.
We apprehend, therefore, that unless we would plunge into inex
tricable difficulties, we must admit to be true the really self-evident
proposition : " That the process of glorification [that is, as the term
is explained by Swedenborg, of making Divine] must have passed
upon some body or thing not previously Divine ;" with its inevitable
consequence, " That as the Humanity of the Father had always
been Divine, it could not be this Divine Humanity which was
glorified [or made Divine]."
The question still recurs, What then was the External, or Na
tural, or Humanity, which was glorified or made Divine ? Again
we answer, negatively, that as it cannot, without a contradiction in
terms, be supposed to have been the Divine Natural, or the Divine
Humanity, so neither was it the infirm, material, or maternal
humanity. It will then be demanded, What other alternative can
there be ? This we will now endeavour, however imperfectly, to
answer. We are everywhere taught in the writings of our great Instructor,
that spiritual ideas partake in no degree of time and space, conse
quently not of matter or extension, or even of person. We are
informed that the angels always look at things or principles in the
abstract, and not in the concrete ; that is, as they are in themselves,
and not as in their subjects. So, we are told, that the purely
spiritual sense of the Word is independent of individual persons,
and treat3 of things good and true, or evil and false, with all their
various qualities, themselves. Now though it might be supposed
that the habit of thinking of things abstractedly would in some
degree be formed in all the students of our Author's writings, yet,
as far as we are aware, it has never occurred to any one to do so,
when reading or thinking of the External, of the Natural, or of the
Human or Humanity, which the Lord took on him, and which he
made Divine : and yet, as appears to us, nothing more is necessary
to the solution of the difficulties which we are now considering, and
to make both the classes of passages which pervade all his works

72 THE GLORIFICATION OF
perfectly consistent with each other. In an abstract idea, human
nature, for instance, is an object of thought in itself, quite indepen
dently of any individual being who possesses it, and, consequently,
without reference to the mass of substances and matters of which
all individual human beings are composed. So it is, also, with the
terms "internal" and " external man :" and, we apprehend, when
the internal and the external man are suggested as objects of
thought, most persons do think of them abstractedly, without refe
rence to their existence in the concrete, or in any particular
individual, or to the substances and matters of which individual forms
are composed. It is the same when the natural, the spiritual, or
the celestial principle is mentioned : we think of them according to
the ideas we have been able to form of their nature in themselves,
without reference to particular persons, or to particular assemblages
of substances and matters. It is the same with the will and the
understanding, and with every thing of the nature of a principle
that can be thought of. Will and understanding, and all the other
things we have mentioned, cannot, we know, have a mere abstract
existence : they can only exist actually in the concrete, or must
always be in their subjects, or in beings composed of substance, and
forms organised in a particular manner ; but this does not prevent
us from thinking of them in the abstract, and investigating their
abstract qualities, nevertheless. Now why cannot we sometimes do
this, when we think of the Lord's External, Natural, or Human ?
How is it that we never seem to think of these a moment, but as
composed of forms and matters taken from the mother, or of forms
and substances put on from the Father ? It is true that there was
no period at which the Lord's Humanity, and every distinct prin
ciple which belonged to it, did not exist in the concrete, either in
forms and matters taken from the mother or in forms and sub
stances put on from the Father : still there is no difficulty in think
ing of it, and of every particular belonging to it, abstractedly from
either : and, we apprehend, we must do so, in order to get out of
the dilemma which so many have found to result from the contrary
practice. Let us try, then, whether this mode of considering the subject
will help us to understand the passages which Mr. Hindmarsh has
collected, "from which it has been inferred, that the Humanity from
the mother was made Divine ;" meaning thereby what is less am
biguously called "the maternal Humanity." The first of them is
that which we have given above, from Arc. Ccel. 1815 : we will only
repeat the part in which, it is thought, the merely apparent truth
lies : " The Lord as to internals was Jehovah ; but the external,
which he received from the mother, was to be united to ihe
Divinity, or Jehovah." Properly pointed, as it is here by Mr. H.,
we think it requires but little effort to discover the genuine truth
intended. Tlie external, here, is to be thought of abstractedly, as
the principle constituting the external man, independently of any

THE LORD S HUMANITY. 73
determinate quality, either good or evil, or of the forms and substances
of which, at any specific period, it was composed. The external was,
at first, "received from the mother," and could not have been
assumed through any other medium. The external, viewed in the
general or abstract way which has been suggested, as a certain
principle of human nature, was, unquestionably, "to be united to
the Divinity, or Jehovah ;" and this, as is added, " by temptations
and victories ;" because, by these, the impure forms and substances
which determined the quality of the external, as received from the
mother, were expelled, and divine forms and substances were put on
from the Father in their place. But under each condition the
external was the external ; and, thus generally considered, was to
be, and was, united to the Divinity, and made itself Divine. We
think there is actually no ambiguity in this passage, unless the
points be omitted ; when it would read, " The external which he
received from the mother was to be united to the Divinity." The
external which he received from the mother, would be the same as
the maternal external : this certainly was not to be united to the
Divinity : and it is this way of reading it which appears to have
occasioned the misapprehension. The external, considered generally
and abstractedly, is totally different in idea from the specific external
taken from the mother. Yet the external, considered generally and
abstractedly, actually was at first received from the mother, and could
not otherwise have been adjoined to the Lord's internal man : still
this was capable, not only of being adjoined, but finally united, to
the Divinity ; whereas the specific external taken from the mother,
could only be adjoined for a time, in order that the specific external
brought forth from the Father might be put on.
The next passage is from A. C. 2159 : "That servant denotes
the Humanity appertaining to the Lord before it was made Divine,
may appear from several passages in the prophets ; the reason is,
because the Humanity appertaining to the Lord, before he put it off
and made it Divine, was nothing else but a servant." The author's
language is here doubtless so elliptical as to occasion ambiguity, were
this not guarded against by what follows. But in the remainder
of the paragraph the distinction between the " Humanity from the
mother " and the " Divine Humanity " is fully shewn, and it is
declared that he "utterly expelled" the former, and "put on" the
latter. In the above extract, the ambiguity is greater than in the
original, through a transposition of the words, and not retaining the
specific meaning of the pronoun illud. We will re-translate the
principal part, with the insertion [between brackets] of some ex
planatory words: — "Servant denotes the Humanity appertaining
to the Lord, before it [the Humanity considered generally and
abstractedly] was made Divine ; — the reason is, because the
Humanity of the Lord was nothing else [but a servant] before he
put that [which was a servant] off, and made it [the Humanity
generally and abstractedly] Divine." It is impossible for any one

74 THE GLORIFICATION OF
who reads the original carefully with the context to doubt that this
is its meaning.
In Mr. H.'s third passage from A. C. 6717, the language is
precisely the same as in the first (A. C. 1815), and will be fully
explained by the observations which we have made upon that. We
could wish, however, the reader to peruse the whole paragraph in
the Arcana itself, which he will find a most luminous illustration
of the subject of the progressive renewal of the external man from
ihe internal, and will see that the meaning cannot be, that the
specific external taken from the mother was made Divine. If,
however, he wishes for still further light, let him turn to the Tr.
Ch. Rel. 103, where he will find, that " every man, after death,
lays down the natural, which he had from his mother, and retains
the spiritual part which he had from his father ;" and that, " with
respect to the Lord, he, while he was in the world, by acts of redemp
tion, put off all the Humanity from the mother, a,ni put on a Human
ity from the Father, whence, in Him, God is Man, and Man is God."
Mr. H.'s fourth and last passage of this kind is from Apoc. Rev.
820 : " The Humanity which the Lord glorified, that is, made
Divine, was the Natural Humanity; which he could not glorify
or make Divine, except by the assumption of the Humanity in a
virgin in the natural world, to which he then united his Divinity,
which he had from eternity." Here, the Humanity, and the
Natural Humanity, are to be understood in the general abstract
manner described above. Thus understood, and without limiting it
to any specific kind, he did assume the Humanity in a virgin in
the natural world, to which he then united his Divinity. It may be
observed, by the way, that the Author here himself defines what
Humanity it was " which the Lord glorified, that is, made Divine."
He simply says that it was " the Natural Humanity," and does not
commit such a contradiction in terms as to say, " The Humanity
which the Lord glorified, that is, made Divine, was the Divine
Natural Humanity."
The passage mentioned above, from Tr. Chr. Rel. 92, which
says, " The Divinity from the Father, and the Humanity from the
mother, both united in one, are the Son of God," is of the same
character as the last. The Humanity, considered abstractedly as a
certain general principle, was at first from the mother ; and the
Humanity thus considered, and the Divinity from the Father, were
united in one. Though, as taken from her, it was an infirm
humanity, as a general principle it was made Divine.
Mr. H. truly observes, that the first four of the above passages
are the chief of the kind to be found in our Author's works, though
there are some others which partake of the same mode of speaking.
The whole, as it appears to us, are so easily explained in the manner
we have stated, which seems so obvious, that we really wonder how
they should ever have been regarded as presenting difficulties by any
persons acquainted with the nature of language, especially by an,r

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 75
who have learned, from the writings of Swedenborg, or even of ordi
nary philosophers, that there are such things as abstract ideas. If
they were the only passages in which the Author's doctrine on the
subject is stated, some of them might be thought to imply, " that
the Humanity from the mother [or the maternal Humanity] was
made Divine ;" but when most of them directly exclude such a
notion in the immediate context, it does surprise us a little, that
the true mode of apprehending them has not been more general, —
that it has not been universally seen, that in their true grammatical
meaning, even, they speak, not apparent but genuine truth.
In justice to Mr. Hindmarsh, it is proper to let him say how he
would explain them. After having properly observed, that " they
ought all to be interpreted in such a manner as to make them agree
with the vast majority of [as he conceives] a different tenour," he
proceeds thus : —
"The only way in which this can be done, as it appears to us, is either to con
sider the Author's language as applicable to the first rudiments of the Lord's
Divine Natural Humanity, derived indeed from the Father, but in a certain
sense born of the virgin Mother, because adjoined to the infirm Humanity her
offspring even at the very birth ; or else to suppose that the Author might at
times have thought it unnecessary to mark the distinction so often made between
the maternal Humanity and the glorified Humanity, and that he has in a very
general way spoken of them as one and the same, seeing that both were still
included in one and the same individual Person.''
The first of these alternatives, we have already seen, we cannot
accept, being convinced that it is a contradiction in terms wholly
unsanctioned by E. S., to speak either of the " rudiments" or anything
else belonging to " the Lord's Divine Natural Humanity" as being to
be made Divine. The other alternative is less remote from what we
regard as the truth ; it being true that, in those passages, the
Author has spoken " in a general way," though not, as we conceive,
that he ever has spoken of " the maternal Humanity and the
glorified Humanity" " as one and the same." As already noticed,
by the Humanity or the External, which was received from the
mother, when said to have been united to the Divinity, it is quite
clear to us that he never means " the maternal Humanity," but
only the Humanity, or the External, abstractedly or generally con
sidered. Having, then, seen how the passages are to be understood which
say, that the External, or the Humanity, which the Lord took from
the mother, was united to the Divinity, glorified, or made Divine,
without supposing them to imply that the maternal or infirm
Humanity, specifically, was made Divine ; let us now turn again to
the passages which say that the Lord rose with his very Body, or
with his Body which he had in the world, and let us endeavour to
ascertain whether these do or do not imply that the Lord rose with
the same material and infirm body which had been crucified and
buried. The passages which state that the Lord rose from the dead, or

76 THE GLORIFICATION OF
from the sepulchre, with his very body, and with his whole body,
are considerably numerous : yet it is unnecessary to examine par
ticularly even the seven which Mr. H. has selected ; for • the true
solution of any one of the more particular of them will be that of
them all.
If the Author had never said any more than that the Lord rose
again with his Body, or that he made Divine his very Body itself
(which are the forms in which he sometimes states his doctrine
upon the subject), there would be no more difficulty of apprehend
ing his meaning, than when he says, hundreds of times, that he
glorified his Humanity and made it Divine. He sometimes speaks of
the Humanity and of the Body as if they were convertible terms, the
body being, though by no means the whole of the human nature of
man, yet an indispensable part of that nature as it exists with man
in the world. Now as we can easily form an abstract idea of
Humanity in general, without reference to the forms and substances
in which it exists in any individual human being, so can we easily
form an abstract idea of the human body in general, as a part of
Humanity, without thinking of the specific quality of the forms and
substances of which, in any individual man, it is composed. When
therefore it is said that the Lord made his Humanity Divine even
as to the Body, or that he rose again with his whole Body, there is
no more difficulty in apprehending the true meaning, by the help of
this sort of abstraction, than when it is said, in more general terms,
that he glorified his Humanity, or that he made his whole Human
Essence Divine. The Body with which he rose, is easily seen to be
a body the same in degree as, or having every thing that essentially
belongs to the nature of, the body of a man in the world ; and when
we are told, as is constantly the case, that he thus rose with his
whole Body because he had made it Divine, we easily perceive, that
it could not be the same as to substance as it was before it was
made Divine, and because it then was material, and we are sure
there is no such thing as Divine matter. We readily acquiesce
therefore, in the statement of our Author (Doct. Ld. 35), that " it
was now no longer material, but Divine Substantial ;" and this
because "he altogether put off the Humanity derived from the
mother, and put on the Divine Humanity ;" and this, as is ex
plicitly declared (A. C. 2288), " when he passed out of the world,
and returned to the Essential Divinity in which he was from
eternity, together with the Humanity made Divine."
Thus far, then, there is no difficulty whatever — no even plausible
grounds for supposing, that the Lord rose with the same material
and infirm body in which he was crucified and buried. But some
passages speak still more particularly. The most particular of any
is that which we have already cited above (p. 66) for a different
purpose, from Tr. Chr. Rel. 109. It is there said, " The Lord's
glorification is the glorification of the Humanity which he as
sumed in the world." In this, none would find any difficulty.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 77
The Humanity obviously means the Humanity generally and ab
stractedly considered, without reference to any specific quality of
its substances and forms. " The Lord's Glorified Humanity," it
proceeds, " is the Divine Natural." But to prove this, it con
tinues, " That this is the case, is evident from this circumstance ;
that the Lord rose from the sepulchre with his whole Body which
he had in the world, and left nothing behind him therein ; conse
quently, that he took with him thence the Natural Humanity from
its first elements to its last." Here, from its being said that he
rose " with his whole Body which he had in the world," it has
been inferred (not, it must be confessed, unreasonably, if these
words alone were to be looked at), that the Body which rose was
identically the same, in substance and in everything else, with the
body which he had before, and in which he was crucified. It is
however certain, from innumerable other testimonies, that this
cannot be the case ; and even from the context of this very passage
(as is in part shown above, pp. 66, 67). And, when the words
are looked at again, why should not " the whole body which he had
in the world," be capable of being considered generally and ab
stractedly, as well as " his Humanity which he assumed in the
world,"" mentioned just before ? The " Body which he had in the
world," was part of the " Humanity which he assumed in the
world." What he had in the world, he assumed in the world ;
and what he assumed in the world, he certainly had, in the world.
If then we find no difficulty in thinking of " the Humanity which
he assumed in the world" in a general and abstract manner, and
not from the quality of the forms and substances of which it at first
consisted, why should we find it more difficult to think in the same
manner of "the Body which he had in the world?" We are
satisfied that this is the right way of conceiving of the subject : and
thus that " the Body which he had in the world" does not mean
the body as composed of the forms and matters derived from the
mother, but the body which he had as a man of the world, being
the ultimate form of human life in the natural degree. Thus, as we
easily conceive of the " Humanity which he assumed in the world"
as being glorified, as here said, or made Divine, before it could
return to the Essential Divinity, and this by a total putting off of
the specific Humanity, or of the forms and substances of it, derived
from the mother, and the putting on of a Divine Humanity from
the Father ; so may we as easily, and must as necessarily, conceive
of " the Body which he had in the world," as being also glorified or
made Divine (the body as a particular, being included when it is
said that the Humanity — the general — was so) ; and this, likewise,
by a total putting off of the specific body, or of the forms and
matters of it, derived from the mother, and the putting on of a
Divine Body from the Father.
But why is it said, that the Lord thus " rose from the sepulchre,
and left nothing behind him therein, but took with him thence the

78 THE GLORIFICATION OF
Natural Humanity Itself from first to last ?" Does not this imply,
that what he took away from the sepulchre was the very same body
as to substance as had been there deposited, after being crucified ?
In reality it implies no such thing. He did not take it thence, till,
as is said in this very paragraph and everywhere else, it was " made
Divine," and it was not Divine when crucified and buried. When
it was buried, therefore, the ultimates of the Divine Natural were
not yet put on. These ultimates of the Divine Natural must then
have been put on in the sepulchre ; and they only could be put on,
by putting off the previous merely human ultimates of flesh and
bones — by utterly expelling, abolishing, and, as it seems, dissipating
them ; so that, if the matters of which they were composed con
tinued afterwards in existence at all, it was as mere unorganised
elements, not as presenting anything of a human form. These
ultimates of the Divine Natural having then been put on in the
sepulchre, he took them thence. Had he not there put them on,
he could not have risen with his body which he had in the world as
to its last elements, but only as to its first, which were Divine
before it was laid there ; thus he could not have risen with his
whole body. Had he left anything of the nature of a body behind
him therein, it would have been a certain proof that he had not
made the Natural Humanity Divine to its ultimates. His not
leaving anything, was an equally certain proof, that his whole
Natural Humanity from its first elements to its last — a body in
degree such as that of man in the world being its last, — was now
Divine. Let it be remembered, as remarked in our last, that Swedenborg
never says that the Lord rose with his body that had been crucified,
nor yet that he rose with the same body which he had in the world.
If this had been his meaning, why did not he take so easy a way of
making it indubitable ? He says that the Lord rose with the whole
body that he had in the world, to express as strongly as possible,
that he did not rise, as man does, as to the spiritual part only, but
with the whole of the Human Essence — with the Natural Humanity
from first to last, which, in its last elements, only belongs to men in
the world. Our conviction therefore is, that he uses such phrases
abstractedly, to denote the human body in general as to all the
forms and principles properly belonging to it, without any reference
to the substances in which those forms and principles were embodied
in the specific Humanity derived from the mother.
We intended to have offered some further illustrations of this
subject, and to have touched upon several others : but we have
already, in our three Notices, carried this Review to an unreasonable
length, and if we were to remark upon every thing that has struck
us, we should write a work as large as the book itself. Having
considered the topics of chief importance, we must therefore con
clude. Our object has been to assist in setting the principles advo
cated by Mr. Hindmarsh on an immovable foundation, by removing

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 79
some of what appeared to us as unsound materials. We think the
Church is under great obligations to him for having bestowed so
much pains on the elucidation of so momentous a subject ; and
though, as will have been seen, we cannot assent to all the contents
of his work, we think it abounds with striking and beautiful views,
and everywhere exhibits the acutely thinking mind, and the pro
found knowledge of New-Church subjects, which so eminently dis
tinguish its venerable and intelligent Author.

80

CHAPTER V.
THE RESURRECTION OF THE LORD IN A DIVINE,
NOT A MATERIAL BODY ;
AND THAT THIS TRUTH IS NOT DISPROVED BY HIS MANIFESTATION
OF HIMSELF TO THOMAS :
A Sermon delivered at Lisle Street Chapel, London, April 7,
1822, being the Anniversary qf the Lord's Resurrection.
By the Rev. S. Noble.

John xx. 26 - 29.
" And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them.
Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace he
unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands ;
and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side ; and be not faithless, but
beUeving. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus
saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed ; blessed are
they who have not seen and yet have believed."

It is a truth well known to those who are acquainted with the
doctrines of the New Jerusalem Church, that the mind of man,
whatever may be the tenets of his professed creed, inwardly forms to
itself an idea of God according to its state ; hence some judgment
may be conceived of the state of the church in individuals and
societies, if it is known what is the idea they form of the object of
their worship. Among Christians, who are brought acquainted, by
the Holy Word, with the Lord Jesus Christ, the state of the church
is marked by the idea they inwardly cherish of him, the Author and
Finisher of their faith. He is allowed on all hands to be the head
of the church : accordingly the church with every individual will be
according to the view which he entertains of him, his head. If his idea
be a genuine one, he will receive, or at least is in a capacity to receive,
the full communication of spiritual hfe and light flowing from him,
his head ; as the nervous fluid, which conveys life throughout the cor
poreal frame, is distributed through it by the nerves proceeding from
their origins in the brain : and according to the degree in which his
idea approaches to the truth, will be the quantity and purity of the
spiritual life, which will thence animate his interior organization.
Now it is obvious, that no spiritual hfe can be thus circulated, as it
were, through man's spiritual frame, unless the head from which it
proceeds possess life in itself : of course, man's reception of it will
be proportioned to the fulness of his acknowledgment of the divinity

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 81
of the Lord Jesus, from whom he receives it. It may be said that
man's acknowledgment can make no alteration in the Lord, who
must still be essential life, whether man acknowledges it or not.
This is true. But it makes a most important difference in man's
capacity for receiving life from him. They who deny his divinity
altogether are in the condition of the rebels in the parable, who
said, We' will not have this man to reign over us, and who, of course,
exclude themselves from the blessings of his kingdom. They still,
it is true, profess to acknowledge him as the head of the church :
but what they thus acknowledge is not the Lord but a phantom of
their own creation ; and as well might we expect to see natural life
flow from a head of marble to animate the statue beneath, as hope
for the enjoyment of real spiritual life, while we deny divine life
to its only Author. It is to be remembered, however, that these
remarks do not apply to those sentiments a man has learnt from
his creed, but to those which are the confirmed dictate of his own
understanding, as influenced by the state of his affections. Where
a sincere desire is felt duly to regulate these, there will be an
inward longing, though perhaps unnoticed by the subject of it, for
something better : and probably the change which then takes place
in the mind may be something like what was represented by the
fable of the ancients, who tell of a statue being animated at the fer
vent prayer of the artist.
Now certainly there is deep reason to regret that such unworthy
ideas of Him whom they acknowledge as their head, should be
entertained by the christian world in general. The most that is
allowed him is a third share of the divine nature ; and even this is
supposed to belong to only half of his : for his body is not allowed
to partake of divinity at all. The Lord declares, that unless we
eat his flesh and drink his blood we have no life in us : yet Chris
tians in general believe that he has none but material flesh and
blood to give us ; and how these can be given it is certainly im
possible to conceive ; nor do they attempt to inform us. As, then,
the belief that the Lord's Humanity is divine is a thing of the
greatest importance to prepare for the reception of the spiritual life
of which he is the Author, and which his Humanity is the sole
medium of imparting to us, we will consider the words selected as
our present text, which are sometimes dwelt on, as intimating that
the Lord's body remained material, even after his resurrection : for
we cannot be too well fortified against the objections of those, who
like Thomas, unless they see and feel, are determined not to
believe. To conceive of anything of materiality a,s attaching to the glorified
Body of the Lord, is certainly gross in the extreme. It is indeed
true, that while on earth he had such a body ; for he could not have
been born into the world, and so become a Man in last or lowest
principles, as he was previously in first principles, without it : but to
suppose that he rose again in such a frame, and returned with it
G

82 THE GLORIFICATION OF
into the bosom of the Father, or inmost Divinity, from whence he
came forth, is to suppose an impossibility. It would be easier for a
stick or a piece of paper to endure being cast into the centre of the
sun, without being consumed, than for a weak material frame to be
received into the bosom of the naked Divinity. We are to remember
that the Lord's soul was divine from his conception, since Jehovah
himself was his Father, the body being all that he took from the
mother. So long as anything of this body remained, he walked
like other men on the earth, and was not only obvious to the sight
of every one that met him, but was exposed to the ill-treatment of
his persecutors, even to crucifixion : but after he rose from the dead,
he was no longer within their reach. He was then seen of none, but
those to whom he saw fit to reveal himself ; a convincing proof that
he was no longer encumbered with materiality, but that his body
was now become the express image of his soul, and that, as this was
divine, so also was his body. To make it so, was one of the chief
objects of his combats with the infernal hosts while in the Humanity
taken from the mother ; accordingly, we find him saying, " I have
a baptism to be baptized with ; but how am I straightened till it be
accomplished !" and this not in allusion to his baptism by John, for
this had taken place long before ; but to the process represented by
baptism, which, in regard to man, is regeneration, or a making
spiritual, but, in regard to the Lord, glorification, or making divine.
Now as there are various degrees and principles to be regenerated in
man, so were there various degrees and principles to be glorifiea in
the Lord, who took upon him all that is in man : and this process
in him, like the other in us, was gradual and successive : hence we
find him repeatedly praying to the Father, or Divinity within him,
to glorify his name, that is, his Humanity ; and on one occasion a
voice was heard in answer saying, " I have both glorified it, and will
glorify it again ;" intimating, that the glorifying of his internal was
then quite accomplished, and that that of his external would cer
tainly be effected. At the period, then, of the crucifixion, every
principle of the Lord's human nature was glorified except the merely
material body ; — that is, every thing received from the mother except
this had been removed, and corresponding Divine Principles brought
forth from the Father had assumed their place, and stood ready to
descend into the body also. Accordingly, as soon as the death of
the latter had been brought to pass, the divine energy descended,
dissipated or consumed in an instant the material elements, and
supplied their place with divine substance of its own, which had
nothing in common with matter, and could not be subject to any of
its laws. This is represented in Matthew, chap, xxviii., by the ano-el
of the Lord descending and rolling away the stone from the door of
the sepulchre and sitting on it. By this is strictly signified the
removal of the appearances of truth, of which the letter of the Word
(represented by the stone) consists, so that they no longer oppose
the manifestation of genuine truth, which, by misapplication, they

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 83
may be made to seem to do, but are seen as subservient to and con
firmatory of it. But if the same words be considered in reference
to the Lord's person, the stone while it shut up the mouth of the
sepulchre, will represent the materiality and other infirmities of the
natural principle which he had in the world, which restricted and
prevented the manifestation of his full divinity : but when viewed
as rolled away, and with the angel seated on it, it represents the
Divine Natural Principle assumed instead of the former, which pre
sents no impediment to the full display of omnipotence, but is the
instrument for its exertion. And, as before observed, the per
formance of this by the descent of the angel of the Lord, represents
that it was a consequence of the bringing down of the divine life from
within into the very lowest of the natural degree, thus into the very
body, which was thus renewed and rendered wholly divine.
But, as already observed, it is sometimes asked, If the Lord's
Body was no longer material, how was it possible for Thomas to
thrust his hand into his side, and his fingers into the print of the
nails in his hands and feet ? On this subject I would answer, first,
that whether this circumstance can be made plain or not to our gross
apprehension, the other evidence that the Lord's Body was not now
material, nor subject to any of the laws by which matter is limited,
is so decisive, that it is impossible, when it is attended to, to have
any doubt about it. It is expressly stated on this very occasion, as
well as at his former appearance to the other disciples, that the
doors were shut : which would be a piece of information of no use
whatever, if it were not to apprise us, that Jesus had no need now
for the opening of doors to admit him amongst his people. Besides,
if the doors were simply closed, so that any one could open them,
(which is the way in which some account for his sudden appearance),
they would not afford the security required against the malignant
interruption of the Jews. We read on the first occasion, " The same
day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were
shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews." Now
who that were thus assembled in the midst of enemies would simply
put to the door in such a manner that any stranger could open it ?
Could a door, in such a case, be properly said to be shut, unless it
were so secured that none could enter, except by force, without the
concurrence of those within? When Peter was delivered out of
prison by an angel, and went to the house where the disciples then
abode, he could not enter till he was let in, and was compelled to
wait some time for admission. For we read (Acts xii.) that "he
came to the house of Mary the mother of Mark : where many were
gathered together, praying. And as Peter knocked at the door of
the gate, a damsel came to hearken (or, as the margin gives it, to
ask who was there) named Rhoda. And when she knew Peter's voice,
she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how Peter
stood before the gate. And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But
she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is
G 2

84 THE GLORIFICATION OF
his angel. But Peter continued knocking. And when they had
opened the door, and saw him, they were astonished" (verse
12 — Ig), If; then, all this caution was used when the disciples
were alarmed by the imprisonment of Peter, though they had
already experienced several signal marks of the divine interposition
in their favour, is it to be imagined that they were less fearful
when assembled immediately after the Lord's crucifixion, when they
knew not, or at least did not believe, that he was risen again, though
they had been told so, and when of course they were in the greatest
dread of the malice of the Jews, and without any confidence in the
Lord's power to protect them ? Such a supposition is inconsistent
in the extreme ; and to have recourse to it, as some expositors
have done, to escape from the undeniable inference of the Lord's
divinity and freedom from the shackles of material nature, is only
a strong proof of the miserable evasions to which prejudice will
have recourse, rather than relinquish an error which has become
dear by previous confirmation. To say, as the sacred text does on
two occasions, that when the doors were thus shut, came Jesus and
stood in the midst, is the same thing as to say that his Divine
Form was now no longer of material substance, no longer capable
of exclusion by walls and doors ; and it must have been stated
with the express design of leading to this inference. This is still
further evident from the manner in which the circumstance is men
tioned in Luke, chap. xxiv. After he had manifested himself to
two disciples at Emmaus, where it is expressly said that when they
knew him their eyes were opened, they returned immediately to
bring the intelligence to the rest at Jerusalem ; when " They told
them what things were done in the way, and how he was known of
them in the breaking of bread. And as they thus spake (it is
added) Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto
them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted,
supposing that they had seen a spirit." Here it is plain that the
manner of the Lord's appearance was miraculous, and was so con
sidered by the disciples. The miracle consisted in this, — that the
sight of their spirit was opened for the time, and of course all
their other spiritual senses, they being put into a spiritual state ; a
form to which walls of stone and doors of wood were not impervious
could not be made visible to senses, such as those of the material
body, which cannot pass through such obstacles. The same is
evident from the manner in which the Lord afterwards appeared to
John, as related in the first chap, of the Revelation ; who says on
the occasion, " I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. And I
heard behind me a great voice as of a trumpet, . saying, I am Alpha
and Omega, the First and the Last." He presently adds, " And I
turned to see the voice which spake with me ; and being turned I
saw seven golden candlesticks, and, in the midst of the seven
candlesticks one like unto the Son of Man ;" whose person he
proceeds to describe. Here it is expressly declared that John heard

THE lord's humanity. 85
with his spiritual ears as well as saw with his spiritual eyes, being
altogether in a spiritual and not in a natural state ; for he prefaces
the whole with saying, " I was in the spirit." Similar must have
been the state of Thomas and the other disciples when they saw
the Lord after his resurrection ; wherefore Luke notices the singular
mode of his disappearance, after he had revealed himself to the
two disciples at Emmaus. Had his body been still material, he
must have walked away : instead of which we are told that " he
vanished out of their sight." How did he vanish ? Not by any
change in his state, but by a change in theirs ; by the sudden
closing of their spiritual senses, so that they could no longer have a
perception of an object which could only be discerned while their
spiritual senses were open. When these were closed, they beheld
nothing but the objects of material nature, which are the only ones
that the bodily senses are capable of perceiving : hence they saw
the Lord no longer.
Thus then there seems to be the most decisive evidence to show
that it was not with the eyes of the body that the disciples beheld
the Lord after his resurrection. It is plain also from the testimony
of John the Revelator, that it was not with the bodily ears that
they heard his voice : for though he spoke, as the Revelator
declares, as with a voice of a trumpet, yet it was necessary for John
to be in the spirit before he could hear it. If then the Lord should
manifest himself further by the sense of touch, it is still evident
that it must be to that sense as enjoyed by the spiritual part of
man, not as possessed by his material part, that the perception
could be given. Accordingly the Revelator informs us further, that
whilst he was in the spirit, having fallen at the Lord's feet as dead,
overcome by the splendour of his majesty, the Lord "laid his right
hand upon him, and said unto him, Fear not, I am the First and
the Last ;" from which it is evident that as John, unless he had
been in the spirit, could not have heard the Lord's voice, though
as loud as a trumpet, being filled with the earnestness of his divine
love ; and as again, unless he had been in the spirit, he could not
have beheld the majesty of his person, although the brightness of
" his countenance was as the sun shining in his strength ;" so it
was only his being in the spirit that enabled him to feel his touch,
though filled with the power of him who is the First and the Last,
the Source of all things in heaven and in earth. If, then, Thomas
really satisfied himself of the Lord's identity by feeling his wounds,
is it not evident that. it must have been the sense of feeling as
possessed by his spiritual part, not as possessed by his bodily
organs, that made the exploration which his spirit of incredulity
required ?
It may however be observed, in the second place, that there is no
evidence whatever that Thomas had this satisfaction given to his
sense of feeling. To suppose that he actually thrust his hands and
fingers into the Lord's wounds, is entirely a gratuitous assumption :

86 THE GLORIFICATION OF
the evidence of scripture shews that he did not do so. He had pre
viously expressed his obstinate unbelief by saying, "Except I shall
see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print
of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."
The divine record immediately adds, " And after eight days, again
his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came
Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said, Peace
be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger,
and behold my hands ; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it
into my side : and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas
answered and said unto him, My Lord, and my God." Here it is
evident that the miraculous appearance of Jesus, such as was
impossible to have been effected by a material being, and the display
of his omniscience, as evinced by his knowledge of Thomas's
thoughts, were quite sufficient to overcome the incredulity of this
weak but sincere disciple : instead therefore of proceeding to seek
the corporeal demonstration which in his darker state he had said
he should require, and ashamed of having entertained the thought,
he immediately declares his full satisfaction, and worships Jesus as
his Lord and his God. Had he gone further, no doubt the Lord's
reply would have been, " Thomas, because thou hast felt me, thou
hast believed," &c : instead of which he said, " Thomas, because
thou hast seen me, thou hast believed : blessed are they who have
not seen and yet have believed."
Still it would appear as if there remained in the Lord's glorified
body the mark of the wounds inflicted on his material body : But we
are to remember that a Divine Being can shew himself before man
kind under such appearances as their various states may require to
produce acknowledgment : and indeed it is certain that whenever
he displays himself to his creatures, it is through the medium of their
interiors, so that he never appears to two angels exactly alike. In
the present case it is evident, that the disciples, who as yet had only
thought of Jesus as the Messiah who was to procure for the Jews a
deliverance from the Roman yoke, and to re-instate the kingdom of
Israel, could not have been satisfied of his identity, had he not
appeared in such a form as revived their recollections of him as the
crucified Jesus, and yet convinced them of his absolute divinity, and
led them to worship him as their Lord and God. This was accom
phshed by his exhibiting marks which they knew his crucifixion must
have occasioned, which marks, being in their idea of him, seemed
impressed on his person : whilst he yet suddenly appeared in the
midst of them in such a manner as was possible to none but a Divine
Being. Had he appeared in the former character alone, they would
have acknowledged him as a risen Jesus, a highly favoured man, but
would not have been assured of his absolute Divinity: had. he
appeared only in the latter character, they would have known that
they had been favoured with a manifestation of Jehovah, but would
have been unable to connect this with the idea of Jesus : they would

THE LORD S HUMANITY, 87
have been left without any assurance that Jesus was One with
Jehovah: whereas by appearing in a manner that impressed both
convictions on their minds, Jesus convinced them of the great truth
that all revelation is designed to lead to, yet in such a manner as
not to violate the natural feelings of mankind, viz. that Jesus and
Jehovah are one and the same God, Jehovah being properly the
name of the Divine Essence unclothed with Humanity, and Jesus of
the Divine Humanity as the manifested form of the Divine Essence.
With respect to the spiritual signification of the incredulity of
Thomas, this is to be looked for in investigating the specific cha
racter of the Apostles and other of the Lord's constant attendants.
It is to be observed, that Mary Magdalen was the first who beheld
him after His resurrection, and Thomas the last : the reason was,
because Mary represented the highest principle in man that is recep
tive of the Lord, and Thomas the lowest: Mary represented the
celestial principle, or that which is the seat of love to the Lord, and
Thomas the sensual principle, or that which does not receive divine
things till they are confirmed by the evidence of the senses. Hence
the Lord's merciful rebuke ; " Thomas, because thou hast seen me,
thou hast believed : blessed are they who have not seen, and yet
have believed:" where to see denotes to obtain such evidence of
reasoning and confirmation as appears convincing to the very senses :
to believe without seeing does not mean to admit with a blind faith,
but to see by an interior perception, which can discern the truth
without such external demonstrations. Yet we find that where there
is sincerity of intention, the Lord does not reject the slow belief of
the most external mind : a proof that he approves the efforts of those
who endeavour to bring his truth down to the apprehensions of such
by the aid of reasoning : of the power of doing which he also is the
Author. And both the plain testimony of the Word, and all legiti
mate reasoning from it, alike testify that the Lord's humanity is
divine. If it were not, how could man be benefited by its assump
tion ? To attach to his Divine Nature a human body of ordinary
matter, would impede its operations instead of extending them.
Man could not possibly be benefited by any such means : or if some
thing were done in his favour by the Lord when on earth, his divine
aids could not possibly be imparted afterwards in any greater
strength than before ; of course, we at this day could be none the
better for his death and resurrection. But (blessed be his holy
name !) by glorifying or making divine the Humanity he assumed,
and so returning with it to perfect oneness with his divine essence,
which was what his resurrection and ascension represented, he not
only wrought a work of redemption once, but became a Redeemer
and Saviour to all eternity.
His flesh and blood being thus divine, he is able to give them for
food and drink to his people ; for his flesh and blood are his divine
goodness and truth presented in a form suitable to the reception of
man in a. natural state. These he is ever waiting to impart from

b

88 THE GLORIFICATION OF
his glorified Person, to nourish and preserve our souls unto eternal
life. The bread and wine, the corresponding elements of the divine
gifts, are spread for our acceptance this day : Let us numerously
assemble round his table ; and with a grateful acknowledgment of
his boundless mercies, and adoration for his love in the glorification
of his humanity, by which alone we are put in a state capable of
receiving his gifts ; resolving at the same time more faithfully than
ever to watch over our affections and renounce our evils ; let us
humbly apply ourselves to Him alone, for the bread which endureth
unto everlasting life.

THOUGHTS ON THE LORD S ASSUMPTION OF HUMANITY, AND ITS
GLORIFICATION.*
By the Reverend M. Sibly.
Jehovah God, the Creator, from eternity, in himself, was essen
tially Divine, and in his Proceeding, Divinely Human. But prior
to the incarnation, this Divine Humanity existed only in first prin
ciples. In consequence of the aggravated nature of hereditary evil,
mankind had fallen into that dilemma, that there was no longer any
possibility for the salvation of the mortal human race, except by
Jehovah God making himself divine in the last principles, so that
he could be as closely connected with the spirits of natural men
upon earth, as with those of the celestial class, in his superior
angelic heavens.
To accomplish this purpose of man's salvation, the one and only
Jehovah God, beside whom there is no Saviour nor Redeemer, was
pleased to assume a human body by conception in the womb of the
Virgin Mary, by which means the Lord was born a man-child into
the natural and material world.
This Humanity, born into the world, was derived partly from the
Father, and partly from the mother. The internal thereof was from
the Father, its external was from the mother. These two consti
tuted the Humanity of the Lord, as born into the world, and called
the Son of God.
* We intimated in the notices to Correspondents, that we shotdd not admit
any new papers on this subject. Having, however received the above from the
Rev. M. Sibly, we think we are obliged, by the respect which is due to him,
as, after Mr. Hindmarsh, the oldest minister, and, we beheve, with the same
exception, the oldest member of the New Church now living, to make the above
paper an exception. We think, also, that even those who are most impatient of
the discussion, will be pleased to see the sentiments of one who is well known
to be thoroughly versed in the writings of Swedenborg, both manuscript and
printed ; and who gives his statements so briefly, and without anything contro
versial in theh form.

the lord's humanity. 89
So far as this Humanity was immediately derived from, or was
afterwards taken up* of, the Father — the Essential Divinity, the
Lord therein was in possession of all divine perfections and attri
butes ; and, as far as this Humanity was derived from, or partook
of, the nature of the mother, the Lord, in the world, stood in the
same condition as his fallen creatures ; for this humanity from the
mother was frail, infirm, and tainted hereditarily with all our cor
ruptions — our evils and errors.
The glorification of the Lord consisted in divesting his assumed
Humanity of every thing pertaining thereto derived from the mother,
both the hereditary evils and errors of ours, that he therein bare
upon himself, and also all their material forms, which were their
containing vessels. In speaking upon this subject, the maternal
principles and the material forms, as the containing vessels of the
principles, are to be considered as inseparably connected ; for all of
materiality, even with man, is from his mother.
The glorification of the Lord's assumed Humanity was effected
progressively. The Lord, by his endurance of temptation conflicts with the
powers of darkness, more and more divested his Humanity, from
the Father, of what was adjoined thereto derived from the mother,
until not the least particle remained with him pertaining to the
mother, either as to essence, or as to form ; and his Humanity was
made wholly Divine.
This glorification of the Humanity was thus fully effected, by the
Lord's undergoing his last passion in the garden of Gethsemane,
wherein he endured his last struggle with the satanie crew ; and on
Calvary's mount, where he underwent the passion of the cross, and
wherein, also, he foiled the diabolic.
The Lord hereby having divested himself of everything remain
ing, with his assumed Humanity, from the mother, both as to here
ditary evil and error, and as to the material forms, he gloriously
rises from the tomb, with his Humanity made altogether Divine, in
the celestial degree, in the spiritual, and in the natural. And now,
the Lord being no longer a material man, he recedes from the sight
of material eyes, and hereafter is not visible except to spiritual.
The Divinity had now taken up, and put on to itself, the
Humanity derived from itself ; or, as it may be expressed, the Lord,
as to the portion of his assumed Humanity which was from the
Father, ascended to the essential Divinity. In all cases, the union
between the Divinity and the Humanity is to be considered as
reciprocally effected.
This process of casting out and taking up, — of putting off and
putting on, commenced with the Lord from early infancy, and con-
* We are informed that the writer uses this term as a translation of the Latin
suscepit (A. C. n. 5663), rendered, in the English version, took upon. It is there
spoken of the Divine Man in heaven before the incarnation. Edits.

90 THE GLORIFICATION OF THE LORD'S HUMANITY.
tinued throughout the whole course of his life in the world. The
Lord also commenced the glorification of his assumed Humanity
from the internal, and thence progressively proceeded in the work,
more and more outwardly, until it was altogether glorified and made
divine. At the season that the Lord was enduring the passion of the
cross, it does appear that there remained with him sufficient of the
maternal and material part of his assumed Humanity for material
hands to handle, in taking him down from the cross, and in deposit
ing him in the sepulchre, where he utterly expelled and dissipated
the last maternal and material particles even to the very shell. And
so he burst the bonds of death ; and in the Risen Lord and Saviour,
then and thenceforth, the Essential Divinity, and the Divine Hu
manity in all its degrees, principles, and forms, even to the ultimate
natural, are inseparably united, as body and soul, as Divine Form
and Divine Essence ; so that he that seeth the Son — the Divine
Humanity, seeth the Father also.
As by the assumption of the Humanity in ultimates, the Lord, as
to his Divine Humanity, descended from the celestial degree, through
all intermediate degrees, to the ultimate natural, and was even ad
joined for a season, as long as he was in the world, to material forms,
in consequence of these being with him the containing vessels of
whatsoever principles were derived from the mother, so by the total
expulsion of both these from himself, his Humanity was glorified
and made Divine, in all degrees, even in the ultimate natural,
whence his divine influence of life and salvation is accommodated to
the state of human minds, in the natural, the spiritual, and the
angelic worlds.

ill

CHAPTER VI.

ON THE IDENTITY OF THE LORD S CRUCIFIED AND RISEN, OR
GLORIFIED BODY.*
By the Rev. W. Mason.
To the Editors of the Intellectual Repository and New Jerusalam
Magazine. Letter I.
Gentlemen, — Concurring with you, as I do, as to the advisa-
bleness of avoiding controversy in the Church Magazine upon the
subject of the Lord's glorification in ultimates, as expressed by you
in January, 1832 ; and regretting, as I do, that you have, in re
viewing Mr. Hindmarsh's Essay,* departed from your former rule, I
very reluctantly present to you, and to your readers, the following
remarks, and less in the way of controversy, than with a view to do
justice to myself as one of the Conference ministers. Although I
may find it necessary to address you at some length, still I shall
suppress very many ideas which would lead me into a long train of
reasoning. I shall confine my argument chiefly to a single passage of
the Word, still believing, as stated by me in my paper on this sub
ject inserted in your number for January, 1829, and to which I beg
to refer, " that the facts regarding the assumption and glorification
of humanity by the Lord, as recorded in the literal— the absolutely
literal sense of the Word, — are not merely uninvalidated by our
author, but are expressly confirmed by him as the genuine truth, which
it is the indispensable duty of the man of the church to believe ;" and
that " if any individual should attempt to palm notions upon the
church as true which he cannot thus establish, he may fearlessly be
pronounced to be at once in opposition to the writings of Swedenborg,
and in rebellion against the revealed wisdom of the Most High.
It is because you, gentlemen, in your capacity of the Conference
Editors and Reviewers, and no doubt in the conscientious discharge
of your duty, have put forth a statement which I consider to be, and
trust I shall shew is, in contradiction to the Lord's own and most
express words, that I come forward to declare that I, as one of the
Conference ministers, am not willing to bear any share of the
responsibility which attaches to such a proceeding; and that I
* I may as well say here, that I cannot at all concur in the view advocated
by Mr. Hindmarsh, but that it is not my intention to enter particularly into the
examination of it in this paper.

92 THE GLORIFICATION OF
cannot possibly bring my mind to preach the doctrine which you
suppose to be the true doctrine of the New Church.
You assert in pages 51, 52, and 78, of your review, that the
Lord did not rise again in the same body which was crucified ; and
you assert that E. S. never says that he did ; — I, on the other hand,
shall shew you, that the Lord himself asserted most expressly that
very fact which you have so positively denied ; I shall also shew
you, I trust, that Swedenborg repeatedly refers to the Lord's
testimony in such terms as to leave no doubt whatever that he unre
servedly bowed to it, and conformed his doctrine to it, or rather
drew his doctrine from it, and that in its obvious or literal sense.
Jesus said, " Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I
myself" (Luke xxiv. 39) ; and these very words, — words that
undeniably point to the same body, once crucified, — are repeatedly
quoted by E. S., who, in quoting them, necessarily asserts that
which they assert, and therefore he asserts that fact, I argue, by
such quotation, which you say he " never asserts ;" for to quote
another's words, without questioning their obvious meaning, is surely
to assert that which the words quoted assert : E. S. quotes them to
prove that " the Lord rose again with his whole body which he had
in the world" (Doc. Lord, 35, T. C.R. 109, L. J. 21) ; but you
find a difference between his saying that he rose with the same body
that he had in the world (and which, of course, was crucified), and
his whole body which he had in the world (which you think was not
crucified !) ;* now I do not discern any difference whatever, and
much marvel that any one else should. However, the undeniable
sense of the quotation, " Behold," &c, completely settles that by
the whole body E. 8. meant the same body, because it is impossible
that he could do otherwise ; for, be it remembered, that the cruci
fixion marks proved only identity of body ; and if this kind of
identity be denied, the evidence is manifestly not suitable to prove
any other kind of identity whatever ! It is in vain that those who
deny the same body point to these words, as proving the resurrec
tion of a body which always had been divine, and which, therefore,
* In making this distinction, you do not, of course, mean to call in question
E. S.'s perspicuity, for which he is remarkable ; and you will admit that a
preacher of his doctrines can find no purer vehicle for them than his (E. S.'s) own
words ; and yet I, as a preacher, if I admitted your distinction, should find
myself placed in the foUowing dilemma : I should say to myself, " If I use E. S.'s
words the general hearer wUl certainly understand by the " whole body," &c, the
same body, &c, and so I shall not communicate my ideas which I think the true
ones ; I shaU mislead him, and I could not, as an upright man, act like those
disingenuous tripersonalists who, when they preach "three persons in God,"
know that they convey the common idea of a person whUe they themselves enter
tain a scholastic idea, which is quite different. I am therefore impelled by a
feeling of integrity to abstain from using E. S.'s very words, — but in laying them
aside do I not give up all defence of their perspicuity ? And considering this,
and more particularly the frequent occurrence of such words, I ought surely to
inquire well first, whether I am doing the author justice, or not, in putting such
a construction on his, that to quote them, without comment, would be knowingly
to mislead my hearers !"

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 93
never could have been so marked as these words declare the body
seen to have been. Since, then, E. S. has repeatedly pointed to
them, how can he be supposed to have denied the same body ? The
passage either proves identity of body, or there is no literal sense in
it at all ; and E. S., in referring to it to prove the resurrection of
another and perfectly distinct body (as you suppose) , presents evi
dence (if he really, as you think, denied the same body), the appli
cation of which to his object is, to me, utterly inconceivable and
impossible. Did he regard the production of the marks, or of the
appearance of them, as a proof by a miracle of individual, and not
bodily, identity? If -he did, would he not have said so, since
he quotes them specifically, as we shall see, in reference to the
Lord's body, and not to his individuality in any other than a bodily
sense ? His citation of them as proof of the fact of the resurrection
proves that he regarded them as a good and unimpeachable proof to
the disciples ; but he must have known that the evidence only
proved to them identity of body ,- if, then, he cited the words to
prove any other kind of identity, would he not have said so ? Was
it not necessary to shew, if possible, that the evidence applied as
well to his view as to theirs ? He knew that their view, as founded
on their evidence, could only be changed or set aside by that divine
authority with which his illumination invested him ; but, in citing
the evidence adapted by the Lord to their case, he never adverts to
any difference in his view from theirs ; and yet it undoubtedly
became him to guard against their (supposed) imperfect view being
established by an unqualified citation of the evidence which justified
it ; and I cannot doubt that, when at the close of his life and high
commission, he wrote in his last grand, compendious work, what
we find in 109, if he did not mean to say the same body was raised,
he would have guarded himself, which he has not done, lest the
reader mistakenly should think of the same body, seeing that
nothing is more certain than that the disciples did, to whom the
words were addressed which he quotes without the least qualification.
E. S.'s words in the passage just alluded to are as follows: " The
glorification of the Lord is the glorification of his humanity which
he assumed in the world, and the glorified humanity of the Lord is
the divine natural. That this is the case, is evident from this
circumstance, — that the Lord rose from the sepulchre with his whole
body which he had in the world, and left nothing behind him
therein ; consequently that he took thence along with him the real
natural humanity from first to last ; wherefore he said to his
disciples, after his resurrection, when they supposed that they saw a
spirit, " Behold my hands and feet, that it is I myself, handle
me,* and ee; for a spirit hath not fiesh and bones as ye see me
* The Lord told the disciples to handle him ; — now, although we may perhaps
conceive of a vision of imagination, we cannot surely conceive of the experience
oi handling as being a mere appearance, for " appearance" pertains only to the
sense of sight, or to the resemblance of it in the inward vision of the mind. It
would be useless to say that they did not " handle" him, or that Thomas (John

94 TOE GLORIFICATION OF
have" (Luke xxiv. 37, 38 39). From whence it appears, that his.
natural body by glorification was made divine; wherefore Paul
saith, " that in Christ dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead
bodily" (Col. ii. 9). And John, " that Jesus Christ the Son of
God is the true God"* (1 Ep. v. 20, 21). Hence the angels know
that the Lord alone, in the whole spiritual world, is fully a man.
I would respectfully put it to the serious and candid judgment 'of
your readers, — when the Lord said, " Behold my hands and my
feet," did he not advert to, and mean his disciples to understand, his
hands and feet which had been penetrated by nails at his cruci
fixion ? And when he adds, " that it is I myself," did he not mean
those who heard him to imply and understand, that the appearance
of marks or scars therein would prove such a sameness, that what
they saw (namely, his body, and called) " himself" before he was
crucified, was still " himself?" But if either Mr. Hindmarsh's
theory, or your assertion, be true, then the Lord taught an untruth,
and practised upon his disciples to cause them to believe it as a
truth ; for who can suppose that the Lord's appeal to them failed of
success ? They saw the marks of crucifixion in his body then before
their eyes, and they believed that therefore it was himself who
addressed them. They were convinced of the sameness or positive
identity of the crucified and risen body, notwithstanding that the
risen body was manifestly in a new and different state from that
of the former, and presented to their view new attributes. Here,
then, I take my stand and say: Can you, gentlemen, by any
stretch of imagination, conceive the disciples, — or rather your
selves in their place, — as saying to their master in reply, ' We
see the marks of crucifixion, indeed, but we know that the body in
which those marks seem to appear was never crucified ; the body
that we see, notwithstanding the marks you show, is not the same
body that was crucified, — the marks are not real, but illusive."
I cannot avoid adding to this, that if it was not the jsame body, the
Lord might have chosen many other methods adequate to convince
of his individual identity only, if this was his only object, without
having recourse to one which must seem to prove more than this,
namely, identity of body. There seems to be no reason for having
recourse to the mode of proof of identity by exhibiting marks which
were not what they seemed to be, — the work of nails and a spear ;
the necessary consequence of which must have been the production
in the disciples' minds of what you deem a gross error qf doctrine,
with the danger of its being perpetuated in after ages, and this
unavoidably, and without any apparent countervailing benefit. Your
theory, I presume, supposes, although you have not explicitly said
xx. 27) did not thrust his hand into his side ; for, on another occasion (Matt.
xxviii. 9), it is said, that the two Marys " held him by the feet," shewing that
the Lord was handled after his resurrection. Some may suppose that the appear
ance of the wounds was an adaptation to the stgte of incredulous Thomas, but
the words (Luke xxiv. 38, 39) are addressed to all the disciples, "Behold," &c.
* The holy thing born of the virgin (the natural body) was caUed the Son of
God (Luke i. 35).

the lord's humanity. 95
so, that the appearances to which the Lord pointed were not really
in his own person, but only so appeared to the disciples : but I have
understood apparent truths to be the results of defective mental
operation in man, and not as in this case (if the appearances were
unreal) , the immediate and voluntary production of the Lord. And
I cannot but think, that when he chose thus to identify himself, he
meant to prove all that his words seem to prove, namely, the identity
of his very body. And here I would ask, Can any proof be given
from the writings of E. S., that the Lord, when he taught his dis
ciples this doctrine, taught them only an apparent and unreal
truth ? I think not ! Can this passage which E. S. quotes, as I
think, to prove the resurrection of the same body, and thus as a real
truth, be brought within the clearly defined limits of his doctrine of
apparent truths, either by his authority directly, or by a fair appli
cation of his principles ? I think not ! This then, in brief, is my
argument : the obvious sense of the Lord's words proves an identity
of body ; no authority inferior to his own can authorize a departure
from that sense ; we ought not to depart from it, therefore, unless
we can produce the only competent authority for so doing. If it
exists, where is it ? The burden of producing it, and establishing
it, Ues upon every man who denies that the risen body was crucified.*
It is because I see no obstacle, either in reason or science, or in
any one passage in the writings of Swedenborg (even including the
MSS. so much built upon), that I hope to persevere in the simple
faith of the Lord's first disciples concerning this matter, by bowing
reyerently to the evidence of their Lord and mine. If, in earlier
days, I have wavered from, or lost sight of it, it was because the
reasonings of others misled me, while the force of the Lord's testi
mony was not brought before me, nor E. S.'s conformity to it
exhibited ; — if I have erred thus, by thinking for a time in unison
either with Mr. Hindmarsh or his reviewers, previously to my
becoming a public advocate of the doctrines, I plead human in
firmity, and at the same time, I sincerely declare, that, even now, I
am open to conviction, if it can be shown by sound reasoning, and
valid evidence, that the Lord did not mean US to draw the same
inference from his words above quoted as he undoubtedly meant his
disciples to draw ; and that E. S., where he quotes these words, as
in T. C. R. 109, and L. J. 21, &c, drew an inference from them
the very opposite to that which the disciples must have drawn.
But I confess I am predisposed to believe this to be impossible, and
that it would be rash to attempt it. But as for such objections to
* Should it be said, " What the Lord did or said on this occasion was for the
sake of the spiritual sense," I reply, I can understand that, where the letter of
the Word is wholly unintelligible, or involves certainly an impossibility, or im
propriety, it is so written for the sake of the spiritual sense ; but I do not think
such to be the case here, and I remark, that if care be not taken, such a plea as
this might be used to extinguish the plainest and most important doctrines extant
in the letter of the Word, if they happened to stand in the way of a favourite
theory.

96 THE GLORIFICATION OF
the doctrines taught in the Lord's words alluded to, as " how is that
possible ?" — without any proof of impossibility being offered, — and
proof the most indubitable is alone admissible in such a case, — a
positive proof and not a mere surmise of impossibility ; — for what
can a surmise weigh, however plausible, when placed in the scale
against a direct divine testimony ? To such vague objections I
can only answer, The Lord has said it, and I believe it ; and,
besides, I may add, while I thus " believe in simplicity," I see not
that my belief involves even the least contradiction, much less
" glaring contradictions ;"* nor do I bind down my understanding
to a blind faith. And if it be demanded of me, " Do you then
believe that the Lord's glorified body contains the very same ma
terial particles that it did when upon the cross ?" I only answer,
that I do not know what a " material particle" is, and I doubt
whether my questioner can show me. And if it be demanded how
I can beheve that the material body could be made divine, I may,
perhaps, reply, not only that the Lord hath said it, but that as
E. S. tells us that man takes with him to heaven a covering to his
spiritual body formed of the purest substances of nature (the gross
body being for ever laid down)-)-, they being, I presume, made
spiritual by the indwelling spirit imparting to them a quality which
makes them homogeneous to the spiritual world ; — I see not why,
by analogy, the whole material body of the Lord should not, by his
divine energy descending into and wholly pervading it, be made
divine : I see not why the subject, — that body which was crucified,
— might not be glorified, the subject remaining the same, although
not in the same state in which it was before ; the process of glori
fication not consisting, I conceive, in the substitution of one subject
for another (as your theory asserts), but in an alteration in the
state of the same subject ; and thus in the putting off the state of
the subject, without putting off the subject itself, and the putting
* The Editors would not have discovered the " glaring contradictions" im
puted in page 52, if they had then recurred to the rule for abstracting or
generalizing which they act upon in page 71. A further remark on these
supposed " contradictions." You remark, '* To say that the material body was
raised, yet divested of aU its earthly matter, properties, and qualities, is surely
the same thing as saying that the material body was not raised, but a body not
material in its place. To say that it was gifted with new properties and new
quahties (I omit "new substance," not knowing what those words mean), and
yet that it still retained its former identity, or was stiU the same body that was
crucified and buried, is to say that it was at once material and not material, the
same and not the same." I beg you to consider the foUowing proposition.
E. S. says (T. C. R. 109), " The glorified humanity of the Lord is the Divine
Natural ,-" " He took from the sepulchre the real natural humanity from first to
last :" and he says also (D. L. W. 234), " The Lord put off nature, and put on
the divine." On your principle of reasoning, E. S. may be made to utter
similar " contradictions " to those you explode ; for it may be said with equal
force, " If the glorified Body was natural after nature had been put off, it was
natural and not natural at the same time ; what is natural is dead, but what is
divine is " hfe in itself ! " How can it be caUed natural in any sense, if it has
nothing in common with the properties of nature?" A seeming contradiction it
appears is not always a solid objection.
+ D. L. W. 257, 260, 338. D. P. 220. T. C. R. 103.

THE LORD S HUMANITY. 97
on a new state, the subject itself all the while preserving its identity.
The whole of the strong expressions of E. S. relating to the
" putting off" of what was from the mother will better apply to
the putting^ off the state of the subject, than to the putting off
the subject itself. I can conceive a change of state arising from a
change (by substitution if you please) of those interior forms
according to the character of which is the quality of the state, but I
cannot conceive of the substance of the subject being changed, for
what do we know of the substance of things beyond their super
ficies ? The Divine is the substance of all substances ; and there
is a line between the substance of God and of the creature, but who
can trace that line ? — yet that man ought to be able to do it who
talks familiarly of material substances being put off, and divine
substances put on, a language to which, I confess, I can attach no
ideas. E. S., in treating of the Lord's glorification, never talks of
substances being put off, I believe, but only of forms, and states, or
principles. The idea of state, as dependant on forms which modify
life, is a spiritual idea ; but the idea of substance meaning bulk, is
a natural and sensual idea, and does not become the subject. When
E. S. says that the " residue" from the mother was put off in the
sepulchre, and thus by death, if I think of the residue of state
being put off there, my mind is clear ; but if I were to think, with
you, that the whole material body which was crucified, and which,
according to you, was wholly from the mother, even as to its very
substance (notwithstanding thirty years' process of absorption and
assimilation), — was at once put off, and another body instan
taneously produced by divine power in its place, the idea of a
residue would be perfectly incongruous; for how can the whole
body from the mother be called the residue of that body ?* Be-
• When E. S. says (A C. 3599) that the "Lord successively expeUed all the
humanity which was from the mother," and when he tells us that this successive
work was finished in the sepulchre, it is evident, that he means by the word
"Humanity," a certain state, or abstract nature, and not material substance.
The idea of succession is not, indeed, applicable to the body (as substance) at all
according to your theory, for this you think was put off, or dissipated, all at
once ! It, when the humanity from the mother is mentioned, we think of sub
stance, not state, be it remembered that the substance of a man's body, at any
rate after two years of age, is not derived from his mother at all. Yet it is certain
that through aU the changes by absorption and assimilation the image of her
mental constitution, even as recorded in the face, may remain to the last. The
Lord by wiUing, thinking, and acting only from the Father, put off the image
of, and therefore the state, and thus the humanity, from the mother. It wiU be
seen that I hold the maternal humanity and the material humanity (made
synonymous by Mr. Hindmarsh) to be very different things. At the resur
rection, the mere materiality was put off or ceased at once, — not by dissipation,
but by the completion of the successive change of state, by which the maternal
humanity, or nature, had been gradually " put off," and which had been going
on from birth : thus the putting off of what was maternal successively prepared
for the putting off of what was material (stiU I mean state, and not substance) ;
and when, and because, this preparation was complete, the cessation, and thus
the putting off of merely material properties ensued ; and new properties were
consequently presented to observation, after the Lord's resurrection, as per
taining to his glorified Body.

98 THE GLORIFICATION OF
sides, why was the humanity " made perfect by suffering" only to
be " dissipated " * at last ? Why was not the so at once produced
Ultimate Divine Body so produced at the first, since no connection
or relation, that I can trace, exists, according to your theory,
between the one dissipated and the new one ? I see not how the
temptations admitted into the former prepared the way for the latter,
unless they made the dissipated body a fit mould for the new one to
seize its quality and identity of character from at the instant of
dissipation ; — but this relation you very justly repudiate ; for,
indeed, it is not conceivable how the dissipated body could be a
mould to give a character and quality to that which rent it to
atoms ! Certainly, the body of a man stands in no such relation to
his soul as that of a mould. Surely nothing can be more difficult of
conception than the idea which you have presented to account for the
change in the attributes of the Lord's body, comparing those of the
crucified with those of the risen body. Here are two facts : the first
is, — before his crucifixion the Lord had a body in appearance like
that of a man ; f the second is, — at his resurrection he had a body
unlike that of an ordinary man. You proceed to show how the
former fact was superseded by the latter ; but you are quite beside
my power of understanding, and, as appears to me, you have com-

* Since E. S. says that the doctrine of the Church is to be drawn from the
literal sense of the Word, have I not a right to demand of those who say that
it is a true doctrine that the Lord's material body was dissipated in the sepulchre,
to show me that doctrine in the literal sense of the Word ? I confess I feel a
strong repugnance to the idea of the Lord's sacred Body being dissipated !
" Thou wUt not suffer thy Holy One (that body, of course,) to see corruption."
If it was to be dissipated I can see no reason why corruption should not foUow
death ! That body born of the virgin is called by Luke a "holy thing," and
Emanuel Swedenborg calls the Lord "God by conception" (A. C. 10,825), by
which I understand that by conception (the term applies to what was furnished
by the mother) a hidden Divine quahty inhered and pertained to the very body,
therefore called holy. Perhaps this was the "divine natural" beginning to
come from a state of potency into one of actuality. This was accomplished, I
conceive, at the resurrection. Then this last "uncreate degree" had "pene
trated (all hindrance being removed) into the ultimates of nature,"— in his
natural Body, and made it divine, that is, the Divine Natural in actuality (See
D. L. W. 233, 234). Now to dissipate the natural body when finaUy perfected,
appears to me to involve the returning from the state of actuaUty to the former
one of potency, as a necessary consequence.
+ That there was, however, in, and constituent of the body of the Lord from
birth, and much more at his death, somewhat, by reason of its divine soul, very
different from, and exalted far above, the bodies of other men, I gather from
A. C. 6716, Doc. Lord. 29, D. L. W. 221. It appears to me to have had in it an
inherent conatus, or hidden germ or seed of divinity surrounded by infirmity
from Mary : from the latter it is called the infirm humanity, but as the divine
seed opened and expanded, the infirmity receded, until the whole became divine ;
so that when the Lord called Mary " woman," her image was aU but effaced,
and with it his relationship to her, and his body had become aU but a paternal
one, or, from the Father, which it was fuUy at his resurrection ; that is, the
Father's image alone existed in the pure material substance of the body, as its
subject, when he said " It is finished." I cannot, therefore, but feel repugnance
to the idea of its after dissipation. (I beg the reader's particular attention to
A. C. 6716.)

the lord's humanity. 99
pletely failed ; even although the Lord's testimony of himself is
made (for a reason which I assume to be conscientious) to give way
to your theory ! — I hasten, therefore, to turn from your surmises to
the last simple fact, as elucidated and substantiated by the Lord's
assurance that it was still the same body in a new state, in order
(again pardon me) to get rid of the confusion and mystery of your
explanation. An instantaneous production of a divine body of
flesh and bones is to me a most astounding circumstance ; infinitely
more so than the glorification of the material body. Analogy may
not help us to conceive clearly of the latter, but it is altogether
opposed to the former. I can conceive the latter as taking place
in some way analogous to the process whereby " our vile [spiritual]
bodies are made like unto the Lord's glorious body" by regeneration
from their naturally " vile" condition ; but I can no more conceive
of the former than I can conceive of an instantaneously produced
glorious spiritual body, or a complete angel.
But I must digress from my immediate object a little further by
expressing my inability to conceive what " fellow-feeling," to use
your own phrase in page 96, can exist between the instantaneously
produced ultimate divine body, which never felt the woes which flesh
is heir to, and man who suffers them : to make out any " fellow-
feeling" — any consistency with the apostle whom you quote — you
must at least return to your former belief of the " same body in some
sense," to which I shall refer presently. If you think I am arguing
so sacred a subject with too little awe, allow me to remind you, that
I am discussing your theory only, which I hold to be quite unfounded,
and therefore I perceive no sanctity in it. But to return. By the
word glorification, I understand the putting off the infirmity of the
Humanity from the mother (which humanity I have called " the
subject"), and the putting on perfection from the Father ; for thus
the subject, not glorious before, was made glorious, or was glorified.*
And it will be found that, upon this understanding, there is not a
shadow of opposition to each other in the statements of E. S. regard
ing the Lord's glorification, who only conveys the same idea in
different words : there is nothing whatever even of an appearance of
inconsistency, such as Mr. Hindmarsh appears to have thought
that he discovered, when he contrasted certain passages with other,
and apparently, as he thought, different passages. No difference,
on my interpretation, is discerned between them, and therefore no
opening for that exclusive preference which you deprecate.
A word or two to prevent misunderstanding. I do not say that
* This is agreeable to E. S.'s doctrine of the paraUehsm of man's regeneration
with the Lord's glorification ; for it exactly agrees with the apostle's description
of regeneration, when he speaks " of putting off the old man and putting on
the new." — Col. iii. 9, 10. As to regenerate is to put off the " old man," so
to glorify is to put off previous infirmity, and then to put on glorious divine
perfections.
H 2

100 THE GLORIFICATION OF
the Humanity was "transmuted into the Divine Essence," for that
would be like saying the exterior was transmuted into the interior,
the body into the soul : I mean such a change as the following,
which takes place in man by regeneration, and which cannot pro
perly be called a " transmutation" at all (for this word implies a
change of one substance into another — a sort of change which the
doctrine of the same body excludes). By regeneration the natural
mind is spiritualized, or made spiritual, by deriving a spiritual
quality from the spiritual mind, but this does not imply that the
natural or external man is transmuted into the spiritual or internal
man, for the two, although made one by union, are still perfectly
distinct from each other ; even as the Father and Son are one, and
yet distinct (John xvii. 11, 21, 23). In man's case we do not carry
the idea lower than his spiritual body, as the subject of the change ;
but let the idea, in the Lord's case, be extended to include his
natural body, and the parallel is complete. *
Whatever deviations from the writings of E. S. may be made by
individuals, the writings will still remain the same, — there they are
to testify to a wiser generation than the present, which will therefore
understand them more wisely, the truth which their author received
from heaven. For my own part, I think I see clearly that the
foundation stone on which alone the New Jerusalem doctrine of the
Lord can firmly and safely rest, is the belief of the identity or
sameness (of subject, although not of state,) of his crucified and
risen body ; and that, if this stone be removed, all is uncer
tainty ! This has been my experience as a preacher. Besides, if
their bond fide object has been dissipated, there is now nothing
whereon to rest for the natural affections so powerfully engaged to
the Lord's proper person by the Gospel narrative ; and in that
case, where is the proper basis for the spiritual affections to be found
in man ? It may become those who, thinking the Lord's express
declaration is not to be understood in its obvious sense, feel at liberty
to indulge in theory, to express diffidence, seeing that they have
parted with the only proper ground of confidence ; but it would be
unbecoming for those to express it who take simply, and believe firmly,
the words of the Lord himself ! The Word — the express Word of
the Lord cannot be a proper subject for doubt ! If we adhere to
this, no doubtful theory can have place ; speculation is excluded ;
the matter is settled by an authority on which we can confidently
rely ! But this being passed over and practically denied, all is fluc
tuation ! We have now had, at least, three distinct theories set up
• " As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son (the holy
thing born of the Virgin, caUed the Son of God, Luke i. 35) to have life in him
self." Do not these passages go to prove that what was born qf the mother was
glorified, " made perfect," by its state of imperfection being " put off," and a
state of divine perfection " put on," without the subject of the change losing its
identity ?

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 101
by those who have not chosen to take, or abide by, the Lord's testi
mony ; who have, indeed, listened to it with seeming attention, and
then given their verdict contrary to it : and we may have three
hundred more, unless we at once, and for ever, forsake the broken
cisterns of human ingenuity, and return to the fountains of living
waters ! If the world were to discover and think it worth while to
assail our theorizing, and point to the Lord's words above quoted as
opposed to us, what could we say ? Nothing ! nothing that plain
common sense and a disposition to deal reverently with the Word,
would acknowledge to be homogeneous to itself ! At least I, in the
present state of my information, could say nothing by which I could
excuse, if I wished it, such a nonconformity to the Lord's teaching.
If this be the case, our outworks are unprotected ! There is a breach
in the wall of the Holy City ! * We have broken down the rock,
and the floods are upon us ! But if from henceforth we stand firm
on Him who is our rock, who shall assail us ? Do not let me be
stigmatized as illiberal, for, on a justly questionable construction
of a passage of the Word, I would yield the largest licence ; but
when the point to be determined is, " Did the Lord utter the truth
when he said, ' Behold,' &c. ? Is he to be believed or not, when no
doubt can reasonably attach to his meaning ?" I have no liberality t
then ; I am decidedly on the Lord's side ;" and I feel a zeal on
that side kindled by the hope, that the church, now that the point
has been fairly submitted to it for decision, will henceforth build on
the only sure foundation ; for then, and only then, shall we be able
to maintain the position we commonly take up, of possessing a sys
tem of doctrine so harmonious, and so firmly grounded in the Word,
that a doctrinal schism is not to be apprehended. But until then
we cannot assert this peculiar advantage over other denominations ;
for if we do, they will instantly point to our diverse theories and dis
cussions on the fundamental doctrine of our church !
The church will do well to take your own example as a warning
to beware of deviating from the Lord's words, even in the least
degree ; for what is that example ? In 1829 you admitted that the
Lord's words, while they were pressed upon your attention by me (I
refer you to your own note to page 413), proved the sameness of the
crucified and risen body "in some sense ;" but in 1834 you repeat
edly deny it in any and every sense! And not only in pages 51,
52, of your review, do you assert your denial of the obvious sense of
the Lord's words, which you before " in some sense" admitted, but
you proceed to fix no small degree of obloquy upon those who
" believe them in simplicity," on the ground of their " glaring contra
dictions," to which you attach certain deplorable consequences. But
* See Apoc. Rev. n. 898.
t By liberaUty I do not mean charity, for that I would have under all possible
circumstances ; but I mean an admission of being on free or equal terms with
opponents in argument.

102 THE GLORIFICATION OF
if I have (in a preceding note) proved non-liability to the charge
of " contradictions," these supposed consequences will fall to the
ground. But I must confine myself to my more immediate purpose of
vindicating my faithful and simple adherence to the teaching of my
God and Saviour, as delivered in the literal sense of the words,
" Behold," &c, and, at the same time that I am doing this, I
believe that I am vindicating the great majority of the church,
especially the female part of it, who are less given to speculation, and
who, with me, I am persuaded, think, in the main, in unison with
the venerated Clowes, — a man who surely must be regarded as one
who possessed every qualification to be our guide on such a subject,
— if, indeed, we needed one in addition to E. S.* Mr. Clowes saw
no difficulty in the way of his conclusion, so opposite to your own ;
neither do I. And as to objections, supposed to be those of reason,
against the simple construction of the Lord's words, I feel quite
satisfied with the answers which occur to my own mind to all the
objections which you, gentlemen, or Mr. Hindmarsh, have raised
against it, and which I would have offered at large had opportunity
offered. Nay, I am unable to see anything, even in your former
extended strictures in reply to Mr. Clowes in 1817 and following
year, which invalidate the principle of his conclusion ; you only
prove that the Lord's glorified body is not material, supposing Mr.
CloWes to have asserted that it was material — meaning, like the
mere materiality of other men, which he expressly denies ; and
asserts it was from the Father, and, therefore, of course, divine.
But this is not the place to attempt to show that you have rather
met Mr. Clowes's words, misunderstood, than his ideas, as truly
perceived, at the same time that you pass over in silence his express
challenge to you to meet the words of ihe Lord which he quotes,
and which, it is presumed, you were reluctant to accept, as you have
ever since been cautious of entering upon the fair and unreserved
* It is, however, my belief, that on the point in question, we need no other
guide than E. S., because pertaining as it does to the general doctrine of the
church, it is to be drawn from the literal sense of the Word, which is accommodated
to the capacity of the simple in heart ; and I believe that the first perceptions of
such persons on the subject, as set forth by E. S.'s general declarations (as in
T. C. R. n. 190), which also are supported by him from the Word, is the proper,
and is intended to be the immovable foundation of aU future attainments in the
knowledge of the Lord. It would, indeed, be a sad thing if nothing could be
certainly known, or rightly understood, on the fundamental doctrine of the
Lord's glorified person, until the whole of the writings have been read, compared,
and logicaUy digested ! The truth would then be accessible to comparatively
few. The many must depend upon the expositions of the more deeply read, who,
however, would perhaps not be well agreed as to what ought to be understood
and believed in the church. And then, besides, we should be reduced, when
ever we lend a small work of E. S.'s, to the necessity of telling a stranger, " Read
this, but there are thirty volumes more to read, before you can come at the
true knowledge of the Lord's person, unless you will be guided by Mr.
Such-an-one's view and explanations."

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 103
consideration of them : preferring now, as then, to quote passage
upon passage from E. S., not one of which, however, is in reality
opposed to his master. If Mr. Clowes said that the glorified body
of the Lord was material, he meant divine material ;* this (divine
matter)you think a contradiction.just as the Unitarian calls our phrase
divine-human a contradiction ; but divine-material is the divine-
human in the lowest degree, for is not the material the lowest degree
of a man ? If you, then, assert that the Drame-human includes the
lowest degree of a man, you thereby assert that the Lord's body,
in the ultimate of it, is dmwe-material ! How can the Lord be
" the Last," unless he has in him the last degree of a man, that is
the material ? In some sense, then, his humanity is material, for a
material degree, in no sense material, must be an anomaly. Whether
Mr. Clowes said the Lord's glorified body was material from the
Father, that is, divine-material, or, with E. S., divine-substantial,
there can be no doubt that he attached the same ideas to both terms,
and it is useless to contend about words.f Although it appears to
me that the phrase, divine-material (as shown in a note above), is
not a contradiction in terms any more than divine-natural is ;% and
that your reasoning to prove divine-material to be the same as
uncreated creature is fallacious, and of that sceptical quality (pardon
me) which plays upon words, when it ought calmly to contemplate
and examine the intended ideas ; yet I prefer the terms divine-
substantial to divine-material, for the sake of preserving a clear dis
tinction between the glorified and unglorified state ; and for the
more effectually guarding against the entrance of any the least idea
that the glorified body is material, that is merely or human-mate
rial, since not only mere materiality, but even finiteness, was put off

• You say, as the Lord says, that his glorified body is divine flesh and
bones. How difficult it would be to show the difference between divine flesh
and bones (flesh and bones pertaining to a man, and not to a sphit) and divine
matter !
f I wish to be understood to adopt Mr. Clowes's adherence to the Lord's
words, to the effect that the crucified body was glorified; but for his own
reasonings and illustrations I do not make myself responsible. Every one will
see that the former and the latter are not in their nature inseparable.
X You retain E. S.'s phrase " made divine," that is made infinite, made un
create ; now what could be "made divine, infinite, and uncreate," but that
which was previously not divine, finite, and. created ? H it be said that " the
obvious sense of the Lord's words cannot be taken, because to suppose a created
material body to be made uncreate, is an absurdity," let it be remembered, that
no logician can deny that E. S.'s phrase, "made divine," does reaUy and neces
sarily mean, the making that uncreate which before was in the condition of a
creature. The Creator and the created embraces all existence, that which was
made divine was made the former, and must have been previously the latter,
or what was so made had no previous existence, which it would be absurd
to declare. Does not E. S.'s phrase, " made divine," also prove that he adhered
to the Lord's words ? You wUl say, " made divine" means a process of dissipa
tion of the ultimate body, and the substitution of a divine one ; this I would
admit, if I could find it in the Word.

104 THE GLORIFICATION OF
by the act of glorification.* But if it were wished to do so, a doubt
might be raised as to the expressiveness or strict accuracy of the
phrase, " divine-substantial," on account of its being indefinite ; for if
the Lord be, as he is, the essential substance, as to his inmost deity,
the phrase, divine-substantial, is equally applicable to every principle
and degree in him, as well as to the ultimate. I only mention this
to show the expediency of not contending about words where ideas
can be ascertained. But while referring to Mr. Clowes, I cannot
avoid adverting to your observation, that your own view combines
those of Mr. Clowes and Mr. Hindmarsh, in order to point out its
inconsistency with the fact, inasmuch as Mr. Clowes adhered to the
obvious sense of the Lord's words, which teach the resurrection of
the crucified body ; while you, with Mr. Hindmarsh, reject that
sense, and deny that conclusion which can alone be built upon it.
Mr. Clowes says the material body was glorified ; yet you say it was
dissipated ; you say, with him, and in opposition to Mr. Hindmarsh,
that that which was glorified, or made divine, was previously not
divine (page 210). Did it never occur to you, that the glorified
body which you believe in, and which you say was instantaneously
produced when the former was dissipated, was divine when so pro
duced, and, consequently, never was otherwise ? then how could it
be " made divine," since it never was otherwise ? Do not then
your general principle and your theory, or view, present a " glaring
contradiction" to each other ? If the thought be directed to that
which was not divine, and which was to be made divine, what can
we fix upon but the material body ? but this you say was dissipated !
Your theory acknowledges a glorified body (or one made divine) to
the ear, but denies it to the mind : for, if it be asked where is it,
meaning that which was glorified ? When was it glorified ? Are
you not constrained to see that the IT, the thing to which the answer
should point, has no identity ? According to your view, the subject
upon which the act of glorification passed, does not exist, and cannot
be pointed out ! (I acknowledge the unworthiness to this important
subject of the comparison I am about to make, but, be it remem
bered, that it is to your view, and not to the subject itself, that I
liken it in the question I am about to put : If a plain garment
be laid aside, and a glorious garment be put on in the place of it,
would there be any propriety in saying that either of them was
• When I use the word material, and also divine-material, I think of the state
implied by the two expressions respectively, and not of substance or bulk, for I
know nothmg of substance in itself; I only know its predicates, and these form or
constitute its state. The substance is the subject, and its predicates describe the
state of the subject, which is all we know about it. I be asked, then, what is
the precise idea I entertain of a divine-materiality ? I can only reply, " I have
no more idea what it is, than I have of what the substance of a ' divine substantial
body is ;— of this I confess myself totally ignorant, and fear that all mortals are
equally so ; I am only acquainted with the predicates of it after the resurrection,
as described in the Gospels.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 105
made glorious (glorified) by the act of putting on the latter ? And
in vain should we look for any identity in the two garments after
the operation was over, even " in some sense." I leave you to trace
out the comparison, and make the application, and draw the conclu
sion for yourselves. Your abstracting system (page 210) is an
attempt to get out of your difficulty by an intellectual contrivance ;
it is a vain attempt to find out a substitute for the simple acknow
ledgment of the " same body ;" it shows that you are oppressed by
the consequences of your own theory ; but it will not avail you ;
there is but one way of escape, and that is, to flee to the Lord's
words as your only sure refuge ; then will all your difficulties be at
an end.*
I regret that I am compelled to place before the public the fact,
that in our church, which boasts a perfect, unbroken unity of doc
trine, three out of its few ministers are at issue on a fundamental
point of faith ! But my regard for truth in the first place, and to
my own character as a preacher of the resurrection of the same
body in the second, leaves me no choice but to perform a duty as
necessary as it is painful.
In conclusion, I add, that let any sincere mind dwell, day by day,
upon the words, " Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I
myself," and I venture to assert, that the truth of them, in conse
quence of their own express clearness, and the experience of the
absence of all reasonable cause for evading them, will become per
fectly irresistible. It will be found, that whatever ideas in illustra
tion of this truth be resorted to, itself must be the starting point of
speculation, and the foundation of any doctrinal system or explana
tion. I would affectionately entreat you to return to this point,
and to commence rebuilding upon this foundation. But if you return
to your admission made in 1829, do not, as you did then, while you
admit the premises, cling to a conclusion opposite to them, just (I
mean no offence) as the Old Church admits that God is love, and
then fabricates a scheme of salvation in which he is represented as
just the contrary. Return, and you will have no more trouble in
making and supporting a theory ! The Lord has provided a creed
to be accepted by you in simplicity. Accept it, and say, " By thy
precepts I get understanding, therefore I hate every false way ?"
But if you determine to stand out, I demand of you, " By what
authority do you take upon yourselves to nullify the Lord's own
words concerning Ms glorified person, either by raising a theory
in which their obvious sense is denied, or by depriving them
qf their only meaning by arbitrarily explaining or asserting it
away ?"
July, 1834.
* It appears to me that it is an argument in favour of a " simple belief" of
the Lord's words, that the supposed objections against it, as I think, equally
apply to any theory which uses the phrase " made divine," while additional
objections apply to each theory on its own account.

106 THE GLORIFICATION OF

Letter II.
To the Editors of the Intellectual Repository and New Jerusalem
Magazine.
Gentlemen, — In my former letter I admitted the following argu
ment, which I deem of sufficient importance to trouble you with it
in a separate communication.
In order to prove that the Lord arose with his whole body com-
plote, E. S. says, that he left nothing behind him in the sepulchre
(A. C. n. 10,825, and elsewhere). Now that the natural inference
from this argument is, that he pointed to the material body, which
body alone had been placed in the sepulchre, no logician will deny.
Upon this supposition the argument is natural, forcible, and conse
quential. But will any logician, natural or artificial, contend that
the argument is either natural, forcible, or consequential, sup
posing E. S. to have had in view either of the theories of Mr.
Hindmarsh or yourselves ? I think not. This is a very important
point, and I feel convinced that, if we call to our aid straight
forward candour and sound sense, we shall not fail to acquit E. S.
of using such a strange, unaccountable sort of an argument as, by
fixing upon him your theory, in your review, you have put into his
mouth. It is manifest that an argument to prove a point, taking
one view of the subject, may be valid and clear, but taking another
view, may be quite beside the mark, and absurd. Now, if a writer
be a sensible one, and his argument be of the former character, —
valid and clear, supposing one point of view to be taken ; it ought
not, in justice to him, to be converted into an absurdity, by forcing
upon it another point of view, with which it has no natural connec
tion. This, however, I think you, gentlemen, unintentionally I
grant, have done ; for, by endeavouring to show that E. S. held your
" view," you have converted his argument, otherwise such as became
his high character to use, into one that is neither honest nor conse
quential if tried by ordinary rules — both of which it is, however,
admitting my assertion, that he had no idea of dissenting from the
natural construction of the Lord's words. Let us, then, look fairly
at the argument of E. S., — that nothing having been left in the
sepulchre, it is thereby proved that the Lord rose with his whole
body complete. I say that, by " his whole body," he meant the
body which had been crucified and placed in the tomb ; but you say
that " his whole body" does not mean this body, but a divine body
of flesh and bones instantaneously produced at the resurrection,
which had no actual existence before, being divine by production,
and never had been, nor could, by any possibility, be placed in the
sepulchre. E. S. says, nothing was left behind, because the whole
body rose from the dead ; but you say, nothing was left behind,
because that which alone could be left behind, the material body,

the lord's humanity. 107
had been dissipated when the new divine body was produced. You
suppose E. S. to have said, nothing was left behind of that, — that
divine body which you say was produced, as just described, of which
nothing could be left behind, because nothing could be placed in the
sepulchre. How you, gentlemen (excuse my freedom), with your
knowledge of Swedenborg's transcendent discrimination, consecutive-
ness and simplicity of argument, can thus connect a supposed view
with his argument, which turns it into a nullity, I really cannot at
all imagine. That you would not like your words to be turned aside,
in the same manner, yourselves, I must say that I feel fully assured.
Pray imagine yourselves, with your view in your mind, proceeding
to argue as E. S. has done ; and see if it be possible that you can
do so, without feeling some sense of pain from wounded self-respect.
See whether you would not have anticipated that the reader would
exclaim, This is indeed a fine specimen of the "because this, there
fore that !" Why the " this" and the " that" are wide as the poles
asunder. I cannot help observing here, by the way, that if nothing
was left in the sepulchre, even in the form of dust or vapour, on the
dissipation of the material body, which you suppose to have taken
place there,* that such " dissipation" was so entirely without pre
cedent, that the word, in - this case, does not describe the true
meaning or idea, for which we want a word altogether new ! But I
ask you, Must not, on such a supposition, something have been
turned into nothing ? And can a greater absurdity be supposed than
this ? As, at creation, everything was made out of the Divine Sub
stance, your supposed dissipation into nothing, — so that nothing was
left, — must have been nothing less than a resumption of the material
body back into the Divine Substance, whence originally all matter
came ; for you say, if the material body, on its supposed dissipation,
no longer existed in any other form of matter, you do, in fact, assert
as much as that it was made divine by again becoming of the Divine
Substance, or by reverting to its first Origin or Cause ! But if you
admit that the atoms or elements of the dissipated body were left in
the sepulchre, how could E. S. say that " nothing was left behind ?"
If you reply, " he meant, — nothing discernible by man," I answer,
then he would have written differently ; he would, as a candid and
clear-headed writer, have said something to the following effect, —
" That the Lord rose with his whole body complete is proved by his
leaving behind him only the elements of his former body which was
* That there was no dissipation, however, in the sepulchre, I think is stated
by E. S. (T. C. R. n. 109), who says that the Lord not only " left nothing behind
him therein," but " he took thence along with him " when he rose the " real (!)
natural humanity from first to last." And this E. S. proves by quotmg the
Lord's words, " Behold my hands and my feet," ckc. Thus it appears that what
had been in the world was put in the sepulchre, and was taken thence, for it rose
whole and enthe. The connection of the words and ideas is incomplete on any
other interpretation. When then E. S. speaks of the " residue from the mother "
being put off in the sepulchre, he must mean a state , not bodily substance, for this
latter he " took thence," and did not put it off there, and leave it behind him.

108 THE GLORIFICATION OF
dissipated, when, in a new divine body, he rose again into living
and visible communion with his disciples." With such ideas in
your minds, would not you, in his place, have so written ? Could
you help such ideas embodying themselves in their natural cor
responding expressions ? Could you have prevented or restrained
such expressions except for some covert purpose (I mean no offence),
or to conceal your real thoughts ? Can you imagine yourselves, with
such ideas in your minds, as using E. S.'s words as the best you
could choose to convey your ideas ? All argument is intended to
clear a subject, but if your views were those of E. S., then truly, by
his argument, " he darkened counsel by words without knowledge."
The most amazing substitution, as you think, of a divine for a dis
sipated material body was in his thoughts, and yet his argument
will bear no other than a far-fetched unnatural construction, unless
the reader attaches to his words the very different idea, that the
same — the crucified body, instead of being dissipated, arose com
plete ! Surely the fact that the latter is the natural construction
pleads powerfully in its favour. Some persons might tell me, perhaps,
that the material body was not " his" (not the Lord's), properly
speaking, for only what was divine, in strictness, could be called
" his ;" but if any one should say thus, I must, feeling common
sense to be outraged by a sort of fine-drawing (which E. S., the
plainest of writers, never leaves his reader under the necessity of
studying), demand, " Whose body was it, if it was not his ?" And
this answer will effectually refute such unwarrantable refining upon
the plainest expressions ! I assert, and no one can prove that I
err, that the phrase " his body," means all that his disciples and
others called " his body ;" if E. S. meant some other body, he was
too honest, and too desirous to be rightly understood, to abstain
from saying so, and thereby leave his reader to guess, perhaps a
right and perhaps a wrong meaning. He could not say one thing, and
think of another ; he was not like the Athanasians, who think of
three Lords, and say there is but One ! He knew that the thoughts
of every one, and particularly the simple, on reading his words,
unless obviated, would turn to the material body ; and so the inquiry
naturally is suggested, " Would he not have obviated the mistaking
of his words which he could not but foresee ?" But if E. S., by " his
body" meant a divine body, — divine from the beginning of its actual
existence, and never to be identified, in any sense obvious to man,
with the material body, it appears to me, that his argument being
supposed to be valid, affords a very bad precedent ; for a vast number
of untruths may be equally proved to be true by a perfectly parallel
mode of arguing. Thus E. S. says, according to your commentary
on his words, —
Nothing was left behind in the sepulchre, and — therefore
— a divine and perfectly distinct body arose in the place
of the dissipated material body, and so the Lord arose with
his whole divine body complete.

the lord's humanity. 109
Is not the following argument perfectly parallel to this and equally
conclusive ?
Something is left behind by man in the grave, and — there
fore — a spiritual and perfectly distinct body does not rise
in the place of the material body ; and so man does not
rise again with his whole spiritual body complete.
Now every one must be constrained to admit, that both these
arguments are parallel, and equally logical, and, to me, it appears
that they are equally true (!) — that is, that the conclusion in both
cases is as erroneous as the argument is inconsequential.
If E. S.'s argument be good as you put it (pardon a homely
example, as E. S. was himself partial to such illustrations), then
any one may say as follows :
" That house is empty, and therefore, it follows that all the fur
niture has been taken out of it :'' — And this must be held to be true
and conclusive, although good witnesses can prove that none was
ever put in it !
I confess I feel ashamed of putting such a familiar illustration,
not because it is homely, but because I am compelled to make any
remarks whatever to show that E. S. really means to argue for that
which he certainly appears to do ; and, indeed, for that which his
argument can alone point to, so as to have any sense in it ; and that
he does not argue for that which he can only be supposed to have
had in view, by giving him credit for one of the most unnatural,
and inconsequential, and, I may add, deceptive arguments, ever put
forth by the most illogical bungler ! I feel sorry that I should be
obliged, by the strong convictions and consequent assumptions of
theorists that " believers in simplicity" are wrong, to ask such ques
tions as the following. How could that be said to rise which not
only never died, but was not actually in existence as a human body
(I mean the divine body as you define it) at the time when the body
died, which, it is said, was afterwards dissipated ? How can there
be, properly speaking, a resurrection, except of that body or person,
which formerly lived, and which seemed either to itself, or others,
to cease to live ? How could the Lord, on your theory, be said to
arise except in this way, that the dissipated material body arose by
proxy in the person of the divine body which succeeded it ? What
connection is there at all, according to your view, between that body
which was laid in the sepulchre, and that body which afterwards
appeared ? If the divine body, as you think of it, be meant by that
which was not left behind in the sepulchre, how could that be left
there which was never put there? How can E. S. be supposed to
have said that nothing was left there of that body which was never
there, and could not be put there 1 What connection had the risen
body, as defined by you, with the sepulchre any more than with any
other place in the universe, seeing that it was never locally "in the
world " at all ? And why refer therefore to the sepulchre at all to

110 THE GLORIFICATION OF
prove its rising ?* As the Lord appeared in a complete distinct
divine body, what need for the non-finding of the former body to
prove the fact of his so appearing, since his appearance, without any
reference to the former body, proved his resurrection in complete
human form ? How did the dissipation of the former body, so that
none of it could be found, prove that the body which afterwards
appeared was an ultimate body, as you think E. S. argued, and not
like the body of a spirit ? How could the finding of an image of
gold at a given place be the result of no part of an image of copper,
which was formerly put in another place, being to be found there,
when the former was found ? Who in his senses, would say a thing
was not left where it had never been ?
Observe the course of the argument as you suppose E. S. to have
used it.
The Lord's body was placed there, and dissipated there, so that
no part of it could be found there, and, therefore (Why there
fore ?) he arose with his whole body complete ! Were ever premises
and conclusion wider asunder ? And why ? — Because of your inter
polation of the new (but unauthenticated) fact of its being dissi
pated there ! And why is this interpolation made by which the
natural connection and consequentiality of E. S.'s argument is de
stroyed ? — In order to prevent the identifying of the material body
which could not be found with the body which arose (for without the
interpolation they stand as the very same), and thus occasion be
taken by the interpolators to deny the identity. But if it is not
lawful to mar a man's argument by putting (in print) fresh and in
congruous words into it, it must be equally unlawful to introduce
fresh and incongruous ideas into it ; for the purpose of the argu
ment is as effectually defeated by the latter as by the former.
And now permit me to ask you, putting a supposed argument as
the converse of that of E. S., according to your version of it :
If the material body had been left entire in the sepulchre, would
it therefore have been proved, that the Lord could not have arisen
in a distinct divine body, either after the manner of your theory, or
that of Mr. Hindmarsh, and therefore that when he appeared it was
not Himself, but, a personation of him ? I think not ! And more
especially as regards Mr. Hindmarsh's view, which supposes a thing
to me most unaccountable, that the Lord's divine soul, during his
whole life in the world, dwelt in two distinct ultimate bodies at the
same time, the one divine which arose, and the other material,

* I might produce a lengthy argument to this effect : the Body which E. S.
says arose was the " whole body which the Lord had in the world" how can the
Body which came forth divine when that which was in the world was dissipated,
be truly said to have been in the world at aU ; or to have been had by the Lord
when in the world, that is before its supposed production or going forth from
the Divine within took place ?

THE LOUD S HUMANITY. Ill
which was dissipated at the resurrection.* You may consider, that
if the material body of the Lord had been left in its inanimate state
to be destroyed by " corruption," instead of being more quickly de
stroyed by dissipation, no resurrection in a distinct body could have
taken place ; but yet I can see no connection, upon your theory,
between the not finding one, and the rising of the other body, any
more than I can, between the finding of the one (which I have
supposed) and the not rising of the other. For upon your theory,
What connection can you show between the dissipation of the mate
rial body, and the production or rising of the new divine body, so
that the latter depended upon and resulted from the former ? How
can you prove that the dissipation so conduced to the new produc
tion or resurrection, that the one body not being dissipated would
have prevented such a new production or resurrection of the other ?
If you say the divine must, in order to produce the new body, flow
down into the sphere of the material body ; and the latter must
necessarily be dissipated, when the former came in contact with it ;
I only answer, " Mere speculation, quite unsupported by any
legitimate authority ! " We see, then, that there is no manner of
connection between E. S.'s proffered evidence as to nothing being
left behind, and the rising of a new body ; and consequently, the
former cannot possibly be a legitimate proof of the latter.
I conceive, gentlemen, that E. S. was too great a master in the
art of reasoning, and too wise a man, to argue in such a strange,
inconsequential, and absurd manner, as your theory attributes to
him ! He lies under unfounded imputations enough without this
being added, that he reasoned in such a manner, and that repeatedly,
upon a most important subject, that upon no usual rules of reasoning
can his meaning or object be known, unless it be recollected what
* This palpable contradiction, of two co-existent last principles, or two ultimate
bodies, I gather from pages 33 to 39 of the "Essay," and particularly from this,
that Mr. H. imphes that as evils were put off which were in the maternal TJlti
mate Body, or external man pertaining thereto, goods, from the divine soul or
the " Father," were put on in the Divine or paternal TJltimate Body, which was
perfectly distinct from the former body, contrary to all analogy, for in man's
case, where the evils are put off, there the goods are put on. (Incidentally I
add, — this consideration of the identity of place (so to speak) where this substitu
tion is effected furnishes an argument agamst " dissipation," since " goods " from
the Father would, in this case, be dissipated ; — unless, indeed, Mr. Hindmarsh's
idea of two distinct Ultimate bodies be admitted, one of which, the material,
had all its infirm properties removed, but received itself no contrary ones " in
exchange," so that when its period of dissipation arrived there pertained to it
neither evil nor good.) There is only one way by which Mr. H. can get rid of
the fatal objection of two ultimates co-existing, and that is, by saying that the
material body was lower in degree than the divine body, as, indeed, the idea of
the divine body existing in it implies, but then it wiU follow, that when (as Mr.
H. says) the lower was put off by dissipation, the higher only remained, and so
the Lord was then no longer in " last or lowest principles !" Mr. H. supposes
the Divine Ultimate body was manifested to the disciples at the Transfiguration
(page 62), but E. S. appears to intimate (A. C. 5110) that what was then seen
was the same as had been manifested to the prophets before the Lord descended
into " Ultimates," or before "the Word was made flesh."

112 THE GLORIFICATION OF
he says at other times ; for if we put that construction upon his
argument taken by itself which alone can be called the obvious one,
namely, that the crucified body was not dissipated but "arose
divine," we cannot but understand him to set forth that which is
absolutely false !
But suppose what you assert to be false is actually true, then is
the argument of E. S. everything that an argument ought to be, —
to the point, clear, natural, cogent, and convincing : all is dignified
and consistent ; the subject, although mysterious, involves no con
tradiction !
I have above troubled you with two parallels between the cases of
the Lord's body and man's to prove the error of your commentary on
the words of E. S. I will now quote E. S.'s own words, and draw
a parallel, according to the obvious sense of his words, to prove the
accuracy of the simple construction of them :
" The Lord arose again with his whole [material] body, for
he left nothing in the sepulchre." A. C. n. 10,825.
Man does not rise again with his material body, for he
leaves it in the grave.
You see that the parallels, on my interpretation are completely
logical, and perfectly true ; — -upon your principle they were both the
contrary. Make then your election ! Either your theory is a mistaken one ;
or E. S. did not know what he was talking about when he argued in
its illustration.
I cannot avoid adding, alhough not closely connected with the
immediate subject of this communication, that I differ with you in
regard to your supposition that E. S. meditated at one time break
ing through what you term his reserve concerning the glorification
of the Lord in ultimates ; and I beg to express my conviction, that
what has been communicated on that head is quite complete ; and
however inexhaustible the subject of the glorification as to those
particulars which bear an analogy to man's experience in his regene
ration, so that indefinitely more of them might have been communi
cated, it does not appear to me that any more respecting the
glorification of the very body could be communicated, inasmuch as
it can receive no illustration by the perception of any analogy
between the Lord's case and man's, for in this particular the analogy
ceases. You may think that if your " view " had been communi
cated in express words, " the reserve" would then have been bene
ficially departed from ; — I, however, think otherwise, and had I found
your view thus expressed, it would have stood, to my mind, as a
" glaring contradiction," in the writings of E. S., and would have
thrown my views of them into inextricable confusion.
I am, &c.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 113

NOTE ON THE ABOVE. BY MR. NOBLE.
[Originally printed after the first of the preceding letters, to which it refers.]
The late period at which the above communication came to hand,
together with the unavoidable absence of some of our body in
attending the Conference, renders it impossible that we can consider
its arguments and observations in this Number. For the present,
then, we content ourselves, chiefly, with calling the attention of our
readers to the Sermon on the Lord's appearance and words to Thomas,
which forms the first article of the Number, and which was com
mitted to the press before we knew that we should be called upon
to insert Mr. Mason's letter. We add, however, a few general
remarks. Mr. M. adverts to the change which his sentiments have under
gone ; the greatness of the change will be duly appreciated, when it
is known, as is the fact, that the Sermon given above, page 80, was
heard by Mr. Mason, at the time mentioned, with strong appro
bation. It must, however, be acknowledged, as he himself intimates,
that before he approved the view of the subject there presented, he
had already changed his sentiments once. The views of his earliest
days were those which he has now resumed. These he relinquished,
on reading the discussion between Mr. Clowes and the Editors in
the third and fourth volumes of the Intellectual Repository (first
series). From the year 1818, when the principal of the papers in
that discussion were printed, to at least the year 1827 — a period of
about nine years, — we have certain evidence that Mr. Mason agreed
with the Editors on the subject in question. We do not mention
this fact as tending to throw any blame on Mr. Mason : we are
satisfied that, in his repudiation of his late opinions, as well as in
his previous repudiation of his present opinions, he has acted con
scientiously, and deserves credit for his courage and integrity : we
know also, from the New-Church writings as well as from observation
and experience, that it is not uncommon for persons to hold opinions,
or to see truths, contrary to the sentiments held by them before, so
long as they are in close consociation with others who are strongly
principled in those opinions or truths ; and from which they recede,
relapsing into their original state of thought, as soon as the close
consociation is ended : but we do think that, under such circum
stances, it is not well to assume a tone so nearly approaching to that
of infallibility. A person who confesses that, after having seen the
truth, he fell into error, in which he remained during about nine of
the best years of his life, does not stand on any vantage ground
when he calls on his old associates to make his new change with
him : even an unconcerned spectator will be of opinion, that his last
change is at least as likely to be a deviation into error as his first.
One change of view may be an advance : a change back again is
certainly a retrogression ; it is probably an actual declension. i

114 THE GLORIFICATION OF
We think that Mr. Mason would never have written as he has,
had he taken the pains to understand the articles which he attempts
to refute. Much of his paper is quite beside the mark, as applied
to anything intended by us. As to the " difficulties " from which
he so earnestly exhorts us to make our escape by coming over to
him, we really know not what he means. To our apprehension, the
view which we have been enabled to attain of the glorious subject
has no difficulties ; whereas, in his theory, the difficulties are in
superable ; amounting to actual impossibilities : and we think, if he
clearly understood the considerations we have offered, he would
relinquish it yet. Whether there are any difficulties in our view or
not, we cannot plunge into the contradictions of his. What he calls
"simple belief," would be in us, were we capable of it, nothing but
blind persuasion. When such language as "You must believe in
simplicity," is addressed to an angel, he replies, " * How ! believe
without seeing whether it is true !' and if the party insists that still
he must believe, he rejoins, ' Do you think yourself a God that I
must believe you ? or me mad, to believe an assertion in which I
cannot see truth ? ' " (Doct. Fa. n. 4.)
Nothing is more easy, if we would " dwell, day by day," upon a
single text of Scripture, with a determination to exclude all ideas
but those which we may form of its literal sense, than to fall into
the most extravagantly erroneous persuasions : and it is by thus
dwelling on one idea incessantly that all the excesses of fanaticism
have had their rise. We mention this, not as applying to Mr.
Mason, but as showing the danger of the experiment' which he
recommends. Of a piece with the plan of dwelling incessantly on a
single text of the Holy Word " believed in simplicity," is that of
regarding solely a single passage of the Word's divinely instructed
Expositor, taking this in the sense which may perhaps, at first,
appear the most natural, but refusing to have its meaning illustrated
by a comparison with other passages, and even treating with ridicule
the fdea of referring to other parts of the Author's writings for
that purpose. Any author whatever, how accurate soever in his use
of language, may be made, by such treatment, to appear to sanction
opinions quite different from any that he ever thought of propound
ing. Yet these are the two feet upon which the whole of the theory
above contended for stands. We are to build our whole doctrine of
the nature of the Lord's Risen Body upon one text of Scripture
taken in what is affirmed to be its merest literal sense, and upon
one statement of Swedenborg taken in a sense which other passages,
forbidden to be looked at, prove to be a mistaken one. Really, a
theory which thus excludes the light, acknowledges that it cannot
stand before it. An advocate who would allow you to take your
conclusion from only two or three documents, selected by himself out
of hundreds, confesses that full investigation would be the ruin of
his cause.
We must observe, for the sake of the general reader, that we

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 115
regard Mr. M.'s last paragraph but one as purely mischievous in its
tendency, as presenting, expressly for " the public," a most ex
aggerated view of the difference between us. In it he states, that
" three out of its [our Church's] few ministers are at issue on a
fundamental point of faith." This we regard as totally un
founded. We have repeatedly stated, that, in our estimation, it is
a matter of much indifference what views are entertained as to how
the Lord glorified his Humanity, or put off the Humanity from the
mother and put on a Humanity from the Father, provided it is
believed that he did so glorify it, and so " returned into his Divinity
in which he was from eternity, together with, and in, his Glorified
Humanity." (T. C. R. 3.) Now all the three views referred to do
affirm this most positively ; and further, that the Lord, in his
Glorified Humanity, is a Divine Man in fulness, having the ulti
mates of the Human Principle as complete as man in the world has.
We objected to some of Mr. Hindmarsh's reasonings, as seeming,
unintentionally, to lead to a different conclusion than this last ; but
his statements, we showed, are fully to that effect. The object of
our articles on the subject was, to establish this latter truth on a
rational and intelligent basis. Mr. Mason's object is, to establish
it as a scriptural fact. How then can it be said, with any degree
of correctness, that we " are at issue on a fundamental point of
faith," — when all that is fundamental is upheld by us all !
As to the peculiar view which, we now find, is held by Mr. Mason
(for hitherto we have not known, exactly, what his view was), we
expressly said that, in our opinion, it is perfectly harmless to those
who can receive it ; and we were exceedingly surprised to learn,
that he is not disposed to allow as much to us. Can he seriously
think that, when he agreed with us, he was " in rebellion against
the revealed wisdom of the Most High ?" Such exaggerations are
truly deplorable. When he says, in reference to the Lord's rising
with his whole body, that " not only mere materiality, but even
finiteness, was put off by the act of glorification," he affirms all
that we deem essential : we only wonder how he can connect this
statement with some of his premises : and as we most decisively
assert the very same truths, we are astonished at his representing
the difference as being fundamental. He cautions us against dis
puting about words : but really much of his own reasoning is
nothing else.
The only controversy between Mr. Mason and ourselves is simply
this : Whether, in order to the Lord's rising in all fulness a Divine
Man, and, as being fully Divine, in a body divested of mere mate
riality and even of finiteness (which both parties admit, being all
that is fundamental in the doctrine), it was necessary that the
identical material particles or substances (for though Mr. M. rejects
these terms, and with them all definiteness from his argument, we.
for the sake of definiteness, must beg to retain them — that the iden
tical material particles or substances) which composed his body at
i 2

116 THE GLORIFICATION OF
the crucifixion, should also, and actually did, compose it at the re
surrection. Mr. M. affirms this to be necessary, and to be asserted
in Scripture and by Swedenborg : we declare it to be impossible,
incompatible with the facts recorded in Scripture, contradicted by
all that Swedenborg has written on the subject, and involving con
tradiction in itself. This then, in our next, we propose, by divine
aid, to shew. But though, on this point, our sentiments are thus,
at present, wide as the poles asunder, the point itself is merely acci
dental, not essential, to the main subject ; and however this may be
determined, all that is fundamental will remain unaffected. The
only fundamental doctrine of the New Church upon the subject will,
we repeat, ever be, That the Lord's Humanity is Divine, and
THAT THEREIN HE IS A DlVINE MAN IN ALL FULNESS : Or, to state
it in the words of one who had authority, " That he put off the
Humanity from the mother, which in itself was like the Humanity
of another man, and thus material, and put on a Humanity from
the Father, which in itself was like his Divinity, and thus sub
stantial ; whereby his Humanity also was made Divine." (Doct.
Lord, 35.) And that it was " because the Lord's Humanity was
glorified, that is, made Divine, that he rose again after death, the
third, day, with his whole body ; and that " his Body was now
not material but Divine substantial." (Ibid.) As to the manner
how this putting off and putting on, and consequent total change of
nature, were accomplished, every one is at liberty to think for
himself, according to his means of information and his own state of
intelligence. With respect to the sermon above (Chap. V.) to which, with
the three articles of our late Review, we refer our readers for the
present, we think it would have been better, if, instead of saying
that " the divine energy — dissipated or consumed the material
elements," it had contained the word dissipated only, as there is not
the express authority of our Author for the word consumed .- but in
general, we apprehend, the sermon briefly states all that is necessary
to the explanation of the whole subject, and to the perfect solution
of the difficulties raised by Mr. Mason. It is to be observed, how
ever, that no part of it was intended to refer to the varieties of
opinion among members of the New Church, but only to the grand
controversy between the New Church and the Old.
We take very kindly our old friend's " affectionate entreaty," in
his last paragraph, " to return" to the point which he recommends
— that of his interpretation of the Lord's words, " Behold " &c.
"to be accepted by us in simplicity .-" we propose, for our parts, the
true design of the passage, as explained in the sermon above, to be
accepted by him in intelligence. As we never did hold his inter
pretation of the passage, we cannot "return" to that point ; he
literally may " return " to that which we recommend, — and recom
mend, we assure him, in sincere affection. We " determined to
stand out " against nothing but evil and error : we hope that he has

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 117
no determination of a different character. We know not " by what
authority" he " demands" of us an answer to his final question in
Italics, nor upon what ground he deems it applicable : but, not
thinking the demanding -style becoming in us, we will but meekly
inquire, in return, " By what authority does he take upon himself"
to divest " the Lord's own words concerning his Glorified Person "
of all intelligible meaning, " either by raising a theory " which
proceeds upon the monstrous assumption that a Divine Body can
be perforated with wounds ; " or by arbitrarily asserting " that
the words, " I myself," mean the body only ?
It is necessary to mention, finally, that we have received two other
Letters from Mr. Mason in support of his views. One of them we
have agreed to insert (the second in Chapter VI.) ; and, though we
deem it superfluous, we probably shall give the other also ; as, now
that the subject has been gone into, we wish it to receive the fullest
consideration. It was very painful to us to be so assailed by an old
friend and once zealous co-adjutor : but we trust that the affair is
under divine guidance, and will be made conducive to the elucidation
of pure doctrine, and to the advancement of the interests both of
truth and of charity.

118

CHAPTER VII.
THE VIEWS OF THE EDITORS RESPECTING THE LORD'S RESUR
RECTION. BY MR. NOBLE.
About seventeen years ago, on occasion of the publication of the
late Rev. Mr. Clowes's beautiful little work on the Miracles, the
Editors of the original Intellectual Repository deemed it their duty,
in their review of it, to intimate dissent from one of the statements
contained in it, viz., " That the [Lord's] material body was not
dissipated, but glorified." This brought on a discussion between Mr.
Clowes and the Editors ; which was so conducted, that, although
they did not come to agreement in opinion, no painful feelings
whatever were excited on either side ; nor were any experienced, it
is believed, by any reader of the various articles. The Editors
could not but defer, with the greatest respect, to such a man as Mr.
Clowes, the oldest and most effective promoter of the cause of the
truths of the New-Church, and whose exalted personal character gave
him so many claims to universal esteem ; and the spirit in which the
discussion was conducted by him evinced on how solid grounds that
esteem was founded. He begins his first letter in answer to the
Editors thus : " I have again * to thank you for the very liberal and
candid manner in which you express yourselves in the last number
of your Miscellany, on the subject of my explanation of the Lord's
miracles, and especially for the freedom with which you object to
my idea respecting the glorification of the Lord's material body.
Be assured that by that freedom you have neither "put to the test
my forbearance or my charity," as you seem to insinuate, because
I see nothing in it to offend me, but, on the contrary, much to please
and charm me. Your views, it is true, differ from mine ; but that
is no reason why they should provoke resentment, any more than
why I should be hurt at the colour of your eyes differing from mine."
In this spirit, the discussion was conducted throughout.
We now, most unexpectedly, find ourselves engaged in a con
troversy on the same subject, but, unhappily, not of the same
delightful character. In venturing to dissent from some of the
observations of Mr. Hindmarsh, who is at present, among living
individuals, the man to whom the cause of the New-Church owes
the most, we did it with expressions of respect and deference, similar
to those which we had before felt it our duty to employ in reference
to Mr. Clowes ; and we were very certain that had Mr. H. thought
proper to offer anything in reply, it would have been done in the
* The " again" alludes to a former correspondence on another subject.

THE GLORIFICATION OF THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 1 19
kindest and most candid spirit. We never dreamed of an answer
from any other quarter. Another writer, however, came forward in
our last, and, in a paper, entitled On the Identity of the Lord's
Crucified, and Risen or Glorified Body, attempted to overturn all
that either we or Mr. Hindmarsh had advanced on the subject : but
we are determined not to engage in anything like contentious dispute
on such a subject ; being fully convinced that this is not the way
to obtain enlightened views on it for ourselves, or to impart them to
others. We will state what appears necessary to make our own
views intelligible, and to detect the fallacies which are set up against
them ; but we will abstain, as far as these objects will permit, from
putting our remarks into a controversial form.
As a preliminary, it is necessary to state, that although, as the
least of two evils, we inserted Mr. Mason's letter in our last, we
cannot at all admit the correctness of his assumption, that it was
necessary for him to require this, "to do justice to himself as one
of the Conference ministers." This is supposing, that whatever
may be said by us as the Editors of a Magazine which is the pro
perty of the Conference, is to be considered as said in the name of
the Conference. Against a similar assumption we have protested
before. It were strange indeed that our strictures on a work of the
President of the Conference should be construed to be the sentiments
of the Conference as a body ! We certainly can have no right, as "the
Conference Editors," to advance opinions contrary to anything which
that body has authorized by an express decision : but in all cases
where the Conference has not expressly spoken (and it never has
spoken, nor is likely to speak, on matters of doctrine, but in very
extreme cases indeed), we consider that we are at liberty to offer our
own sentiments, without any implication of the Conference what
ever. Were it otherwise, our office as reviewers would be a mere
name. We beg, therefore, that it may be distinctly understood,
that we had no thought of offering what we advanced, in our
Review of Mr. Hindmarsh's " Essay," as the opinions of the Con
ference, and that none can have a right to act on that assumption.
But while, in justice to the Conference, we state as above, we
also, in justice to ourselves, must state further, that we never have
had any reason for supposing that the sentiments contained in that
Review would be regarded by the Conference as objectionable. The
majority of us were Editors of the original Intellectual Repository,
before it became the property of the Conference; and had then
published the articles on the Lord's Glorification and Divine Hu
manity, alluded to above, in discussion with Mr. Clowes. Those
articles advocated the same sentiments as we have again advanced
in our late Review ; so that they were fully known to the Con
ference before our appointment as Editors of the present Magazine.
Nay, further : the sentiments which we have advanced on those
occasions are the same as are presented on the subject in Mr. Noble's
" Appeal," than which no work has ever been received in the

120 THE GLORIFICATION OF
Church with more general approbation, and a resolution recom
mendatory of which, as "a manly defence of all the leading
doctrines of the New Jerusalem, and a lucid exposition of their real
nature and tendency," was passed by the General Conference of
1826 ; and the Conference of 1833 passed a similar resolution,
urging a new edition.
Having settled this point, we proceed to the subject itself. And
here, we earnestly beg, that they only will accompany us, who can
approach the consideration of the Lord's adorable Divine Person
with a sense of sanctity and awe. The subject is holy, how mis
taken soever the views of it which may be under discussion. The
place whereon we stand, as the Divine Voice said to Moses, is holy
ground. Whoever brings into it any thing unworthy of it, does it
on his own responsibility. Without sanctity in our own minds, we
should derive no profit even from the instructions of an angel.
As our observations in the review of Mr. Hindmarsh's " Essay"
only embraced detached parts of the great subject of the Lord's
Glorification of his Humanity, it hence appears that our view of
that sublime work, as a whole, has not been generally understood,
and that, for want of this, much of what we did say has been mis
apprehended. It appears necessary, therefore, as briefly as possible
to give a general view of the subject, as understood by us And,
lest it should be supposed that we have modified our statements in
consequence of recent objections, we will take them, for the most
part, from documents long since drawn up.
We originally presented our views most fully, in two papers in the
Intellectual Repository, in the course of the discussion above alluded
to with Mr. Clowes. Our object, we then stated, was "to show,
that the Lord's resurrection-body, though not in any sense material,
was nevertheless not a merely spiritual body, such as that of an
angel :" * or as we had expressed it previously, " that not an iota
of materiality, or of mere humanity, such as that of an ordinary
man, can attach to the Glorified or Divine Humanity of our Lord ;
yet that, in that Glorified Humanity, the Lord is truly, completely,
fully, a Man, but a Divine MAN.f Perhaps we may here be per
mitted to remark, that as the main object of all that we have ever
written on the subject has been what is here stated,. — to establish
the truth, that the Lord, in his risen body, is a Divine Man in all
fulness, having everything belonging to man as completely as man
in the world has, — we are really astonished how they, who, we are
persuaded, only contend for the resurrection of the crucified material
body itself because that is their way of apprehending the same
grand truth, can take the smallest offence at our mode of viewing
the subject. They are included, we apprehend, among those who
are represented by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, who wound
the body of Jesus in linen clothes, with myrrh and aloes ; { which
* P. 49. t Vol. iii. p. 436 (No. for July, 1817). J John xix. 31-40.

THE LORDS HUMANITY. 121
signifies the preservation of Divine life in the sensual principle, and
thus in the body itself ; and also by Mary Magdalen, in her first
state, when she came to the sepulchre to complete the embalming
process ; and who, on finding the body gone, exclaimed, " They
have taken]]away my Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not
where they have laid him." * Certainly, the excessive alarm which
some manifest on being told, that the material particles which com
posed the body that had been crucified were expelled or dissipated in
the sepulchre, is exactly analogous to this terror of Mary ; and the
cry which some raise on the occasion cannot be translated into
more expressive symbolic terms, than " They have taken away our
Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid
him !" If, however, this alarm proceeds in them from the same
ground as in her, they will eventually behold their Risen Lord with
the mental eye, no less really a Man than before, having put on
Divinity in ultimates, or brought down the Divine Substance into
ultimate corporeity, in lieu of the expelled materiality : and they
will find the linen clothes, — the appearances of truth, — by which
they thought to preserve and retain to perpetuity the material
particles themselves, left empty behind.
[The author then gives an outline of his former statements on
the subject, as given at length in Chapter IL, pp. 14 — 20. He then
proceeds as follows : — ]
The above is an abridgment of the two papers referred to, and, as
far as possible, in the original words. We quote them with some
confidence, because, as far as we have heard, the accuracy of ihe
statements has never been called in question. The most seemingly
questionable of them are supported in the original with conclusive
testimonies from the writings of Swedenborg ; and, if required, we
could produce quotations in abundance to justify the whole. We
only abstain from doing so at present, to save room for what we have
yet before us.
We particularly wish attention to be paid to the truth stated
above, that the human internal and the body (that is, the inmost
and the outmost) are the only parts of man that are developed in
any perfection at the period of birth : and that the case was similar
in the Lord. All the intermediate principles are formed in man in
the period between birth and adult age ; and they are born in him
successively by an influx of the internal into the external, whence
they all derive an intermediate internal from the former, and an
intermediate external from the latter. The case was the same with
the Lord : whence, although he took immediately by birth of the
mother nothing but the outer natural, yet all the intermediates which
were formed in him, were in like manner born from his original
internal, or the Divine itself, as a Father, of his external, first taken
from Mary, as a mother, and thus all at first had, mediately, an
external from her. So that there cannot be a greater mistake than
* John xx. 2.

122 THE GLORIFICATION OF
to suppose that the Lord, at no period of his life in the world, had
any thing derived from the mother beyond the material body. No
person can entertain such an imagination who has any knowledge of
the arcana contained in the history of Ishmael and Isaac, as un
folded in the Arcana Ccelestia. But whatever was thus derived
from the mother, was only assumed as a medium for bringing down,
or putting on, the Divine Humanity from the Father, and was
expelled and exterminated as this was accomplished ; so that at last,
with respect to everything belonging to him, he was " not only
conceived, but also born of Jehovah ;" than which a stronger phrase
cannot be devised to exclude the idea of his retaining any thing
whatever from the mother.
Another point of great importance to be attended to, is, that the
Lord put off the infirm humanity, and put on the Divine Humanity,
successively, from inmost to outmost, by discrete degrees. Thus
the first principle made Divine by the Lord was the inmost of the
rational, which is the same as the third degree of the spiritual mind ;
for the human principle commences in the inmost of the rational.*
The same must have been the case with the whole spiritual mind,
successively. At the same time, his external man was being formed
in correspondence, though this could not be made actually Divine,
till the Divine Itself was brought into contiguity with it. This
part of the process of the Lord's glorification exactly answers to what
takes place with the formation of the spiritual and natural minds of
man between birth and adult age. At that period, both are formed
in all their degrees ; but the latter is yet to be regenerated, and
the former to be opened. So with the Lord : the Celestial-and-
Spiritual-Natural, now purely Divine, was first opened to him, and
from it the first or upper degree of his natural mind was renewed
and made Divine ; and so with the other degrees in succession.
Thus his Divine Interiors were successively opened even to the
Divine Itself ; by the power of the influx from which, through all
the degrees of the spiritual and natural minds, already made Divine,
the material particles of the body itself were expelled, dissipated, or
in some way abolished, and the Body was made Divine by tne bring
ing of the Divine Substantial into the ultimate sphere, and thus
the putting on of a Divine Corporeity from the Father or Essential
Divinity. According to this, it will be seen, that all ascent inwardly is in
proportion to the descent outwardly. With man, after passing
through the preceding stages, the lowest degree of his external mind,
that is, of his inner natural, may be made receptive, by regeneration,
of spiritual life, and the highest spiritual degree, that is, the celes
tial, may be opened in him ; in which case, he ascends, after death,
to the third heaven. But this is his highest possible attainment.
* A. C. n. 2194. It is to be noted, that by the rational principle, in this part
of the Arcana Ccelestia, the author means all the internal man, below the human
internal.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 123
His outermost part, the body, never can be made spiritual, or
receptive of spiritual life ; consequently, he never can enter con
sciously into his inmost part, the human internal. And had not
the Lord made his outermost part, the body itself, also Divine, he
never could have entered into his inmost, his human internal, the
Divine Esse Itself.
Another point still which is essential to the right apprehension of
the subject, is the statement, that the Lord first made his Humanity
Truth from the Divine, then Divine Truth, and finally Divine
Good. There can be no doubt that, in different degrees of his
Humanity, he was all these at once : we mean, that while in a lower
degree he was as yet only Truth from the Divine, in a higher he was
Divine Truth, and in a higher Divine Good ; and that Divine
Truth succeeded to Truth Divine, and Divine Good to Divine
Truth, in all the degrees of his Human Principle, from first to last.
At the crucifixion, then, we apprehend, the Lord, as to the body,
was Truth Divine in the ultimate degree ;. which is Divine Truth
Natural as received by a finite and created subject ; at his resurrec
tion, he was, as to the body, Divine Truth Itself in the ultimate
degree : and at the ascension, he was Divine Good in all degrees,
from first to last.
But when we say, that the Lord made his Humanity Divine, or
put off the infirm humanity and put on the Divine Humanity, suc
cessively, by discrete degrees, we must not be supposed to mean that
he made each great discrete degree of his internal and of his external
man Divine at once. Within each most discrete degree, we learn
from our Author, there are others relatively discrete. Thus we are
informed that each of the three heavens, generally speaking, also
consists of three heavens ; and that there are degrees of both kinds
(continuous and discrete) in the greatest and most minute of all
created things. The author illustrates this statement from the
muscles of the human body, each of which is composed of fibres
compounded into a one by a common covering, and each fibre, again
of fibrils ; thus ascending by degrees relatively discrete. There
also are innumerable collateral particulars which exist in, and com
pose, every even relative discrete degree, which yet are completely
distinct from each other ; as may again be seen in the multitude of
fibres which compose a muscle, and of fibrils which compose a fibre :
or, to take a more elevated illustration, from the innumerable
societies which compose every heaven. Now it cannot be doubted,
that the Lord not only made Divine in himself the good and truth
existing in each of the heavens generally, but also in every society
of each heaven, and thus made his whole internal man Divine ; and
likewise, that he not only sustained temptation from the hells in
their general degrees (or, which is the same thing, from the infernal
spirits in the world of spirits, who were not yet cast into hell), but
also, from every distinct infernal society, and thus acquired good and
truth in his external man the reverse of the evils and falses thus

124 THE GLORIFICATION OF
conquered and expelled, and so made his external man Divine also.
Thus viewed, we see what an immense work the process of his
glorification was ; and what an infinity of operations and immensity
of labours were crowded into the short space of his life in the world.
These observations are made that it may not be supposed, because
we say that the Lord made his Humanity Divine successively, from
inmost to outmost, by discrete decrees, that we mean that it was
effected by a few great steps, each instantaneously performed.
The two papers of which we have above given an abstract, with
these observations on them, present, we apprehend, a sufficient
general view of the subject. We intended, however, at the time,
and stated that intention, to have considered the putting off of the
infirm humanity, and putting on of the Divine Humanity, as to the
body, in another article. But the papers having been written
as part of a discussion of the subject with the late Rev. Mr. Clowes,
we must, had we proceeded, have pointed out explicitly what we
regarded as defective in his statements respecting it ; and such was
the respect and veneration which we felt for that truly excellent
man, that we had an almost invincible repugnance to appear in any
degree as opposing him. Having then laid down the principles,
which, followed out, would lead inevitably to the conclusion, that
the body which was crucified was not the same, as to substance, with
that which arose ; having even stated this, with sufficient plainness,
in various parts of the discussion ;* and having also been prevented
by circumstances from taking up the pen again for a considerable
time ; our disinclination to resume it finally prevailed.
Whilst, however, we were writing the papers which were printed,
we noted down in short-hand various thoughts that we intended to
introduce in the article which was to follow. This circumstance we
had entirely forgotten ; but lately, the scraps of paper on which
they were written have come to our hands : and we find them to
contain almost all that was necessary to the full development of our
ideas. The principal of them, therefore, we here subjoin, nearly
as they were originally penned.
" Our author continually affirms, that the Lord, during his whole
life in the world, was engaged in putting off the human from the
mother, and putting on a Human from the Father ; and if we sup-
* This is the case in the two papers themselves. But they were written as a
sequel to two previous articles. From the first of these we have made a very
decided quotation above (p. 120). In the same article, respecting the assertion
" that the material body was not dissipated, but glorified," we remarked thus :
" Now every thing material appertaining to the Lord was from the mother : it
would therefore be equally correct to say, that the human from the mother was
not put off, but glorified. But both propositions are alike contradicted by E. S.,
who says, ' that the human from the mother, which in itself was similar to the
human of another man, and thus material, the Lord put off.' " (P. 3.) In the
other, " we affirm, with the most certain confidence, that there are no passages
in which the word material is used in connexion with this subject [in the works
of E. S.], in which it is not either said or implied, that everything material apper
taining to the Lord was from the mother, and of course was utterly rejected
at the resurrection." (P. 10.)

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 125
pose, as most unaccountably we are apt to do, the term Human to
be purely synonymous with the term body, not reflecting that the
mind is a more important part of the Human Principle than the
body, we must suppose that the Lord was all his life engaged in
making his mere Body Divine ; and this idea cannot be entertained,
without supposing that there is continuity between what is Divine
and what is material. But although the material body was not
growing Divine by continuity during the whole period of the Lord's
life in the world, yet it was all this time becoming, more and more
perfectly, a receptacle of the Divine. For it is obvious that the
Divine Natural could not be put on internally, so long as the forms
of the mental part of the outer natural were turned contrariwise, as
is the case with every one by birth, and hence was the case with
the Lord's natural principle from the mother. This, therefore, was
to be inverted ; or, to speak more correctly, the previous forms were
to be abolished, and their place supplied with new ones disposed in
heavenly order, which thus could serve as a basis for the descent of
the Divine Natural from within. And as from such a natural
principle of mind a corresponding change will also take place in the
body, it is equally certain that the Lord's material body was also,
by degrees, renewed in agreement with heavenly order. This
is a particular included in our Author's general statement, that
the Lord first made his Human Truth from the Divine, afterwards
Divine Truth, and finally Divine Good. He defines this truth
from the Divine to be merely rational truth, such as exists with the
angels, and capable of admitting temptations: consequently Truth
from the Divine in the mental part of the outer natural, must be
natural truth, such as exists with regenerate men : and the body, or
instrument of speech and action, of such a natural mind, must needs
be composed of material substances the purest in their kind and
most orderly in their arrangement. Understood thus, we have no
objection to admit that the Lord assumed a materiality from the
Father, not immediately, but mediately through the natural world,
and consisting entirely of substances taken from that world. Thus
it would differ in nothing from the bodies of completely regenerate
men, unless in being composed of still purer material substances
disposed in a more perfect arrangement ; but being equally obnoxious
to death, and equally incapable of resuscitation.
" Thus far," we then wrote, " we trust that our revered friend,
whose observations have given occasion to these remarks, will agree
with all that we have advanced (except, perhaps, the last expression) :
and as we, under the auspices, we confidently hope, of the Truth,
have been constrained to go thus far with him;* we hope, also, if
we are still enabled to follow the leadings of the same Infallible
* Mr. Clowes had stated, that the Lord had all his life been putting on a
materiality from the Father, and had referred to the statement of our Author
(Div. L. # W. n. 423), that the blood is purer in a regenerate man than in an
unregenerate man. (P. 6.)

126 THE GLORIFICATION OF
Conductor, that he, in his turn, will be constrained to accompany us
through the remainder of the journey.
" We would suggest, then, in continuation, that when the outer
natural was thus brought into complete correspondence with the
Divine, then, and not before, the inner natural was fully glorified.
Or, what is the same thing, in proportion as the outer natural was
reduced to order, the Divine Natural descended from the Father
through the angelic heavens, ejected and cast down the infernal crew
from their imaginary heavens, till it came into contact with the outer
natural, upon which it rested as a basis, ready to flow into this, and
make it Divine also, as soon as the residue which it still retained
from the mother was rejected. This was effected by the sufferings
in Gethsemane and on the cross. Previous to these events, the
Lord had made all the inner natural Divine. The arrival of the
state when the body was about to be glorified also, is signified by its
being said, that Jesus knew that his hour was fully come. At this
period, likewise, he instituted the Holy Supper ; by which is repre
sented all the good and truth, of every degree, capable of being
communicated to man, and appropriated by him ; wherefore also the
Lord said, ' With desire have I desired to eat this passover with
you before I suffer :' which words imply, that the Lord's love to
men was now satisfied, by his having rendered all the good and
truth accessible to them which finite beings are capable of receiving.
Yet another work still remained to be accomplished. It was not
sufficient to render every degree of good accessible to man, but it was
necessary also to render the blessing permanent ; and this could only
be done by giving fixity to the Divine Good and Truth thus brought
down to him, by the Lord's making Divine his body also, and thus
becoming a Saviour and Redeemer, not once only, but for ever. He
therefore admitted the hells to a last conflict ; which also, differently
from the former, was simultaneous with reproachful insults ana
horrid cruelties suffered from men on earth ; to whom therefore he
said, ' Now is your hour, and the power of darkness.' The tempta
tion thus induced was the most dreadful of all, occasioning that
intolerable sense of distance from the Father, and that absolute
despair, which broke forth in the exclamation, ' My God ! my
God ! why hast thou forsaken me.' The infernal triumph, how
ever, was very short. The body died, and was laid in the tomb ;
but the life of the residue of the human from the mother was no
sooner extinct, than the Divine from within descended into the same
sphere. The consequence was, — what must ever attend the imme
diate presence of the Divine in any substance or subject whatever
that is not divine, — the dissipation [gradually, if you please] of the
material elements ; while the descending influx formed, or rather
constituted, in their place, a Body the same in degree, but Uncreate,
Infinite, and Divine.
" Thus, then, it is plain, that the Lord did rise with his whole
body ; and also, that he left nothing in the sepulchre. When,

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 127
therefore, it is said, as it is in one or two passages, that he rose
with his body which he had in the world, it is to be understood in
the same manner as those few passages which say, that the External,
or the Human, which the Lord had from the Mother, was to be
united to Jehovah ; whilst multitudes of passages declare, that
every thing which the Lord took from "the mother was ' totally
expelled,' ' put off/ ' extirpated.' The meaning, then, of the
passages which say that the External, or Human, taken from
the mother, was to be united to Jehovah, must be, that he united
to the Essential Divine an External or Human, the same in de
gree with that from the mother (which therefore was put off to
make room for it), but different as to essence; and the passages
which say that he rose with the body which he had in the world,
must imply, that he rose in a body the same in degree with that he
had in the world (the material elements of which therefore were
dissipated to make room for it), but different as to essence. The
Lord, however, also had his Divine Body with him in the world, in
potency, even prior to his crucifixion ; and, after his resurrection,
he had, we incline to believe, his Divine Body with him in the
world actually, till his ascension.
" When, therefore, it is asked, ' How could the materiality of the
Lord's body be dissipated unless something was left behind in the
sepulchre V we answer, Unless the materiality had been dissipated,
something must have been left behind in the sepulchre. And
when it is asked again, ' How could it be said that the Lord rose
with his whole body, if materiality had been removed ;' we reply, If
the Lord had not risen with his whole body, materiality, though
removed, would not have been dissipated, but left behind. If it
be allowable to suppose it possible for the Lord's death to have been
precipitated before, as he so often says his hour was come, — that is,
before the state had arrived in which his whole Human was glorified
except the corporeal part only, then, the Divine not having come
into immediate contact with the material body, the Lord would have
risen again in a Divine spiritual Body only, like that of an angel
with the addition of Infinity, and his material frame would have
been left behind in the tomb. But as the Jews, as is repeatedly
said, could not lay hands on him till his hour was fully come, — till
all within was fully glorified, — nothing was then necessary but the
death of the material body, to permit the Divine to descend into this
region also, there to repeat the same process of putting off and put
ting on which had been continually going on within. The Divine
Life, which is the Divine Love, then taking the place of the ma
ternal life, must dissipate the infirm material frame, as a stick would
be dissipated if cast into the sun (or as the sacrifices of old were
dissipated when fire came down from heaven and consumed them) ;
when it supplied its place with a Divine Corporeal from Itself ; and
the Glorified Saviour rose by his own proper power, not a Divine

128 THE GLORIFICATION OF
Angel, but a Divine Man, having every thing that man in the world
has with the addition of Infinity.
" Whoever will attentively consider the subject as thus presented,
will, we should think, no longer see any reason to regard the idea of
the dissipation of the material elements of the Lord's body as at all
open to objection. He will view it as the necessary, spontaneous
effect, which could not possibly be prevented, of the descent of the
Divine into ultimates, and so truly natural an effect as scarcely to
be regarded as a miracle ; at least, it is no greater a miracle, than
every regenerating Christian repeatedly experiences in himself. Are
there not sensations in deep anguish of mind, especially in the an
guish of temptation, which appear as the result of a tearing to pieces of
the interior frame ? And are not the feelings of elevation and delight
which attend deliverance, like those of a real restoration, and re
creation, of the forms of the mind ? — which terms are even so applied
in common discourse. The cause of such feelings is, as every reader
of the writings of Swedenborg well knows, because the organic forms
of the mind are as real substances as the most solid parts of the
body, and much more so ; and as every reader of those writings also
knows, no heavenly affection and truth is ever introduced, in lieu of
an infernal one, but it brings its own organic form with it, to the
extirpation of the former. How much more must this have been the
case with the Lord himself ! How much more must the Divine
Itself be incapable of inhering, without a medium, in any but a
Divine Form !"
We still are of opinion that the thoughts here cited from our old
manuscript contain most of the ideas requisite for a tolerably clear
idea of the putting off of the body from the mother, and the putting
on of the body from the Father ; nor do we see how, generally speak
ing, they can be set aside, by any who admit the writings of Sweden
borg as authority. It may perhaps be thought, that as, in deference
to the venerable friend in reference to whose statements the remarks
were written, we admit that, " in some sense," the Lord assumed a
materiality from the Father, we contradict ourselves in afterwards
treating the body which was crucified as being from the mother.
There is, however, herein, no contradiction at all. So far as the
material body was purified in substance and form, and brought into
correspondence with heavenly and divine things, it partook, me
diately, of what was from the Father. But no such purification
could ever make it Divine in itself. By birth of the human mother
it was material, imperfect, and finite ; and however it might be
renewed, in the same manner as are the bodies of all ordinary men,
by the gradual throwing off of its obsolete substances and the assimi
lation of others in their place, it never could take up any other sub
stances than such as were homogeneous to its original nature, and
must still remain, by inheritance from the mother, material, imper
fect, and finite. It was only renewed by material aliments from

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 129
without, and could not be made Divine from the Divine within, till
this had descended, by the progressive glorification of the interiors
of the Human principle, into immediate contiguity with the interiors
of the body : and then no purity of the matters of which it was com
posed, or order of the forms in which such matters were arranged,
could enable them to bear the contact without dissipation.
But before we close this direct statement of our views respecting
the Lord's resurrection, there is one other point connected with it
which it will be proper to mention, as tending to clear some im
portant truths ; and that is, respecting the scene of the Lord's
appearance to the disciples after his resurrection.
In our review of Mr. Hindmarsh's Essay we remarked, " To the
statement, — That ' the Lord's resurrection was a transaction in the
spiritual world, and not in the natural,' — we are disposed to put in
a caveat." We intended to have taken it up afterwards, but had
not opportunity. We have above stated our belief to be, that
the Lord's Divine Body was in the world from his resurrection till
his ascension. On this subject we find the following among our
fragments. " For our own part, we see no difficulty at all in admitting, with
those who urge the resurrection of the identical body that was cruci
fied, that the Lord's appearances to his disciples after his resurrec
tion took place in the natural world ; though many, we are aware,
who, with us, believe his Risen Body to have been in no respect
material, consider this as impossible. But why so ? The Lord, we
know, is omnipresent in all space without space, and in all time
without time : and his omnipresence in space and time is now as real
and actual as his omnipresence in the spiritual world. Before the
incarnation, indeed, the case was otherwise : he was then only me
diately present in space and time : but since his assumption of the
Divine Natural, born in time and in the world of nature, his presence
in that world is as immediate as his presence in heaven. Nor did
his putting off of materiality by death, and his resurrection in a
Body purely Divine, withdraw him from space and time as to imme
diate presence : it only converted his previous local presence in space
and time into omnipresence in space and time. Whether they who
hold that the Lord's Risen Body was still material, consider that it
was seen by the disciples with their natural eyes, as seems a proper
part of the system, we are not aware [it must be the belief of those,
who think it was handled by their material hands] : but if such be
their opinion, they directly contradict the express statements of our
Author, that, when they saw him, their spiritual sight was opened.*
On the other hand, an objection is hence raised, by some of those
who are convinced that his body was no longer, in any sense, material,
to the belief that the disciples were, at the time, in the natural and
not in the spiritual world. But a little reflection may convince us,
that the term spiritual sight, or sight of the spirit, is not, in this
* H. $ H. n. 76 ; and frequently elsewhere. K

130 THE GLORIFICATION OF
instance, used to signify exactly the specific kind of spiritual sight
by which spirits and angels see each other, but merely as a general
term, to denote every species of sight which is not that of the mate
rial eye. For it is to be recollected, that even the highest angels,
who are constantly in the inmost degree of ordinary spiritual sight,
are not, from that circumstance, enabled to see the Lord in person,
as would constantly be the case if he were visible to ordinary spiritual
sight : but they only see him in person when he is pleased to mani
fest himself : which must therefore be effected by opening their sight
still more anteriorly."
We think that what is here suggested affords the clue to the
right understanding of the whole subject. If the angels saw the
Lord in person with ihe same sight as that by which they behold
one another, ihey would see him always. This, we apprehend,
cannot be controverted. But we are informed that there are none
who see him always. Even the sun of heaven, which is the imme
diate proceeding of his love, is not seen always by any but the
angels of the highest heaven ; and the Lord in person in the sun
only occasionally by them. It is plain then that, when he is seen,
it must be by the opening of a degree of sight more interior than
that in which ihe angel ordinarily is.
But the privilege of beholding the Lord in person is not confined
to the angels of the highest heaven, but is vouchsafed, though less
frequently, to the angels of the middle and lowest heaven ; who,
also, are not taken out of their own heaven when they behold him.
It is likewise certain, that he appears differently to -the angels of the
different heavens. These facts seem to demonstrate, that, while
the angels of each heaven see the Lord by a species of spiritual
sight more interior than that by which they see each other, the
former also differs in degree in each heaven. Or, that in the inmost
of each degree of ordinary spiritual sight, there is an interior sight,
which is opened when the angel sees the Lord.
Another point of importance to be borne in mind, is, that when
the sight is opened by which angels behold the Lord, it does not
occasion the closing of the sight by which they see each other. From
all the knowledge given upon the subject it appears certain, that
angels, when favoured with a sight of the Lord in person, behold
their fellow-angels, and the other customary objects around them, at
the same time.
Now as it seems undeniable that it is thus that the Lord is seen
in heaven, what is there to militate against the inference, that it was
thus also that he was seen, after his resurrection and before his
ascension, by his disciples in the world ? He rose, not as a Divine
Angel, but a Divine Man : it is to be concluded then, that he was
seen as such by men in the world, by the opening of a degree of
spiritual sight bearing the same relation to the ordinary sight of
men, as that by which he is seen in heaven bears to the ordinary
sight of angels. Thus the sight by which the Lord was seen by his

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 131
disciples, could not be the same as that by which a man sees spirits,
or spirits see each other, but the same in kind as that by which
spirits and angels see the Lord, only lower in degree. And as
spirits and angels behold the Lord and the objects of the spiritual
world at the same time, so the disciples at the same time beheld the
Lord and the objects of the world of nature ; as all that is recorded
of his appearances proves to have been the fact.*
* To keep our account of the manner of the Lord's manifestation of himself to
angels and spirits, andthenoe to the disciples, as simple as possible, we have not,
above, offered any suggestion as to what the pecuhar interior sight, by which
the_ Lord is seen, is. We think, however, that there is a plain index to it in the
writings of our Author ; from which we offer the foUowing theory. If not
accepted, the simple points advanced above wUl remain unaffected ; if accepted,
they wiU be much Ulustrated.
We conceive then, that the sight by which the Lord is seen in person, must
in all cases be that of the human internal. That there is a sight belonging to
the human internal is evident from the following passage, A. C. n. 1954 : " It is
not the eye that sees, but the sphit by the eye.— But this is not all : the case is
simUar with respect to this interior sight, or that of the sphit. This also does
not see of itself, but from a vision still more interior, which is that of the
rational principle. [It is to be remembered, as noted above, that under this
.term, the Author, in this part of his works, includes the whole spiritual mind.
He proceeds.] Nay, even this does not see of itself, but from a vision still
more interior, which is that of the internal man." Reference is here made to
n. 1940 : from which it is plain, that what is here caUed the internal man, is the
same as is caUed the human internal, or man's inmost principle. It is said, " The
internal man is that which forms his inmost principle, by virtue of which he is a
man, and by -which he is distinguished from brute animals, which have no such
inmost principle : and it is, as it were, the gate or entrance to man of the Lord,
that is, of the Lord's celestial and spiritual influences. What is done and
transacted here cannot be comprehended by man, because it is above his rational
principle, from which he thinks." That this is not spoken respecting man in
the world only, but includes aU angels also, is plain from n. 1999 ; where it is
declared that " the heaven [that is, the heavenly sphere] nearest the Lord
consists of these human internals : this however is above the inmost angelic
heaven; wherefore these internals are the habitation of the Lord himself."
From these passages it is clear what the human internal is, and that it has a
specific sight : ,and it seems reasonable to conclude, that although man cannot
be elevated into it, so as to be conscious of what is there transacted, yet the
sight of it may occasionaUy be opened, and that it is through this, as through a
window above, that the Lord in person is seen by man or angel. If so, it wUl
foUow that there is a degree of the human internal answering to each heaven ;
or that each heaven has its proper inmost, or human internal. Indeed, if it
were not so, it would be difficult to conceive, how there can be immediate influx
from the Lord into every heaven, or, what is the same, into every degree of the
mind, beside the mediate influx through the higher into the lower : yet we are
positively assured there is. It must be then, because there is an immediate
dwelling for the Lord in the inmost of every heaven, or of each degree ; that
is, because each has its own degree of the human internal. Nor is it any con
tradiction of this idea, that the region of human internals appears above aU the
heavens. The Lord, since his ascent to perfect oneness with his Infinite Esse,
is never seen, in his own person, but far above aU the heavens, in the centre of
the heavenly sun : yet we know that he has not the less, on that account, the
ultimates of the Human Principle, from which he can flow-in immediately even
with men in the world. So, also, the angels of the highest heaven have with
them aU that natural principle which alone is open in the angels of the first
heaven, and that spiritual principle which is the highest that is open in the
angels of the middle heaven : yet they do not, on that account, appear partly
in those heavens, but whoUy above them.
Now if there is an inmost principle — an immediate habitation of the Lord —
within every spiritual sphere of life in heaven, and every degree of the human
K 2

132 THE GLORIFICATION OF
To evince that it was so, it must be ascertained whether the Lord
passed, immediately on his resurrection, into the world of spirits, as
men do, or whether he was still, at first, within the sphere of the
world of nature. It is commonly supposed (at least by those who be
lieve with us that his Body was now truly Divine, and no longer in any
respect material), that he passed, by death, as ordinary men do, into
the world of spirits. Their only ground, we apprehend, for this con
clusion, is the fact that he was no longer seen by the material eye.
But to suppose, on this account, that the scene of his appearing was
the world of spirits, is quite inconsistent with all that our author
declares respecting the difference between the Lord's resurrection
and that of ordinary men. This difference, he constantly testifies,
was, that man rises again only as to the spirit and not as to the
body ; whereas the Lord rose with the body — a natural body— also.
The reason that man rises in the spiritual world is, because he rises
in a spiritual body : but if the Lord rose with his whole body — that
is, with its natural ultimates, as well as its interiors, which consti
tute the spiritual body ; and if he did not rise at once to his Divine
Esse above the heavens, but was willing, in this, as in all things
else, to proceed in the order which he has appointed for man, and
thus to remain, for a short time after his resurrection, in his
externals, as man does ; then it is certain that the first scene of his
appearance must have been the natural sphere of life and not the
spiritual. To suppose that his body, though a natural and not a
merely spiritual body, rose in the world of spirits, is not much unlike
a contradiction in terms.
Again : Had the Lord only risen, as man does, as to the spirit,
or in a Divine Spiritual, not a Divine Natural Body ; the first scene
of his appearance would then indeed have been in the world of
spirits ; but still the opening of ordinary spiritual sight would not
have enabled the disciples to behold him. This would only have put
them, for the time, in the state of the inhabitants of the world of
mind in heaven, why not also within the natural sphere of life in the world,
and within the mind of man as an inhabitant of the world ? We are informed,
that " the Divine which had fiUed all spaces without space, also penetrated to the
ultimates of nature : but before the assumption of the Humanity, the divine influx
into the natural degree was mediate through the angelic heavens, but, after the
assumption, was immediate from Himself. [Div. L. § W., n. 233.] The natural
degree here spoken of is that which belongs to man in the world : how then, as
remarked above, respecting the interior degrees, could there be this immediate
influx into the natural degree belonging to man in the world, unless the Lord
had here also provided a human internal, an immediate habitation for himself?
There obviously can be no immediate influx mto anything, except from some
thing in immediate contiguity with it ; if so, and there is immediate influx from
the Lord's Divine Humanity into the degree of life in which man is in the
world, he must have provided, in the inmost of that ultimate degree, a dwelling-
place for himself. And if it is by the opening of the sight of the degree of the
human internal answering to each heaven that the angels of each heaven behold
the Lord in person, it may have been by the opening of the sight of the degree
of the human internal which is in the inmost of the ultimate natural degree
in which man is in the world, that he appeared to the disciples after his
resurrection.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 133
spirits, by whom they would then have found themselves surrounded :
but they would not, by the ordinary sight of spirits, have been able to
see a Divine Spiritual Body, any more than to see a Divine Natural
Body by the ordinary sight of men. - So that no facilities whatever
are gained for explaining the Lord's appearance to the disciples, after
his resurrection, by supposing that their ordinary spiritual sight was
opened ; not even when it is farther supposed that the Lord only
rose in a Divine Spiritual Body, and not, as was the fact, in a
Divine Natural Body. No species of Divine Body can be seen
by any angel or spirit by the sight in which they ordinarily are ;
and it must be as easy for the Lord to open the species of spiritual
sight proper for seeing his Divine Natural Body by a man, as that
proper for seeing a Divine Spiritual Body by a spirit or angel.
But to come to the recorded appearances of the Lord after his
resurrection ; all which lead to the conclusion, and cannot without
great violence be strained to any other, that the disciples remained
at the time in the natural world, and were not transferred into the
spiritual, by the opening of the ordinary kind of spiritual sight.
Mary Magdalen, when she first saw him, was in the garden in which
was the sepulchre, and supposed him to be the gardener.* The two
disciples whom Jesus joined as they were going to Emmaus com
pleted their journey in his company, pressed him to go with them
into the house, as was natural, to take refreshment after their walk,
and, on having the eyes of their understanding opened to know their
Divine Guest, who then disappeared, got up immediately and
returned to Jerusalem :f — obviously, all events in the natural world.
When it is recorded, on the first and second appearances of the Lord
to the assembled disciples, that the doors were shut, J this certainly
was not to intimate that the scene which followed was in the
spiritual world : none suppose that any fastening of doors can exclude
a spirit, or prevent the inmates from seeing a vision. When Peter
said, " I go a fishing," and engaged with others all night in that
occupation ; and when in the morning they saw Jesus, at whose
word they again cast in the net, and took a great multitude of fishes,
and1 yet the net did not break : who can doubt that all these were
transactions in the natural world ? And when, on recognising the
Lord, Peter girt his fisher's coat about him and swam ashore, and
the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net : were they
not still all acting in the natural world ? And when they found
there a fire, with fish laid thereon, and bread, and Jesus said to them,
" Come and dine :"§ what was there more wonderful in this miracle,
wrought by Jesus in his Divine Body, by virtue of the power which
he had thus taken to himself of flowing-in immediately into the
world of nature, than in the miracle wrought while he was yet in
the material body, of feeding five thousand with a few loaves and
two fishes ? And as some of the fish caught by themselves made
* John xx. 14, 15. t Luke xxiv. 13—33. $ John xx. 19, 26. § John xxi. 1—13.

134 THE GLORIFICATION OF
part of the meal,* what question but that the scene was in the world
of nature, — literally, as stated, "at the sea of Tiberias ?"f Accord
ingly, though Swedenborg repeatedly cites this transaction, he never
intimates that it was not performed in the natural world. But, in
another still more remarkable one, When Jesus asked the disciples,
Have ye here any meat ? and they gave him a piece of broiled fish
and a honeycomb, our Author expressly affirms that it was a trans
action in the natural world, when he Says, "It seems to be of
chance that they had a piece of broiled fish and a honeycomb : never
theless it was of Providence, and not only in this instance, but in
the case of all other circumstances recorded in the Word. "J After
this, it surely is impossible to doubt for a moment, that when the
disciples saw the Lord after his resurrection, they were in the room,
house or place in the natural world which the sacred narrative
describes them as being in, performed the natural actions ascribed to
them, and retained a conscious sense of the natural objects around
them. Still, that they did not behold the Lord with their natural
eyes, but with the sight of their spirit, is expressly declared by our
Author, and is demonstrated by the miraculous manner of the Lord's
coming and departure. What consistent inference remains, but
that they saw him by a peculiar species of spiritual sight, the same
in kind as that by which the Lord is seen when he manifests himself
to angels and spirits, but inferior in degree ; and that what they
saw was the Lord as to his Ultimate Divine Natural, by which he
communicates immediately with the natural world ; whence they
were enabled to behold him and natural objects at the same time.
Another circumstance which strongly corroborates the correctness
of the above view, is this : that, although the Lord and angels were
repeatedly seen by the disciples, there is no instance, after the resur
rection, of their been seen at the time ; which can hardly be sup
posed not to have occurred, if both could be seen by the same
species of spiritual sight. At the transfiguration, indeed, the Lord
was seen together with two angels ; because the disciples were then
in a state altogether spiritual, being withdrawn from the bodily
sight entirely, as the whole narrative evinces, and in the same state
with angels when they see the Lord. And they saw the Lord in
this state, because what they saw was his Divine Spiritual Body,
not his Divine Natural Body, the ultimate of the natural principle
not being yet made Divine. But when this was made Divine also,
and they were favoured with the sight of their Risen Lord, they never
saw angels, or any objects of the spiritual world, at the same time,
but only objects of the natural world : because they now saw the
Lord by a different species and degree of spiritual sight from that by
* Ver. 10. t Ver. 1.
X Arc. Ccel. 5620. Perhaps we shall here be asked, "Does not the Lord's
eating such things prove that he was still in a material body i" We answer,
Just as much Jehovah's eating of a calf and cakes with Abraham [Gen. xviii.
1 — 8] proves that he was in a material body before the incarnation.

THE LORD S HUMANITY. 135
which the objects of the spiritual world are visible. That there is a
mode of spiritual sight by which angels are visible together with
objects of the world, does, indeed, appear from instances in the
Word ; but there does not seem to be any mode of spiritual sight by
which angels, and the Lord, and the objects of the natural world, can
be seen at once. For man to see angels and the Lord at the same
time, either the angels must descend into the same state as man in
the world is in, which to them is impossible ; or man must be raised
into the same state as angels are in ; which is easy enough : but
then he could not see either the objects of this world, or the Lord in
his Divine Natural, as he was after the resurrection, when he had
not yet ascended to the Father. Thus the fact, that the disciples,
after the Lord's resurrection and before his ascension, never saw the
Lord and angels together, combined with the fact, that they did see
him with angels at the transfiguration, appears fraught with impor
tant instruction, and is by itself adapted to lead to correct views of
the manner in which those appearances were effected.
There are only three ways in which the appearances after the
resurrection can be explained. The first supposes that he was seen
by the natural eye, the same as any ordinary man. But this sup
poses also, that his body was still of the same material nature as in
ordinary men ; in which case, likewise, he would have been seen by
all others as well as by the disciples, and could not have appeared
suddenly, and as suddenly vanished. These circumstances, therefore,
are referred to by Swedenborg, as proving that his Body was now
Divine, — that it " was now not material, but Divine-Substantial :"
and hence he likewise expressly states, that he was seen by the
sight of the spirit.
The second mode supposes, that as it is certain that the Lord was
not seen with the eyes of the body, the perceptions of the disciples
were altogether in the spiritual body when they beheld him, and the
scene of the appearances was the world of spirits. But this, we have
noticed, only coheres with the supposition, that the Lord rose, as
man does, as to the spirit only, not as to the body ; contrary to our
Author's express declarations. It also supposes, that spirits could
see the Lord by the same sight as that by which they see one an
other ; which, we have seen, is incorrect. It contradicts Swedenborg's
express assertion, that the disciples had providentially at hand, in
the room in which Jesus appeared suddenly amongst them, such
articles of food as properly signified what he wished to teach. It
cannot, without great violence, be reconciled to the many intima
tions, at the time of the appearances, that the transactions were
really in the natural world. And it renders the sacred narrative a
mere nose of wax, to be moulded into any shape that may be found
convenient : for if this supposition were true, the whole might be
resolved into mere appearances in the spiritual world : all certainty
of the truth of any of the literal narratives were gone ; contrary to
the often repeated statements of Swedenborg, that, after the first

136 THE GLORIFICATION OF
eleven chapters of Genesis, the facts recorded literally occurred as
they are related ; while he never so much as glances at the possi
bility of these narratives coming under the class of exceptions.
The third mode of explaining the subject is that which we have
developed above ; which is quite free from the difficulties of both the
others. It relieves us, on the one hand, from the inconsistency of
supposing that a Divine Body could be seen with the natural eye ;
and, on the other, from the equal inconsistency of imagining (as, to
make the theory cohere, we must imagine) that the Lord, after all,
rose only as to the spirit, or in a Divine Spiritual Body, and not in a
Divine Natural Body ; and from the farther inconvenience, that, in
reading this part of the Divine Records, we are to be made pass in
and out of the world of spirits repeatedly, without anything clearly
to apprise us when we are there and when we are here. We think,
then, that the third view may be offered with confidence, as that
which must, be the true one, because it is the only one which is con
sistent with all the phenomena. It shews how the narratives may
be literally true, while yet the Lord was not seen with the bodily eye.
One misapprehension, however, may perhaps be still formed, to
guard against which a word may be necessary. When we say, to
exclude the idea of the Lord's rising in the world of spirits, that he
was " still, at first, within the sphere of the world of nature," we do
not mean that he partook anything of nature, being quite satisfied,
according to our Author's statement, that he had " put off nature,
which in itself is dead, and yet a receptacle of the Divine, and put
on the Divine ;*" that is, had put on a Divine principle from which
he could flow immediately into the world of nature. His Divine
Natural and Corporeal Principle is not in any way to be thought
of as of the finite natural and material corporeal principle of man,
but as a Divine Principle exactly answering to that in man, — as
being, with respect to the Lord, what the natural principle with its
body is with respect to man. As E. S. says, " The Lord, after the
assumption of the Humanity in the world, superinduced the third
degree also, which is called the natural, whereby he was made a
Man similar to man in the world ; yet with this difference, that this
degree in him, like the prior degrees, is infinite and uncreate,
whereas in angel and man they are finite and created. "f It is
called natural, then, as just remarked, not because it partakes any
thing of created nature, but because it is that, with respect to the
Lord, which the merely natural principle is with respect to man, and
because from it the Lord flows immediately into nature. Unless
this infinite difference between the ultimate degree in the Lord and
the ultimate degree in man be steadily kept in mind, when we think
of the Lord's Natural and Corporeal Principle, or his Body, we shall
be in danger of falling into material ideas, and getting entangled in
mere fallacies and appearances. And if proof from the literal sense
of the Word is demanded, that the Lord took, that is, retained,
* Div, L. S; W. 234. f Dii: L. $ W., 233.

THE lord's humanity. 137
nothing whatever from any created origin, we see not what more
decisive evidence can be desired than the text so justly and power
fully urged by Mr. Hindmarsh : " No one hath ascended into
heaven, save he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man
who is in heaven." The Lord herein declares to Nicodemus, that
he, as the Divine Truth, came down from heaven, or from the Divine
there, and that nothing appertaining to him but what had thus
first descended, could possibly ascend thither, or return to union
with his Divine Essence. But that this doctrine would be hard of
reception with those whom Nicodemus represents, the Lord intimated
when he said, in the verse immediately preceding, " If I have told
you of earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I
tell you of heavenly things." The same doctrine and the same
notice of its difficulty of reception by the external mind, how well
soever disposed generally, the Lord repeated, when he delivered his
doctrine about his flesh and blood, and the necessity of eating and
drinking them. Not only did the Jews reject this doctrine, from their
total inability of conceiving of divine flesh and blood, but even some
of his disciples, when they heard it, said, " This is a hard saying ;
who can hear it ?" To whom Jesus replied, " Doth this offend you ?
what and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was
before?" — again intimating, that to think of him aright they must
think of all appertaining to him as being Divine, since nothing adher
ing to him but what first came down from heaven, or was before in
heaven, could accompany him on his ascent to union with his Divine
Essence. Whether accepted or not, therefore, it will be eternally
true, as he teaches again, that he " came out from the Father and
came into the world," — that his Divine Humanity is a birth
from the Essential Divinity into the ultimate sphere of life in which
man is in. the world : and again, that he "leaves the world and
goes unto the Father," — extirpates from his assumed Humanity,
all that for a season adhered to it from the world, and returns into
union with the Essential Divinity, with and in the Divine Humanity,
which had been " put on," or " came down," from that origin alone.
It is impossible, on any other ground, to regard his Humanity as
really Divine in Itself ; or to accept the truth authoritatively
delivered, that in him the whole Natural Degree, including its ulti
mate, the Body, is, like the prior degrees, Infinite and Uncreate.
We have now completed the most of what we proposed, when we
promised a continuation of the papers which appeared in the year
1818; and as, from everything that we could learn, those papers
were perused with pleasure by every reader, and gave offence to no
one ; as, also, we were for a long time urged, and that by several of
the most intelligent characters in the church, to continue the discus
sion ; we hope and trust that, now that we have at length, late
though it be, complied with this desire, our labours will be accepted
with as much favour as they were then. One duty then remains ;
which is, to examine the bearing upon the question of the nature of

138 THE GLORIFICATION OF
the Lord's Risen Body, of his divine words, " Behold my hands and
my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see : for a spirit hath
not flesh and bones as ye see me have."
In our next, by Divine Mercy, it shall be shown, that the infer
ences from these words by which some have been perplexed, are
mere fallacies, which disappear before the light of genuine truth
like mists on the rising of the sun.

That what has been advanced in the above article may not be
regarded by any as mere speculations of ours, we will here support
such points as are of the greatest importance by some testimonies of
the Scribe, who was divinely enlightened to deliver the genuine
doctrines of the church, and to open the truths of the internal sense
of the Word. We abstained from doing so, to any considerable
extent, as we proceeded, to keep the series of our observations un
broken. Arcana Ccelestia, n. 3737. The human principle itself consists
of the rational principle, which is the same with the internal man,
and of the natural principle, which is the same as the external man ;
and also of the body, which serves the natural principle, as a medium,
or outermost organ, for living in the world, and by the natural serves
the rational, and by the rational the Divine. The Lord came into
the world that he might make the whole Human Principle in him
self Divine, and this according to divine order. — This union is not
to be understood as of two who are distinct from each other, and
only conjoined by love, — but it is a real union into one ; — and
because they are One, therefore also the whole Human Principle of
the Lord is the Divine Esse, or Jehovah.
4154. The goods and truths of the internal man are of three
degrees, such as are in the three heavens. The goods and truths of
the external man are also of three degrees, and correspond to the
internal. 7939. The Lord before [his coming and resurrection] arranged
all things by or through heaven, but afterwards by or through his
Humanity, which he glorified or made Divine in the world ; by
which there was such an accession of strength, that they were ele
vated into heaven who before could not be elevated ; also, that the
evil from on all sides receded and were shut up in their hells.
6720. The Lord, when he made his Humanity Divine, did this
from the Divine by transflux through heavon ; not that heaven
contributed anything of itself, but that the Divine Itself might be
able to flow into the Humanity, it flowed-in through heaven.
21 94. As the human principle commences in the inmost of the
rational, and the Lord made all the Human with himself Divine, he
consequently first made divine the rational principle itself from its
inmost.

The lord's humanity. 139
9325. The natural principle of man is the first which receives
truths out of the Word from the Lord, but is last regenerated.
3245. The natural principle [in the Lord] could not be made
Divine before the rational was made Divine ; for the former was
made so by or through the latter. 3283, 3286.
10,099. Things successive are not connected continuously, but
discretely, that is, distinctly according to degrees : for interior things
are altogether distinct from exterior, insomuch that exterior things
may be separated while the interior still continue in their life.
7014. As the Lord thus put on the Divine successively, therefore
he first made himself Truth from the Divine, afterwards Divine
Truth, and at length Divine Good. These were the steps of the
Lord's glorification.
2813* Truth Divine was that which was rejected, railed at,
scourged, and crucified by the Jews. Whether you say Truth
Divine> or the Lord as to .Truth Divine, it is the same thing.
2513. In the internal sense of the Word, the Lord's whole life,
such as it would be in the world, is described, — and how he succes
sively put off what was human, and put on what was Divine. [See
the whole paragraph.]
6993. After the Lord, even as to the Humanity, was made
Jehovah, that is, Divine Good, which was after the resurrection, he
was then no longer the Divine Truth, but this proceeded from him.
2803. In Jehovah, or the Lord, there is nothing but what is Infi
nite ; and as he is Infinite, he cannot be apprehended by any idea,
except as being the Esse and Existere of all good and truth, or
Good Itself and Truth Itself. Good Itself is the Father, and Truth
Itself is the Son.
3194. To the veriest Divine Itself belong Good and Truth :
the Lord, as to the Divine Human, came forth from the Divine
Good, and was born of the Divine Truth.
2520. The Divine Itself cannot abide except in what is Divine,
consequently, only in the Lord's Divine Human, and by this with
man. But if the rational principle [meaning here, mere human
reason] were consulted, it would say, that the Divine Itself could
abide in the human principle of any one.
[Here then we see the origin of the notion, that the Divine Itself
could abide in a body composed of material elements.]
4724. Neither could the Lord's Humanity itself have received
any influx from the Divine Esse, had not the Humanity in him
been made Divine : for what receives the Divine Esse must be itself
Divine. 2798. The Lord's Divine Humanity was not only conceived, but
also bom of Jehovah. That the Lord was conceived of Jehovah
is well known from the Word : — that he was born of the virgin
Mary, but as another man, is also known. But when he was born
again, or made divine, it was from Jehovah who was in him, and
who was himself as to the very Esse of his life.

140 THE GLORIFICATION OF
1921. The rational principle was conceived by the Internal Man,
which was Jehovah, as a father, and was born of the exterior man as
a mother. Whatever was derived from the exterior man had with
it an hereditary nature or principle ; consequently, it also had evil.
This was what the Lord, by his own proper power, conquered, sub
dued, and expelled, till at length he made his Rational Principle
Divine. 2574. By these things is insinuated [to angelic minds] how the
Lord, by degrees, cast off the human which he hadfrom the mother,
till at length he was no longer her son ; — and how he made the Hu
manity Divine by his own proper power, till at length he was One
with the Father. — As there are angels who, whilst they were men,
conceived an idea of the Lord's Humanity as of that which apper
tains to another man, — such wrong conceptions are dissipated by
the internal sense of the Word, and thus they are perfected.
3212. When man is regenerated he is made altogether another
person, and is made new, wherefore also he is said to be born again,
and created anew. Then, though his face is similar to what it was
before, yet his mind is not similar ; — and when the body is put off,
then his spirit appears, and indeed in altogether another form when
he is regenerated. — From this image it may in some measure be
conceived what the glorification of the Lord was. He was not re
generated as man is, but was made Divine, and this from the veriest
Divine Love, for he was made Divine Love Itself. What his form
then was appeared to Peter, James, and John, when it was given
them to see him, not with the eyes of the body, but with the eyes
of the spirit, viz. that his countenance shone as the sun. [See the
whole paragraph.]
3318. The Lord, by most grievous temptation-combats, reduced
all things in himself into Divine Order, so completely, that nothing
whatever remained of the Humanity which he derived from the
mother ; so that he was not made new, as another man, but alto
gether Divine.
2657. By " Cast out this handmaid and her son," is signified,
that the things appertaining to the rational principle merely human
should be exterminated. — With man, although he is regenerated, all
things even to the most minute, appertaining to the first rational
principle remain, and are only separated from the second rational
principle and, this miraculously, by the Lord : whereas the Lord
utterly exterminated the first rational principle, so that nothing
thereof remained, since what is merely human and what is Divine
cannot abide together. Hence he was no longer the Son of Mary,
but Jehovah as to each Essence.
2159. The humanity which appertained to him was from the
mother, thus infirm, having with it thence an hereditary nature or
principle, which, by temptation-combats, he overcame, and utterly
expelled, even till he had nothing remaining of the infirm or here
ditary nature or principle derived from the mother, yea, at last,

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 141
nothing whatever from the mother ; so that he utterly put o^ what
was maternal, so as to be no longer her son. And when he put off
this Humanity, he put on a Divine Humanity.
2658. The Lord's Humanity, when made Divine, was no longer
an organ of life, or a recipient of life, but was Life Itself, such as
that of Jehovah himself. — Hence it may be evident, that when the
Lord was made Jehovah even as to his Humanity, that which was
not Life in Itself, that is, which was merely human, was cast off.
[See the whole paragraph.]
8644. Unless it [the Divine Good such as it is in the sun of
heaven] were accommodated to reception, heaven could not exist ; for
no angel can sustain the flame proceeding from the Divine Love, but
would be consumed in a moment, just as if the flame of the sun of
this world should immediately touch man. [See the whole para
graph ; also 8760 ; and compare with 6849.]
10,269. That the human body is a proceeding from the esse of the
father, which is called its soul, may be known ; for the likeness of
the father, as to the various affections which are of the love, is
extant with the children even in their faces : — what then must have
been the case with the Lord, in whom the Divine Itself was his
Esse, which is called the soul ? 10,823.
6872. Love is the esse of the life of every one ; — such therefore
as the quality of the love is which prevails with a man, such is the
man. — But he with whom Divine Love is, which was with the Lord
alone, is God. Thus his Humanity was made Divine, when he
received in the Humanity the love of his Father, which was the Esse
of his life. — Since the influent love and the recipient forms agree,
it follows that the angel or man is such as his love is ; and this, not
only in his organic first principles, which are in the brain, but also
in the whole body. — Hence it may be manifest, that man is made
altogether new when he is regenerated, for then all and singular things
appertaining to him are arranged to receive heavenly loves. But,
with man, the previous forms are not destroyed, but are removed .-
whereas, with the Lord, the previous forms, which were from the
maternal ground, were utterly destroyed and extirpated, and
divine ones received in their place. For the Divine Love does not
agree with any but a Divine Form : all others it absolutely casts
out. Hence it is that the Lord, when glorified, was no longer the
Son of Mary.
2816. The Lord admitted temptations into himself, that he might
expel thence all that was merely human, and this until there was
nothing remaining but what was divine.
2818. "To slay his son " — signifies, until whatever was merely
human was dead. — These words signify the Lord's most grievous
and inmost temptations, the last of which was the passion of the
cross ; in which that the merely human did die, is certain.
[What died on the cross was the body that was crucified : But
what so died was " merely human," and " all that was merely

142 THE GLORIFICATION OF
human was expelled" Consequently, the crucified body was
merely human, and, of course, was thus expelledi]
5077. The external senses — constitute all the vitality of the
body. — The corporeal part itself of man, therefore, is nothing else
but a receptacle of sensations. — The sensitive faculty is the principle,
and the corporeal part is the instrumental.
5078. The Lord made the very corporeal part Divine in himself,
as well its sensual faculties as their recipients ; wherefore also he
rose again from the sepulchre with his body, and likewise after his
resurrection said to his disciples, " See my hands and my feet," &c.
— No man rises again in the body with which he was clothed in the
world, but the Lord alone [so arose] ; and this because he glorified
or made Divine his Body while he was in ihe world. [See the
whole of both paragraphs.]
5331. The celestial principle of the spiritual, in which was the
Divine, belonged to the Lord alone when he was in the world, and
was a human principle in which the Divine could be, and which could
be put off, when the Lord made all the Humanity Divine in himself.
(This proves that even purer principles than ever belong to man,
were put off by the Lord when he made his Humanity altogether
Divine. See also 5307.]
4735. The proprium which the Lord acquired to himself in the
Humanity was Divine ; the Divine Proprium in the Humanity is
what is called flesh and blood. — The Lord's Humanity, after it was
glorified or made Divine, cannot be conceived of as human, but as
the Divine Love in a Human Form ; and this more than the angels,
who, when they appear as they have been seen by me, appear as
forms of love and charity under a human shape ; and this from the
Lord. For from the Divine Love the Lord made his Humanity
Divine, as by heavenly love man is made an angel after death.
6135. That the body, in a genuine sense, denotes the good of
love, may appear manifest from the angels ; for from them, when
presented near, there exhales love, insomuch that you would believe
them to be nothing but love, and this from their whole body. — Now
since the angels in heaven are of such a quality, what must the
Lord himself be, who is the source of all the love appertaining to
the angels, and whose Divine Love appears as a sun, from which
the universal heaven has its light, and all the inhabitants their
heavenly heat, that is love, that is life ! The Lord's Divine
Humanity is what so appears, and from which those things are
derived. Hence may be manifest what is meant by the Lord's body,
viz., that it means the Divine Love, in like manner as his flesh.
The Lord's Body itself, also, when glorified, that is, when made
Divine, was nothing else : what other idea can be entertained of a
Divine [Body], which is Infinite I
4727. Love to the Lord and charity towards the neighbour make
man new, and sanctify him ; but the Divine Love itself made the
Lord Divine. For love is the very esse of man, and hence is his

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 143
principle of life. It forms the man after the image of itself; just
as the soul of man, which is his interior essence, as it were, creates
or effigies the body to an image of itself. — With Him who had
Jehovah himself for his soul, as the Lord had, — his Humanity, when
glorified, could not be anything else.
5576. When the Lord made his whole Humanity Divine, his
flesh is then nothing else than Divine Good, and his blood Divine
Truth. That in what is Divine nothing material is to be under
stood, may be manifest.
7004. The Divine Truth itself is the Only Substantiality,
derivatives being nothing else but successive forms thence resulting.
We must be satisfied for the present with these abbreviated (and
thereby weakened) testimonies from the Arcana Ccelestia. We have
not given a third of the passages which we had extracted from that
work alone ; and the Author's other works would supply a not less
copious variety. It is impossible to affirm more deeidedly the
Lord's total rejection from his Humanity of everything not Divine
in itself, the absolutely Divine character of his Risen Body, the
entire renewal of its forms and substances from the Essential
Divinity, and the palpable incongruity of thinking of it as in any
sense material : and can any who know how the Author has spoken
upon these points imagine, that when, even in juxta-position with
such statements as the above, he sometimes affirms that the Lord
rose with his whole body which he had in the world, he could intend
to be understood in a sense that would utterly nullify so many and
so momentous declarations, in the sense of which there is no am
biguity whatever ? The Lord rose with his whole Body which he
had in the world, " because " as is always stated when that assertion
occurs, " he made it Divine while he was in the world ;" — not,
indeed, before his crucifixion, or he could not have been crucified ;
but after it, and by it as a means. And he made it Divine by
putting off from it the maternal nature and the material particles,
and putting on the Divine and the Substantial.

144 THE GLORIFICATION OF

CHAPTER VIII.

THE VIEWS OF THE EDITORS RESPECTING THE LORD'S RESURRECTION —
(Continued.)
BY MR. NOBLE.
Nothing can be of greater importance to the member of the
Church, than to be enabled to form distinct ideas respecting the
God whom he worships. This may be the privilege of the members
of the New Church, beyond those of any church which has ever
before existed : for, upon this momentous subject, the writings of the
Lord's servant, Emanuel Swedenborg, contain the most copious and
precise body of information ever revealed from the Lord to enlighten
the mind of man. These writings deliver the doctrine of the church
derived from the literal sense of the Word, and its heavenly doctrine,
consisting of the truths of the internal sense of the Word. From
both these sources are the truths derived which are laid open,°pn this
subject, for the edification of the members of the New Church : for,
as has been observed, with just discrimination, by a writer, than
whom, when stating and advocating the truth, no one can present
and confirm it more clearly and powerfully, — " The various parti
culars comprising the glorification of the Lord's Humanity and the
regeneration of man, drawn from the spiritual sense of the Word, so
far from contravening the doctrine of the literal sense, serve to esta
blish it, by filling the facts with intimations of the manner of their
taking place, so far as the same can be adapted to the comprehen
sion of man ; or so far as human language is adapted to convey
such exalted wisdom. Thus does the spiritual sense serve as the
soul of the literal sense ; just as the spiritual world and the natural
are related to each other like soul and body."*
But notwithstanding these advantages prepared for the members
of the New Church, it must be acknowledged, that they have hitherto
profited by them in but a very limited degree. With regard, indeed,
to the more general truths of the doctrine of the New Church respect
ing the Lord, there has been no variation of sentiment : all have
acknowledged that " God is One both in essence and in person, in
whom is the Divine Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and
that the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is that God." All, like
wise, have acknowledged, that his Humanity is Divine. But as to
the particulars of these general truths, — as to how he glorified his
Humanity or made it Divine, there have been, and still are, varying
shades of opinion. That the more abstruse arcana of this divine
* See a paper " On the Lord's Glorification," by the Eev. Mr. Mason, in the
Int. Rep., Second Series, vol. hi., p. 415. (No. for January, 1829.)

the lord's humanity. 145
process, which are more numerous and more exalted than ever can
be fully comprehended even by the intelligence of angels, should not
be duly grasped by the obscure and gross apprehension of any of us,
weak, human creatures, is no more than was unavoidable ; but that
even those particulars which have been plainly unfolded, both from
the spiritual and the literal sense of the Word in the writings of
Swedenborg, should not have been similarly understood by all
who accept those writings as a divinely communicated medium
of information, is a somewhat humiliating fact. It possibly has
been owing, in part, to the circumstance, that most, even of
those whose acquaintance with the writings of E. S. has been most
extensive, began to form their opinion on this subject in the early
part of their reading ; and having once come to a conclusion, though
from imperfect knowledge, they have either interpreted in favour of
their idea thus formed, or have passed by without due notice, all that
they have afterwards met with respecting it. Prejudices, also, of
education, cannot but have weight with many ; and as all who come
out of the Old Church have previously had no idea of the Lord's
risen body as being otherwise than material, we here behold an
abundant origin for opinions tending to such a mode of regarding it.
On the other hand, it is by no means improbable, that a determina
tion to get rid of early prejudices entirely, and to think as much in
opposition to them as possible, may actuate others, and render them
reluctant to admit the idea of any Divine Body in ultimates at all.
But although there can be no doubt, that imperfect knowledge of the
writings of Swedenborg is one cause of the various ideas which exist
on the grand subject of the Lord's glorification, it is probable that
the principal cause is to be found in the varieties of individual state.
We are assured that, from this cause, the Lord in person appears
variously to different individuals ; and it is certain that the Lord
appears to every one in person according to his capacity of thinking
respecting him. This then should be a reason to us to bear with
each other. Every form of faith which acknowledges the Lord
Jesus Christ to be the only God, and that his Humanity is Divine,
if accompanied with a corresponding life, is a saving faith ; and all
who are principled in a saving faith cannot but be brethren.
I. A proper Statement of the Case, as it stands in the present
stage of the discussion in our pages, will promote the clear appre
hension of all that is to follow.
1. With respect to the glorification of the ultimates of the Lord's
Humanity, or of what are called in the Word " flesh and bones,"
the two principal views which have divided the opinions of the
members of the New Church are these : —
(1.) That which supposes, That the body which was crucified,
and that which rose, were strictly and identically the same, notwith
standing the acknowledged difference in their properties :
And (2.) That which concludes, That the body which was
crucified was not the same as to substance with that which rose ;
l

146 THE GLORIFICATION OF
since it is acknowledged on all hands that the former was merely
human and material, and that the latter was not material but purely
Divine. 2. It is admitted on both sides, since this is constantly affirmed
by E. S., that the whole process of the glorification was effected by
the successive putting off of the Humanity from the mother, and
putting on of a Humanity from the Father :
(] .) But the first opinion supposes, That what was thus put off,
in regard to the ultimates of the body, was nothing but evil and
infirmity, regarded merely as abstract qualities, the substances in
which they inhered being retained, notwithstanding :
(2.) Whereas the other view asserts, That evil and infirmity,
regarded as abstract qualities, are nothing at all, having no existence
whatever separate from the substances of which they are the
activities ; and that the term Humanity includes the substances
which support the qualities as well as the qualities themselves ;
wherefore to speak of putting off the Humanity, or the Body, from
the mother, undeniably means, according to the universal use of
language, to put off the substances composing such Humanity, or
Body, with their qualities, together ; and the Humanity, or Body, then
said to be put on from the Father, in its place, must be as different
from the former in substance as it is allowed to be in properties.
3. But as, on the supposition that the latter view is the true one,
a further question arises, as to what became of the material sub
stances thus put off, since nothing of the crucified body was found in
the sepulchre, and the terms " put off," " rejected," and the like,
applied to the subject in Swedenborg's printed works, do not ex
pressly answer this question ; a passage from an important manu
script work of our enlightened Author, the genuineness of which
seems indisputable, and, in fact, has not been disputed, has been
brought forward, in which the Author explicitly states, " That the
Lord in the sepulchre, thus by death, rejected all the Humanity
from the mother, from which he underwent temptations and the
passion of the cross, and dissipated it." This has been supported
by a passage from the Arcana Cozlestia, in which, from the circum
stance, that any angel or man would utterly perish, on the influx of
the fire of the Divine Love such as it is in itself, it is argued by
E. S., " that the Humanity of the Lord is Divine ; for unless it
were Divine, it never could be so united to the Divinity itself, which
is called the Father, as that they should be One. — For what so
receives the Divine, must needs be Divine : anything not Divine
would be utterly dissipated by such a union."* Similar statements,
as to what would be the effect of the immediate presence of the Lord
with angel or man, even to the use of the term dissipate, and equi
valents, are made repeatedly elsewhere, t
* A. C. u. 6849. Seep. 60.
t As in Coronis, n. 51. Tr. Chr. Rel. n. 641, 691, 838. Ap. Rev. 54, 465,
938. Ap. Ex. 412. A. C. 6834, 8760, 8644.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 147
4. Such is the view of this grand subject maintained in Mr.
Hindniarsh's late Essay on the Lord' s Resurrection ; and such is
the view of it advocated by us. Mr. Hindmarsh, in that work,
affirmed most strongly, the great truth of New- Church doctrine, that
the Lord, in his Risen Body is a Divine Man, even to the ulti
mates of the Human Principle : sometimes, however, he employed
reasonings which might seem to lead to the conclusion, that the
Lord, nevertheless, has not the ultimates of humanity so complete
as man in the world has : wherefore we, in our Review, endeavoured
to establish the certainty of this important truth, without the
acknowledgment of which, as we believe, man is not in the attitude
for receiving, in fulness, the blessings of which the Lord, in his
Divine Natural Humanity, is the immediate Author. The conclu
sion at which we aimed, we explicitly stated, was, " That our Risen
Lord is a Divine Man, having the ultimates of humanity in as much
fulness as man in the world has, to the very flesh and bones, with
no difference as to degree, but only as to quality : — but that he is a
Divine Man, consequently, not a material man ; consequently, that
he put off all the humanity originally taken from the mother, and
the residue of it by death and burial ; and thus that the Body in
which he rose was altogether put on, or put forth, from the Essential
Divinity, which was his soul ; so that, in Him, God is Man, and
Man is God.* Or, as we said afterwards, " We have no shadow
of doubt, that the material substances of the Lord's Body were com
pletely ' expelled ' (and we strongly incline to believe, in agreement
with the extract from the manuscript, by ' dissipation ') at the resur
rection, and that Divine Natural Substances were put on by a
descent from within, in their place : and we are as certain as we
can be of any truth whatever, that the Lord, in his Resurrection-
Body, is as fully a Man, though a Divine and Infinite Man, as man
in the world is ; and thus more a Man than any spirit or angel,
because having the ultimates of humanity, called in the Word flesh
and bones, which they are without."t Yet because we combined
our advocacy of the latter proposition of this last extract with the
admission of the former (though the support of the latter was the
main burthen of our extended review), we unwittingly gave umbrage
to some, who, as we now find, are zealous for the belief, that the
body crucified was, as to substance also, the same identically, as the
body which rose. We regarded E. S. as speaking the truth when he
so unequivocally states that all the Humanity from the mother,
which alone was capable of being crucified, was thus "put off,"
and "the residue" of it, being the" mere earthly shell, "rejected by
death and burial ;" and when he also so expressly declares, that it
was "in the sepulchre" that he thus finally "rejected all the
humanity from the mother," " and dissipated it :" and greatly
surprised were we to find, that this was taken as if we had asserted
* P. 63, 64. t P. 64. L 2

148 THE GLORIFICATION OF
(what, certainly, E. S. never asserts), the dissipation of the Lord's
body, or even of his whole Humanity, altogether ; — as if we had
represented this " putting off" as the conclusion of the whole ; — as
if we had denied, instead of having strenuouslg asserted, the corre
sponding "putting on;" — as if we had made glorification synony
mous with destruction; — as if we had utterly " taken away" the
Divine Man from the view and the embrace of his loving disciples !
5. Apprehending, from such ungrounded opposition, that because
our observations in the Review of Mr. Hindmarsh's Essay had been
given in a detached form, our sentiments had not been generally
understood, we determined, previously to noticing specific objections,
to give a general statement of our views on the whole subject. This,
therefore, we did in our last Number.* As, in order to understand
properly what is meant by the Lord's assuming and glorifying the
Humanity, it is necessary to know distinctly what Humanity, or the
Human Principle, is, we first took a view of all the general consti
tuent principles of human nature, from first to last. We shewed
that the Lord took upon him the whole, by his descent through
heaven and the world of spirits, when he assumed a human body by
birth of a virgin on earth. We shewed that he made the whole
Divine in himself, successively, by discrete degrees, from inmost to
outmost, as he regenerates man, making each degree, first, Truth
Divine, then Divine Truth, and at length Divine Good : and that
this was done by putting off what was at first assumed from a finite
or created subject, and putting on, or bringing down into the sphere
or degree previously so occupied, what was purely Divine from the
Divine Itself. We showed that the Lord's glorification included in
finitely more than the making Divine of the mere outward covering
or natural body, and that there cannot be a greater mistake than to
suppose, that this was growing Divine, by continuity, during the whole
period of the Lord's life in the world. We shewed, however, that
although the external body was not growing Divine all this time by
continuity, it yet was becoming all this time, more and more perfectly,
a receptacle of the Divine, so that, at the period of the crucifixion, it
was Truth Divine in the ultimate of the natural degree, — Truth
Divine being Divine Truth finited through reception by a finite and
created subject. We showed, therefore, that, as had been the case
with all the interiors of the Lord's Humanity, so the ultimite finite
and created receptacle, the material body, was last of all put off also,
and a purely Divine Body put on ; or that all the material, thus
finite and created, substances were expelled, and the Divine Sub
stance brought down into the same degree, constituting a purely
Divine Body, in their place : and that as the material body is the
very last or extreme ultimate of the Human Principle, — the very
last in order of all that belongs to it, this must have been the
very last thing in the Lord which experienced the process of glorifi-
* This has been omitted, for a reason mentioned in a note hi the last chapter.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 149
cation, or of the putting off of what was finite and created and the
putting on of what is Infinite and Divine : and further ; that as it
is certain that the body was finite and material when crucified and
entombed, and was neither when it rose again, it is equally certain
that the last act of the glorification — the last putting off and putting
on, must have been accomplished in the sepulchre. As, again,
nothing of a body was left behind, it seems that the putting off of
the material particles must have been effected in the way which
Swedenborg points out when he applies to it the term " dissipation ;"
especially as he constantly assures us, from one end of his writings
to the other, that dissipation would be the fate of any body or sub
stance whatsoever, on being brought into immediate contiguity with
either the Divine itself or the Divine Humanity. Finally, we
shewed, that so true is it that the Lord rose with his whole body, or
had put on the Divine Corporeity in ultimates, whereby he commu
nicates immediately with the ultimates of nature, that the interviews
with his disciples, between his resurrection and ascension, took place
in the natural world. All these points, especially the fact, that the
Lord took (permanently) nothing whatever from the mother or from
any created origin, we supported by a copious selection of passages
from the work in which our Author has treated most fully of the
Lord's glorification in its various particulars, — the Arcana Ccelestia;
including passages in which it is said, " That the Lord was not only
conceived, but also born of Jehovah ;'' or that, although " he was
born of the virgin Mary, as another man, — when he was born again,
or made Divine, it was from Jehovah who was in him, and who
was himself as to the very Esse of his life :" — That " the Lord's
Humanity, when made Divine, was no longer an organ of life, or
a recipient of life, but was Life itself, such as that of Jehovah
himself ; — whence it may be evident, that when the Lord was made
Jehovah even as to his Humanity, that which was not Life itself,
that is, which was merely human, was cast off:" — That "the
humanity which he had from the mother — he utterly expelled, even
till he had nothing remaining of the infirm and hereditary nature
or principle from the mother, yea, at last, nothing whatever from
ihe mother : — and when he put off this Humanity he put on a
Divine Humanity .-" — That " with the Lord, the previous forms,
which were from the maternal ground, were utterly destroyed and
exterminated, ana Divine ones received in their place : for the Divine
Love does not agree with any but a Divine form : all others it abso
lutely casts out .-" — " That the Lord's Humanity, after it was
glorified, cannot be conceived of as human, but as the Divine Love
in a Human Form ."— for " the Lord's Body itself, when glorified,
that is, when made Divine, was nothing else : what other idea can
be entertained of a Divine [Body], which is Infinite ?" — That
" when the Lord made his whole Humanity Divine, his flesh is then
nothing else but Divine Good, and his blood Divine Truth : that in

&

150 THE GLORIFICATION OF
what is Divine nothing material is to be understood, may be
manifest."* The affirmative, then, of the positions, — that the Lord rose a
Divine Man, with the ultimates of the natural principle, — and that
everything which could and did suffer the cross, thus the material
particles which then composed his body, had been in the mean time
put off, and the Divine Substantial put on in their place, is esta
blished on evidence, which, if there is meaning in words, and we
are to abide on such a question by the statements of Swedenborg,
can never be overturned, however it may be endeavoured to be
evaded. And when the affirmative of any proposition is conclu
sively established, no negative arguments can be of any validity ;
since the same proposition cannot possibly be both true and false ;
wherefore any arguments, however specious, which are brought
against a proposition that is certainly true, must be drawn solely
from appearances and fallacies, whether the reader be able to detect
and unravel these or not. It is perfectly clear to us, sorry as we
are to be compelled to say so, that such is the case with all the
reasonings against the above truth which fill the paper (No. 1.) " On
the Identity of the Lord's Crucified, and Risen or Glorified Body ,~"
and the three other papers which we have since received from the
same able writer. We know also, without applying the observation
individually, that "they who reason from scientifics against the
truths of faith, reason sharply, because from the fallacies of the
senses, which captivate and persuade, because they can with diffi
culty he shaken off."t We know, likewise, " that they who are in
a negative principle" in regard to any truth, " and who say that
they will not believe it till they are convinced by scientifics," thus
who require to have all the objections which they can raise against
it first resolved, "will never believe it,"*j: because they will go on
raising new ones without end. On these accounts, when we observed
in our last, that the inferences from the Lord's words, " Behold my
hands and my feet," &c, by which some have been perplexed, are
mere fallacies, which disappear before the light of genuine truth,
we meant, that they so disappear in the minds of those who can
elevate their understanding to behold that light : if they keep their
* See references in the last Chapter. It may be proper to observe, that, as
may be supposed, we did not write our papers on the subject in the year 1818
without a previous very extensive study of what is said respecting it in the
writings of E. S. ; from which, also, we then made a copious coUection of pas
sages for our own use. On the present occasion, on finding our views opposed
by so well-informed a writer as the Bev. Mr. Mason, we thought it but right to
pay him and our readers the respect of re-examining the whole subject. We
have done so, with minds as much divested as possible of previous ideas, and
with the endeavour to suppose it possible that his view may be right. We have
gone afresh through the whole of the works of E. S., and have transcribed the
chief passages that seemed to throw light upon the question, filling a manuscript
bonf of 260 pages. The result appears in the last and present chapter.
+ Heavenly Doctrine, n. 51. + lb.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 151
minds bound down within the sphere of appearances and fallacies,
it matters not what light may be shining above them ; there will
still be a cloud interposed to prevent their discerning it. However,
it shall not be for want of our assistance, if any of our readers still
remain in the shade of appearances. By divine aid, we will furnish
them with evidences ; but it is the Lord only that can open their
minds to receive them.
II. As we are now driven to the painful task of directly disproving
the positions advanced in the paper " On the Identity," we beg that
it may be clearly understood, that in whatever we may see it neces
sary to say of the arguments of that paper, we mean no personal
imputation whatever against its very able author. He is a man
whom we have always regarded with great respect and affection : he
is one who has rendered important services to the cause of the New-
Church, and who possesses talents and attainments which eminently
qualify him for continued and extensive uses in the same holy vine
yard. We are fully aware, and glad to acknowledge, also, that he
has gone into his present sentiments under the influence of a most
excellent motive, — the desire of establishing the facts of the Lord's
assumption and glorification of the Humanity upon an immovable
rock, that should be safe from all fluctuations of opinion. But as,
on the question of receiving or rejecting his sense of the Lord's
words, " Behold my hands and my feet," &c. on which he builds all
his arguments, he declares that he has " no liberality," meaning, no
toleration for those who dissent, because, as he represents the case,
all are under the most sacred obligation to believe the words so under
stood ; it became incumbent upon us, either to accept the belief
proposed in so awful a form, or, if unable to do this, to give our
reasons for not considering the grounds of it as so absolutely com
pulsory. Such high pretensions, if not founded in genuine truth,
must be founded in appearances and fallacies. This then we must
now proceed to shew, glad as we should be to have been spared the
task, and far as we are from intending any disrespect to Mr. Mason
by performing it.
1 . The first fallacy which we shall notice, as the most compre
hensive of all, is advanced in a proposition near the beginning of
the paper. It commences with stating, " That the facts regarding
the assumption and glorificatian of humanity by the Lord, as recorded
in the literal, the absolutely literal sense of the Word, are not
merely uninvalidated by our Author, but are expressly affirmed by
him as the genuine truth, which it is the indispensable duty of the
man of the church to believe." If nothing more were here meant
than that the facts are true, we could have no objection. The facts
recorded, as we have always been glad of an opportunity of confirming,
are real facts, and to be believed as such. But though there is some
thing even here which we must turn to again, the position which we
will first notice, because it is to sweep away everything advanced in
our Review on the subject of the Lord's having put off the material

152 THE GLORIFICATION OF
nature, including the material particles, derived through Mary, is
that which follows : That any "notions" which cannot thus be
established (that is, by " the literal, the absolutely literal sense of
the Word") are "at once in opposition to the writings of Swedenborg,
and — the revealed wisdom of the Most High."* Now really this
statement is so overstrained as to include a great fallacy. It is not
true that every "notion" which cannot be established from the abso
lutely literal sense of the Word, is in opposition to the writings of
Swedenborg and to the revealed wisdom of the Most High. Are
"the assumption and glorification of the Humanity by the Lord"
never treated of in the internal sense of the Word? And is all
that the internal sense contains upon the subject to be rejected as
chimerical, unless the same can be proved from the literal, — the
absolutely literal sense ? Then what is to be thought of half of our
Author's Arcana Ccelestia, which is filled with truths relating to the
Lord's assumption and glorification of the Humanity, delivered as
the internal sense of those parts of Genesis and Exodus, and only a
few of the most common of which are by him attempted to be estab
lished from the literal sense ? As the proposition was originally put
forth by the writer on a former occasion,f it was meant to apply to
the doctrine of the church only ; and then it is not so unfounded.
Swedenborg does state, " That the Doctrine of the Church ought to
be drawn from the literal sense of the Word, and to be confirmed by
it :"J but to affirm this of all truths whatever, under the name of
"notions," is at once to blot out the whole internal sense of the
Word, and to make the statement of our Author — that the opening
of that sense is what is meant by the second coming of the Lord,
an unmeaning fiction.
Nor is the statement of our Author, that all doctrine is to be
drawn from the literal sense of the Word, to be understood too
strictly ; otherwise we shall put him in contradiction to himself ; for
he states repeatedly, in the Arc. Ccel., that the internal sense is the
true doctrine of the Church.§ Thus, very little of the beautiful
work On the New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrine is either
drawn from, or confirmed by, the literal sense of the Word ; and
chapter after chapter follows without the quotation of a single text.
The Author says of it himself, " As to the Doctrine which follows,
it, also, is from heaven, because it is from the spiritual sense of
the Word, and the spiritual sense of the Word is the same as the
doctrine which is in heaven.  It is called, Heavenly Doctrine,
because it has been revealed to me from heaven." Many of its
positions, likewise, though all most true and important, are such as
we should not know how to go about to prove from the literal sense
of the Word. Nay, even some of the more common doctrines are
of this character. How, for instance, from the literal sense of the
Word alone, would it be possible to demonstrate the true nature of
* P. 91. . t In the paper printed in 1829, cited above.
% Tr. Chr. Rel. 225. Sac. Ser., 53. § As in n. 9025, 10,400.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 153
the Second Coming of the Lord ? When therefore the Author says,
that the doctrine of ihe Church is to be drawn from the literal
sense of the Word, he must be understood to mean, those general
truths of doctrine which are to be insisted on as terms of Church-
fellowship, and without admitting which a person is not truly a
member of the church at all. To embrace as large a number as
possible, these are confined to such truths as can be confirmed from
the literal sense of the Word : and these, we are well assured, are
all that are essential to salvation.
We have made these observations to shew, how wide of the mark,
as directed against us, is the formidable-looking proposition with
which the paper " On the Identity" opens, but we have no need of
the remarks last made for our own defence, as we never presented
our views, as to the manner how the infirm humanity was put off
and the Divine Humanity put on, as part of what is to be accepted
as the Doctrine of the Church. On this subject, we think Mr.
Mason has " rightly divided the word of truth" in the extract cited
above from his paper in 1829. What he should have said in the
present instance is, not, " Any notions which cannot be established
from the absolutely literal sense of ihe Word, are in opposition to
the writings of Swedenborg, and the revealed wisdom of the most
High;" but, "Any notions which contradict genuine doctrine
drawn from ihe literal sense of the Word, are in such opposition."
But in this, its only true shape, the proposition would not even
appear to condemn anything that we have ever advanced : to do
this, the fallacy, now cleared away, is indispensable.
2. As to the phrase, " the absolutely literal sense of the Word,"
as the source of genuine doctrine, we think it had better be declined
entirely, as seeming to indicate a purpose of nailing the thoughts to
the literal sense altogether, and compelling the acceptance of its
appearances, as well as of its genuine truths. Mr. Mason is too
well acquainted with the true doctrine of the New- Church respecting
the literal sense of the Word as a source of doctrine, to have intended
this. He well knows that neither every part, nor even the greater
part, of the literal sense of the Word, can serve as a fountain of
pure doctrine ; it being, for the most part, expressed in the language
of appearances, and not in that of genuine truth. Yet it is the fact,
that the necessity of abiding by the letter, the danger of departing
from the letter, are so pressed in every variety of phrase, and with
so absorbing a sense of the indispensableness of the caution, through
out the paper " On the Identity," that, however contrary to the
intention of the writer, it can hardly fail to be concluded by the
reader (not otherwise better instructed), that the absolutely literal
sense is to be adhered to everywhere, — that we may everywhere
rely on it with safety, and can nowhere depart from it but with ruin.
We are aware, too, that the paper is so understood by some who
think of it favourably. Since, then, though it does not affirm it,

154 THE GLORIFICATION OF
and the writer is far from intending it, the paper suggests this fallacy,
it constitutes the second which it is incumbent on us to dispel.
That there should exist any necessity for refuting so palpable a
mistake as this, evinces, on the one hand, how slight is the know
ledge which some of the professed receivers of the doctrines of the
New- Church possess of those doctrines, and of the writings in which
they are authoritatively given ; or, on the other, how strong is the
power of a " persuasive faith" in blinding the eyes to the plainest
statements, or afterwards erasing them from the memory. It is not
possible to read one volume of Swedenborg's works, without being
taught the danger of confirming indiscriminately the statements of
the letter of the Word as the doctrines of genuine truth. Accord
ingly, this is shewn at large, in the Doctrine concerning the Sacred
Scripture. Thus the article which announces and confirms the
famous proposition, " That the doctrine of the church ought to be
drawn from the literal sense of the Word, and to be confirmed
thereby,'' divides the subject into three subordinate propositions ;
the first of which is, " That the Word, without doctrine, cannot be
understood ;" the second is the general one repeated ; and the third
is, " That genuine truth, which doctrine is to teach, is apparent, in
the literal sense of the Word, to those only who are in illustration
from the Lord." The explanation of the proposition, " That the
Word without doctrine, cannot be understood, commences thus:
" The reason is, because the Word, in its literal sense, consists of
mere correspondences ;  therefore divine truths, in the literal sense,
are rarely found naked, but clothed, in which state they are called
appearances of truth, and are more accommodated to the apprehen
sion of the simple, who are not used to any elevation of the thoughts
above visible objects. There also are some things which appear like
contradictions.  Such, then, being the nature of the Word in its
literal sense, it must be very evident, that, without doctrine, it cannot
be understood." Another very important proposition, afterwards illus
trated, is this : " That heretical opinions may be collected from the
letter of the Word; but that to confirm such opinions is hurtful .-"
the explanation of which begins thus : " It was shewn above, that
the Word cannot be understood without doctrine, and that doctrine
is as a lantern for the discovery of genuine truths ; and that this is
a consequence of the Word's being written by mere correspondences.
Hence it is that many passages are appearances of truth and not
naked truths : thus many things are written according to the
apprehensions of the merely natural man, yet in such a manner,
that the simple may understand them in simplicity, the intelligent
in intelligence, and the wise in wisdom. Now since the Word
is of such a nature, the appearances of truth, which are truths
clothed, may be taken for naked truths ,- and such appearances,
when they are confirmed, become falses. This is done by those who
believe themselves to be superior to others in wisdom, when yet they

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 155
are not wise ; for to be wise consists in seeing a thing before it is
confirmed, but not in confirming whatever one pleases. The latter
is the case with those who possess a talent for confirmation and are
in the pride of self-intelligence ; but the former with those who love
truths, and who apply them to the purposes of life." " AU the heresies
which ever did, or do still exist in Christendom, have sprung
from this circumstance ; that men have taken the appearances of
truth for genuine truths, and have confirmed them as such."*
Abundantly certain then it is, according to the genuine doctrine
of the New-Church, that it is by no means a safe thing, when we
find a statement in the literal sense of the Word, to confirm it too
hastily as a discovery of genuine truth.
With respect to the objects presented before those whose spiritual
sight is open, as in the instances recorded in the Word, the case is
precisely the same as with the statements of the Word in its literal
sense : but to this we shall have to advert hereafter.
3. Closely connected with the subject of taking indiscriminately
the statements of the Word in its letter as genuine truths, is the
censure thrown upon us, that we prefer to quote passage upon pas
sage from E. S. to proving our sentiments from the letter of the
Word.f Now we really think, that, in discussing the doctrines or
truths of the New-Church with those who admit the authority
of E. S., the course here blamed is the right one, and that it cannot
be proved otherwise but by the aid of a third fallacy. But, " The
doctrine of the church is to be drawn from the literal sense of
the Word, and to be confirmed thereby." True. But (waiving for
the present the distinction made above between the interior truths
of the church and the doctrines of the church) it is also true,
" That genuine truth, in the literal sense of the Word, is apparent
only to those who are in illustration from the Lord ;" or, as it is
given in the Heavenly Doctrine,^ That the Word in the letter
cannot be comprehended, but by means of doctrine from ihe Word,
framed by one who is enlightened." Now though it ought to be
the happy privilege of all members of the New-Church, to be in
such illustration from the Lord as to distinguish the genuine truths
in the literal sense of the Word, yet, when they happen to differ
about a particular text, who is to decide, which of them views the
passage in illustration, and which does not? Thus, what could
result from each putting his own sense upon a passage, or affirm
ing of a certain text that it does, or does not, speak genuine truth
in its letter, but interminable disputes ? Is it not then an especial
blessing to the New Church, that the genuine doctrine of that
church has been framed from the Word by "One who was enlight
ened," most eminently and especially so, by the Lord himself, for
that purpose ? Who, that thinks rightly, will think of bringing a
rushlight of doctrine, framed from the letter of the Word by himself,
* See n. 51 — 59, 91 — 97. The same statements are repeated in the Tr. C'hr.
Rel. „. 226—233, 254—260.
+ P. 252. J N. 254.

156 THE GLORIFICATION OF
either in aid, or in lieu, of the sun-light of doctrine framed by this
divinely instructed Instrument ? We think, as intimated in our
last, that we can prove conclusively, from the letter of the Word,
the genuine doctrine of the church, that the Lord put off completely
everything assumed from the mother or from any created origin, and
that nothing of his Humanity ascended into heaven, or returned to
the Father, but what first came down from heaven, or came forth
from the Father : and we also think we can shew clearly, from
the internal sense of the Word, the more specific truth, that all the
residue of the infirm humanity was dissipated, and the Divine
Humanity in ultimates put on, in the sepulchre : but we did not
think it advisable to dwell much on such evidences, because, after
all, whatever we or any others may say upon any part of the subject,
will, and must, be judged of by what Swedenborg has said. True
doctrine in abundance has been framed from the Word by One who
was unquestionably enlightened ; and, upon subjects controverted
among themselves, especially such a subject as the Lord's glorification,
the most prudent and most satisfactory course for his disciples must
be, to examine, compare, bring together, and draw conclusions from,
what has been given from the Lord and the Word in his writings.
4. The fourth fallacy which we will notice, as nearly related to
all the preceding, is the one included in the very first proposition,
cited above, of the paper " On the Identity," and which we then
passed by, to begin with the more universal ones. But though not
quite so universal as those already considered, this also is of great
importance ; as it is couched in terms so mixed with truth, that
even the intelligent may fail to observe it ; and if admitted, we are
bound to the letter, as to the subject in question, without the means
of extrication. Most readers must have felt, that the proposition
alluded to is rather confusedly worded. It says, " That the facts
regarding the assumption and glorification of humanity by the
Lord, as recorded in the literal, — the absolutely literal sense of
the Word, — are not merely uninvalidated by our Author, but are
expressly confirmed by him as ihe genuine truth, which it is the in
dispensable duty of the man of the church to believe." To call mere
facts, how real and unquestionable soever, genuine truth, is not the
most accurate kind of phraseology ; but to say that what was spoken
on those occasions is genuine truth, is perfectly correct as to lan
guage, whether it be so or not as to the proposition affirmed. It is
abundantly evident, from all the reasoning of the paper, that both
affirmations were intended ; namely, That the facts really took
place, and what was then spoken is, in the very letter, genuine truth.
But this is mixing together two distinct things, the product of
which is an enormous fallacy.* It is certainly true, for instance,
that all the occurrences recorded in the gospels of the Lord's ap
pearing to the disciples after his resurrection, and all other parti-
* To excuse the impropriety of phrase, and to exclude the fallacy, when the
proposition was.first printed in Mr. M.'s paper of 1829, we introduced, before the
words, " as the genuine truth," the parenthesis " (if we may so say)" —

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 157
culars connected with that event, are real facts, — that they all
occurred, literally, as they are related : but it by no. means thence
follows, nor is it the case, that all the words then spoken, in their
absolutely literal sense, are genuine truths ; no, nor yet that all
the exhibitions which the Lord condescended to make of himself,
presented his person as it was in itself, and were in no respect
accommodations to the ideas of the beholders, or representations of
their state as to their reception of him. There is little need to cite
additional evidences from E. S. to prove this. It is abundantly
plain from some that have been quoted above : for there is nothing
whatever to take the facts and discourses relating to the Lord's
resurrection out of the rule of judgment there delivered respecting the
whole letter of the Word, as being " written by mere correspondences."
Similar statements abound everywhere : take these two : " The
literal sense of the Word is accommodated to the apprehension of
the simple, and therefore consists, for the most part, of appearances
of truth, and appearances of truth are of such a nature, that they
may be drawn to confirm whatever is assumed as a principle of
religion and thence of doctrine, consequently, what is false. They
therefore who place genuine truth itself in the literal sense of the
Word alone, may fall into many mistakes, if they are not in illustra
tion from the Lord, and in that illustration form to themselves
doctrine which may serve as a lantern to guide them."* The
following is close in point with the question of the Lord's wounds.
" The difference between these senses [the literal and the spiritual]
may appear from this circumstance, that by the blood of the Lamb,
in the literal sense, is understood the Lord's passion of the cross,
but, in the spiritual sense, the divine truth proceeding from the
Lord's Divine Humanity.  From these considerations it is evident,
that the Word in this passage, and in a thousand others, must be
falsified, if it is viewed outwardly only, and not inwardly. To view
it outwardly, is to view it from ihe letter ; but to view it inwardly, is
to view it from the doctrine of genuine truth."f
5. Nearly allied to the subject of too hastily taking the state
ments of the letter of the Word relating to the appearances of the
Lord after his resurrection as genuine truths, is the fifth fallacy
which we have to notice, namely, that, as strongly urged in the
paper " On the Identity," it is our duty to " believe in simplicity "
such statements of the letter of the Word, whether we can see in them
genuine truth or not ; or rather, without seeing in them anything to
convince us that they speak the language of genuine truth. We
briefly showed, in our Note appended to the paper " On the Identity,"
how anti-angelic such a sentiment is, J as we had before briefly shewn
in our Review, that it is Anti-New-Church.§ The only instance in
which E. S. speaks with much respect of " believing in simplicity," is
in regard to those who thus believe the most important genuine truths.
* Ap. Ex. 816. t Ap. Ex. 748. % P. 114. § P.52.

158 THE GLORIFICATION OF
" Some," he says, " may suppose, that to know these things [the
arcana of the Lord's glorification] is of little importance to those
who have faith, and that it is enough to know that the Lord's
Human Essence was made Divine, and that the Lord is God as to
both. — They who believe this in simplicity have no need to know
how it was effected ; for to know how it was effected has only this
for its end, that they may believe it to be so. There are many at
this day who believe nothing unless they are rationally convinced
that it is so ; — for the use of such, therefore, these things are made
manifest. — Moreover, these are ihe things which are contained in
the internal sense of the Word, and the internal sense is the Word
of the Lord in the heavens ; and ihey who are in the heavens
understand it thus.''* But to believe thus in simplicity the genuine
truths of the Word, which is the result of perception as to which
are the genuine truths that appear in the letter, is a very different
thing from believing in simplicity the statements of the letter,
without seeing by perception whether they are genuine truths or not.
They who thus believe the letter, according to a quotation above, are
the simple, as distinguished from the intelligent and ihe wise. To
believe the apparent truths of the letter in real simplicity, is alone
the species of belief of them, which is admitted by E. S. not to be
injurious ; but to believe in simplicity, as urged in the paper -" On
the Identity," means, to confirm such apparent truths as genuine ;
and this according to E. S., is exceedingly injurious. His language
is, " In many passages of the Word, we find anger, wrath, and
vengeance attributed to God, and it is said that he punishes, casts
into hell, tempts, with much more of the like nature. Now where
all this is believed in child-like simplicity, and made the ground
of the fear of God, and of care not to offend him, no man incurs
condemnation by such simple belief. But where a man confirms
himself in such notions, so as to be persuaded that anger, wrath,
and vengeance belong to God, and that he punishes mankind, and
casts them into hell, under the influence of such anger, wrath, and
vengeance ; in this case his belief is condemnatory, because he has
destroyed the genuine truth," &c.f To believe appearances in
simplicity, we see, is only allowable, when it is a genuine childlike
* A. C. n. 2094.
f Doc. Ser. n. 94. Tr. Chr. Rel. n. 256. By the way, does not " the much
more of the like nature," mentioned in this quotation, include the case of the
marks in the Lord's Bisen Body, supposing theh existence to be actually asserted ?
On such a supposition (but which, we shaU presently see, is by no means a safe
one), does not the Author, in the above extract, virtually say, " in one or two
passages of the Word, we find the marks of wounds attributed to the Lord's
Risen Body. Now where this is believed in child-like simplicity, and made the
ground of acknowledgment that the Lord made his whole Humanity Divine, no
man incurs injury by such simple belief. But where a man conflrms himself in
such a notion, so as to be persuaded that marks of wounds were really in the
Lord's Divine Body, in this case his belief is injurious, because he has destroyed
the genuine truth." Hoping, however, that such a persuasion may not induce
" condemnation," or be " condemnatory," we have here changed those words of
the Author to "injury" and " injurious."

the lord's humanity. 159
simplicity, an innocence of ignorance which knows no better, and
which is open to instruction ; but to confirm apearances as genuine
truths, is quite a different thing from such allowable simple belief,
and can never be practised with impunity. The real nature of such
believing in simplicity, is strikingly depicted in the following passage.
Speaking of the spiritual (meaning here such natural men as are
merely in truths without good, or such as are in faith alone) ,* the
author says, " Such persons are desirous that the things of faith
should be believed in simplicity, without being viewed from any
rational ground. — They are indeed hereby enabled to protect them
selves against those who reason respecting all things from a negative
principle, disputing whether it be so ; but to those who are in an
affirmative principle respecting the Word, holding, that is, that it is
to be believed, such a position is hurtful. For they thus are able to
take away from a person his freedom of thinking, and to make
the belief of even the most heretical notion obligatory on his con
science ; thus exercising dominion both over a man's internals
and externals. "t We are far from imputing to the author of the
paper "On the Identity," any such intention or desire as this : we
are sure he is incapable of deliberately aiming at any such thing :
yet, owing to the immense importance which he attaches to the view
he advocates, and his undoubting persuasion of its certainty, the
tendency of the whole of that paper, in consequence of the insisting
upon the " duty' of " simple belief" which runs through it, is pre
cisely such as is here so strikingly described.
We have now unravelled these five fallacies, — 1. That, because
doctrine is to be drawn from the literal sense of the Word, therefore
whatever cannot be proved from the absolutely literal sense is to be
rejected as false : — 2. That, because doctrine is to be drawn from
the literal sense of the Word, therefore every part of the literal sense
may be taken as a source of true doctrine : — 3. That, because doc
trine is to be drawn from the literal sense of the Word, therefore,
in investigating, among themselves, what are the genuine doctrines
and truths of the New-Church, its members are to rely more on the
literal sense of the Word than on the writings of its divinely com
missioned Expositor : — 4. That, because the facts recorded of the
Lord's resurrection really occurred, therefore whatever was spoken
on those occasions is, in its literal sense, genuine truth, and all the
appearances exhibited in his person belonged to his Divine Body as
it was in itself : — 5. That we are to believe in simplicity, meaning,
to confirm absolutely, such statements of the literal sense of the
Word, whether we see in them genuine truth or not. — From all that
has been shewn in the solution of these fallacies, results this truly
universal Canon of Faith (in which there is no fallacy) : — That
any notions said to be drawn from the literal sense of the Word,
which are inconsistent with the pure truths of its internal sense,
must be false ; and the texts on which they are founded are, in the
* Heavenly Doct. n. 257. t Arc. Ccel. 3394.

160 THE GLORIFICATION OF
letter, appearances of truth, expressed according to the apprehen
sions of the merely natural man. To think otherwise, is "to view
the Word outwardly only, and not inwardly,"" in which case "it is
falsified." III. The general fallacies above considered being dispersed, and
the belief of them seen not to be " obligatory on the conscience,"
we are now fairly at liberty to enquire, first, Whether the passage of
the Word, relied on for exploding the views of the Lord's resurrec
tion proposed by us from the writings of Swedenborg, and for sup
porting those advanced in the paper " On the Identity," really does
affirm, in its absolutely literal sense, the notions assigned to it :
secondly, Whether, if not affirmed, such notions are necessarily
implied by it : and thirdly, Whether, in all respects, it speaks, in the
letter, the words of genuine truth, and thus presents naked truths
only to the mind, or whether, in part, it is couched in the language
of appearances, and so presents to the mind truths thus clothed.
1. That passage is Luke xxiv. 39 ; in which, because, on the
Lord's first appearing to the assembled disciples after his resurrection,
" they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen
a spirit," it is recorded that he said unto them, " Behold my hands
and my feet, that it is I myself : handle me and see : for a spirit
hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."
We have admitted above, that all the facts recorded in the Word
relating to the Lord's incarnation and resurrection, are real facts,
which actually occurred as they are related. What then are the
facts presented in this statement ? Simply these : That the Lord
appeared to the disciples, and said to them these words. Whether
the words spoken in all respects deliver, in their literal sense, genuine
truth ; and whether, if they suppose any particular appearances,
such appearances presented the Lord's Divine Form as it was in
itself ; are totally different considerations.
But the paper " On the Identity" argues from these words, that
the Lord's body which rose was so absolutely the same as the body
which was crucified, and was so far from having undergone any
dissipation of its material substances, or any putting on of Divine
Substance in their place, that the very wounds inflicted on the cross
remained unclosed in the body that arose ; which, nevertheless, was
now no longer " merely material," but purely Divine. We shall
presently advert to some of the reasons which prove this to be im
possible ; but at present we simply ask, Do the above words, in their
absolutely literal sense, affirm this ? We have shewn from the
express statements of Swedenborg, founded on those of Scripture,
that the body which arose was not, as to substance, the same as that
which was crucified, all the material particles having, in the mean
time, been expelled : does " the Lord himself," in the absolutely
literal sense of the above words, " assert most expressly the very
fact which we have so denied?"* We do not deny it to be possible
* " On the Identity," p. 92.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 161
(and we beg that this may be noted, that our present argument may
not be mistaken), that there might be an appearance, to the disciples,
as of the wounds inflicted on the cross : but we beg to ask whether
the Lord, in the words before us, asserts this ? Does the absolute
letter contain any mention of wounds or marks ? Do " these words
declare the body seen to have been so marked ?"* No one can
pretend that they do. It is possible that the appearance of such
marks might be seen : but to get this idea, we are obliged to travel
far out of the letter of the record before us. If then "any notions
which cannot thus be established," that is, on facts " as recorded in
the literal — the absolutely literal sense of the Word," " may be
pronounced to be at once in opposition to the writings of Swedenborg
and the revealed wisdom of the Most High ;" then unquestionably
this may be judged of any notions which affirm positively, from the
words of the Lord above recited, that there were the marks of wounds
in his risen body.
2. As this is not affirmed in the absolutely literal sense, so
neither can it be certainly inferred from the words at all. It is
worthy of notice, as a very remarkable circumstance, that not only
must we travel out of the record to get, from the letter of this
passage, the idea of wounds in the Lord's hands and feet, but, to
obtain that idea, we must travel out of the whole record of the
Word of God ; for that book never actually mentions the existence
of such wounds. All that is related, in this respect, even of the
body crucified, is, that it was " crucified :"t but how crucifixion was
performed is not described ; and, if all knowledge of the subject
from tradition and profane history were to cease, we could not know
absolutely that the Lord was nailed to the cross by his hands and
feet. Nay, with all the knowledge existing on this subject from
extraneous authorities, it is disputed among the learned whether
the Lord's feet were pierced with nails or not ; since it is certain
that the most common mode of crucifying was, not by nailing the
feet, but by simply binding the legs to the shaft of the cross by a
cord round the ankles : and the opinion of many, that it was in this
way that the Lord was crucified, derives probability from the fact,
that even Thomas seems never to have thought of there being " the
prints of the nails" in his feet. But however this might be (and to
know it were of little moment in itself), it is certain that there must
be a divine reason why the Word never refers to the appearances of
wounds in relation to his Divine Body, except in so remote and in
definite a way, hinting, it may be, the existence of such appearances,
but never actually mentioning them. And what can this reason be,
but that, although it might be necessary that such appearances
should be exhibited to the disciples in their then gross, unenlightened
state, and possibly, in such a state, it was impossible for them to see
* P. 93.
t The term in the original, translated to crucify, is merely the name of the
cross formed as a verb ; as if we should say in English, " they crossed him."
M

162 THE GLORIFICATION OF
the Lord without beholding such appearances, yet the marks had no
real existence in his Divine Body, and to have an idea of this as
disfigured with wound and scars, is shocking in itself, most offensive
to angels, and closes heaven against the mind in which such an idea
is by them perceived ? Hence, if such appearance were seen by the
disciples, the delicacy with which it is remotely presented — the holy
dread inspired lest anything should occur unworthy of the holiness
and dignity of the subject, and which would present before the
ano-els, who are in the spiritual sense, an idea of impotence and re
jection in connexion with the Divine Person of the Lord. They
learn, from the spiritual sense of the words, that the Lord arose a
Divine Man, having the ultimates of the Human Principle beyond
what angels have : but they have no idea from them of infirmity or
imperfection adhering to the Lord's Divine Person ; as must be the
case if they connected them with anything corresponding to the
natural idea of wounds. If then the angels are without any idea
corresponding to that of wounds, what right have we to conceive such
an idea in connexion with the Lord's Divine Body, travelling, as we
are obliged to do, far away from the words themselves to import it ?
But further : Although, as already cautioned, we by no means deny
that there might be an appearance as of wounds to the disciples,
we do not think that anything in the words themselves proves even
this. We can easily conceive it possible, that, without any display
of wounds to the disciples on the present occasion, or even to Thomas,
the words addressed to them might have had the effect of convincing
them, that the Speaker was indeed theif Risen Lord. Can any one
doubt that there was a weight and power attending his divine words,
when spoken immediately from his Divine Person, and addressed to
receptive minds, which at once convinced them, whether through the
medium of their reasoning faculty or not, of what he designed them
to understand ? If, as is probable, like the ancients in general, they
believed a spirit not to have a real body, but to be a mere shade,
would not his powerfully commanding words, " Behold my hands
and my feet," conjoined with the evidence of sight, convince them
instantaneously that he possessed those organs (being the only parts
of his body unconcealed by his garments) , not as an unsubstantial
phantom, but as a real man ? If before his crucifixion, when those
who came to apprehend him said that they sought Jesus of Nazareth,
his simply answering, " I am he," so affected them with the power
of the Divine Truth which spoke the words, that they " went back
ward and fell to the ground ;" who can doubt that his mere saying,
" Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself," would convince
the disciples instantaneously that he possessed those members as a
Divine Man ? especially when joined with the words which follow,
" handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see
me have ;" words which could tend to nothing but to convince them
of the reality of his manhood. As to his intending to convince
them of his identity ; — if the resemblance of his Divine Person to

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 163
the form which he wore when on earth, is such as to be , recognised
now by those who then had seen him,* we may be sure that no other
evidence of this was required by the disciples. They obviously
believed before he spoke, that the Being they beheld was either his
own spirit, or some other spirit that took his form ; so that the
identity of which the Lord purposed to convince them was, that
what they saw was not only he himself as to his spirit, but he him
self as a Man. And for this purpose the words spoken, as we have
now explained them, are abundantly sufficient, without supposing
them to include a reference to a display of wounds. Nor would the
display of wounds, of itself, at all have contributed to persuade
them that there was no illusion, or that he was a Man and not a
mere spirit ; for what more agreeable to vulgar notions, than to
expect to see the ghost of a murdered person marked with the
wounds of which he died ?
So, as remarked just now, though there is reason to believe that
the appearances of wounds were beheld by the sensual-minded
Thomas, there can be no doubt that full conviction might have been
wrought even in his mind without this sort of evidence. When the
Lord, in allusion to what this disciple had said in his absence, ad
dressed him with the words, " Reach hither thy finger, and behold
my hands ; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side ;
and be not faithless, but believing ;" there can be no question that
the power of his words, if only meant to imply, in the literal sense,
" How couldst thou think so unworthily of thy Lord, as to suppose
that his Divine Body could retain the prints of the wounds inflicted
on his material body," — would equally have brought the blush on
the cheek of this sincere though simple disciple, and filled him with
conviction. It is impossible to prove even from these words, that
they were intended to imply any more, than that the Lord had the
body and organs of a substantial man, and was not a mere spirit ;
for it is not affirmed, even in any part of this transaction, that
wounds were actually seen or felt in his hands and side.
That the power of the Lord's words and actions was such, after
his resurrection, as to make on the disciples whatever impression he
intended, without their directly understanding the spiritual sense of
them, on the one hand, and without his teaching them literally, in
a direct form, on the other, is proved by the following statement of
E. S. : " As bread signifies the Lord, and eating signifies appropri
ation and conjunction, therefore, ' when the Lord, after death, mani
fested himself before his disciples, on his breaking bread and giving
to them, their eyes were opened, and they knew him' (Luke xxiv.
30, 31). From this circumstance it is evident, that to eat bread
given by the Lord, signifies conjunction with him, by virtue of which
the disciples, being enlightened, immediately knew him: for the
eyes, in the Word, correspond to the understanding, and thence
» Arc. Ccel. 7173, and Earths Univ. 40.
M 2

164 THE GLORIFICATION OF
signify it ; and this is what is enlightened ; whence it is said that
their eyes were opened."* The word " Behold," signifies an address
to the understanding, and must have had the power of opening it
also, if the Lord so pleased.
We have made the above observations, to shew that the words,
" Behold," &c, and those to Thomas, do not necessarily imply that
there were appearances of wounds seen by the disciples (although we
think it rather probable that it was so with Thomas, on account of
his representing the sensual man or principle, and not improbable in
the case of the other disciples, on account of their gross state at the
time ; but we have made the above observations) because, as we
shall see in the sequel, is it impossible to gather from Swedenborg
that the idea that such appearance was exhibited ever entered
his mind.
3. It being then certain, that it cannot be proved from the literal
sense of Luke xxiv. 39, that there were either marks of wounds or
appearances of such, in the Lord's Risen Body as seen by the dis
ciples, we are next to inquire whether the letter of that passage
speaks, in all respects, the words of genuine truth, or whether, in
part, it is couched in the language of appearances. It states, first,
that the Being seen by the disciples had hands and feet, and was
the Lord himself. This is perfectly unquestionable. It then states,
that a spirit has not flesh and bones. This is not so clear, as it is
certain that spirits have bodies resembling in all respects the bodies
of men, only of spiritual, not material substance, and thus that
they have spiritual flesh and bones. Still as their flesh and bones
are not of the same substance as ours, these words also may be
regarded as literally true, understanding the proper literal sense of
flesh and bones to be, such flesh and bones as are possessed by man
in the world — material flesh and bones. At last the passage declares,
that the Lord himself has flesh and bones : can we make out this
to be genuine truth in the literal sense also ? Is it really true that
the Lord, as to his Divine Body, has such flesh and bones as are
possessed by man in the world — material flesh and bones? We
know that, as such flesh and bones cannot be Divine, this is impos
sible, and is constantly declared to be so by E. S. The Lord has
not flesh and bones, the same as to substance with those of man in
the world. The words no longer speak genuine truth in the letter,
and to avoid grossly falsifying them, by confirming appearances as
genuine truth, we must seek the spiritual sense of the phrase. This
is easily obtained, if we abstract the idea of the substance of man's
flesh and bones from that of their use or place in his system. They
are the ultimates, or the last things, of the human principle ; and
if we think of the ultimates of the human principle without regard
to the substances or matters of which they are composed, we have
an idea which at once agrees with what is said of spirits, that they
* Ap. Ex. 617.

THE lord's humanity. 165
have not flesh and bones, that is, the ultimates. of human nature,
and of the Lord, that he has them. A s, again, his whole Essence
consists of Divine Good and Divine Truth, so the ultimates of his
Humanity are Divine Good and Truth in the ultimate degree ; and
this is the specific spiritual meaning of flesh and bones.
That to think of the Lord's Divine Body as consisting of flesh
and bones, or flesh and blood either, such as those of man, thus as
in any sense material, and thus to regard the passage before us as
presenting, in this respect, genuine truth in its letter, is a most gross
and deplorable falsification of the Word, is evident from the passages
respecting the nature of the Lord's Body cited from E. S. in the
last chapter, and is most strongly illustrated in the following : " It
appears remote to understand truths from the Lord in place of his
blood, but yet nothing else is understood by the Lord's blood in
heaven, and this by reason that the Lord there is Divine Truth
united to Divine Good, whence no one there thinks of his flesh and
blood. Thought respecting these they call material thought, which
does not exist with them. They say also, that neither do they
know that flesh and blood are named in the Word ; [but this is
done] that the spiritual correspondences of them may be perceived
in heaven ; for all spiritual things close in natural, and therein have
their ultimate plane : — hence it is that the Word in its literal sense
is such as to admit the mention of flesh and blood. But still the
angels wonder, that the man of the church, who, also, from the
Word, might be made spiritual, does not suffer himself to be
elevated above the sense of the letter, and that he should think of
the Lord and his fiesh not spiritually but materially."* On which
passage it may also be observed, that if the angels wonder at the
man of the church for thinking of the Lord's flesh according to the
sense of the letter, much more would they wonder that he should
think of there being real wounds, or the marks qf them, in the
Lord's Divine Personal Form.
From all that has been advanced on this part of the subject, it
already seems abundantly certain, that the passage of the Word
relied on for exploding the views of the Lord's resurrection proposed
by us from the writings of Swedenborg, and for supporting those
advanced in the paper " On the Identity," fails of such application.
It does not affirm, in its absolutely literal sense, the existence of
marks of wounds in the Lord's Risen Body ; it does not necessarily
imply this in any sense : and when it seems to speak of materiality
as belonging to it, it does not, in the letter, speak genuine truth.
The existence of such marks in the body which rose, and its being
still composed of material flesh and bones, are the only points which
could tend to prove that the body which rose was the same as to
substance with the body which was crucified : and these points
failing, it may still be true, for aught that this passage proves to
* Ap. Ex. n. 30.

166 the glorification of
the contrary, that the material particles were dissipated in the
sepulchre, and the Divine Substantial in ultimates put on in their
place. IV. We will next consider what will be the result upon the sup
position, which we have allowed to be not improbable, that the
Lord's words, " Behold my hands and my feet," &c, do contain an
allusion to marks as of wounds in his Risen Body, as seen at the
time by the disciples.
Suppose, then, such marks were seen, is it straightway to be con
cluded, that they were seen, because imprinted on the Lord's Divine
Body Itself? Do the circumstances of" the case, with the truths
brought to light respecting representatives and appearances, and
the state of man after death, suggest no means of accounting for
such a fact, without admitting so monstrous a supposition, as that
marks of wounds, yea, actual wounds (for, if there at all, they were
holes into which the finger and hand might be thrust), — and those
wounds literally " the work of nails and a spear !"* existed in the
proper Person of Him, in whom " all is Jehovah, not only his
internal and interior man, but also his external man, and his very
Body ?"f Suchjk supposition does too much violence to every per
ception of the mind that thinks in the smallest degree of elevation
above the mere senses, to be deemed credible for a moment : there
must then be a way of accounting for the appearances (granting that
they existed), without supposing marks or wounds to inhere in the
proper Divine Body of the Lord. And there are, in fact, at least
three ways in which such appearances may be explained without the
admission of an idea, which every conception of the mind that can
be called either spiritual or rational, spontaneously rises to cast out.
The first is, That the body which rose was literally the same in
substance with that which was crucified, thus still material and
derived from the mother ; and, consequently, was yet to be put off,
either gradually during the forty days, or suddenly at the ascension.
The second is, That the Lord, fulfilling all the requisitions of order
as appointed for man, was after his resurrection, as man is after his
resuscitation, at first in his externals, and did not appear to those
who beheld him, while in this state, as he is in his proper Divine
Person, but with some relics or resemblances of the last state in
which he was when the body died on the cross. The third is, That
the appearances as of wounds were neither in the Lord's proper
Person, nor in any way adhering to him, but were solely the result
of that law of divine order, by which every individual sees the Lord
according to his own state.
1 . The first mode of accounting for the appearances, by supposing
that the body which rose was literally the same in substance with
that which was crucified, thus still material and derived from the
mother, is doubtless the most agreeable to the apprehensions of the
* P. 94. + A. C. 1729.

the lord's humanity. 167
sensual man, as explaining all the circumstances of its being
seen and handled, with that of its eating, in a perfectly natural
manner, and requiring nothing but the common natural senses of the
disciples to be in action to discern them. On this account, this
is the belief of the Old Church in all its sects ; but it is far enough
from being true, that the Old Church, in this respect, is in the
right : for, as a necessary part of this notion of identity as to sub
stance, the Old Church " does not acknowledge the Humanity of
the Lord to be Divine ; for it separates the one from the other ;
as also appears from the circumstance, that it does not admit the
term Divine Humanity :"* and " however it may call his Divinity
the Son of God born from eternity, — still it is not at the same
time believed, when the Lord is thought of as a material man
like any other man, and retaining like properties of the flesh,"f
or having flesh of the same material kind. To render the notion,
that the body which rose was literally the same in substance with
that which was crucified, at all compatible with the doctrine of the
New Church, that the Lord made his Humanity Divine, and this
by " putting off nature [or all substances belonging to nature], which
in itself is dead, and yet a receptacle of the Divine, and putting on
the Divine,"f or what is Divine, it must be supposed, as in the pro
position that the body first seen after the resurrection, as to its mate
rial particles, was yet to be put off, either gradually during the forty
days, or suddenly at its ascension. The latter idea has been enter
tained by some, and has been thought to be sanctioned by the trans
lation of Elijah, whose material body was doubtless dissipated on the
occasion. But the cases are totally different ; since, contrary to
the common belief, it is certain that Elijah ascended to heaven as all
other men do, in a spiritual body only, whereas the Lord ascended
in a Divine Natural Body ; and it is obvious that according to order,
this could only be put on in ultimates in the last stage of the descent
of the Son of God from the Father into the world, and not after the
return to the Father had commenced, which was from the moment of
the resurrection. If that which rose was afterwards put off, then,
manifestly, the Lord could only have ascended with a Divine Spiritual
Body, and not with a Divine Natural Body ; since, as just remarked,
every successive putting on was not an ascent, or going up, but a
descent, or bringing down.
But what alone renders unnecessary all further consideration of
this supposition, that the body which rose was literally the same in
substance as that which was crucified, and thus material, and from
the mother, and requiring to be yet made Divine, ^is the unvarying
testimony of E. S., that it was not such, but that it was Divine
at its resurrection. That grand summary of the doctrine of the
New Church on this point in the work expressly written to deliver
its Doctrine respecting the Lord, can never be made to bear any
* Ap. Ex. n. 49. + Ap. Rev. n. 504. t Div. L. § W. u. 234.

168 THE GLORIFICATION OF
other meaning than that which it obviously presents : "That the
Lord put off the humanity from the mother, which in itself was like
the humanity of another man, consequently material, and put on a
Humanity from the Father, which in itself was like his Divinity,
and consequently substantial ; so that his Humanity also was made
Divine." And " since the Humanity of the Lord was glorified,
that is, made Divine, therefore he arose after death, on the third
day, with his whole body. — As, however, his body was now no
longer material, but Divine-Substantial, ' He came in amongst the
disciples when the doors where shut,' (John xx. 19, 26) ; and after
he had been seen, ' he vanished out of their sight,' " (Luke xxiv.
31.)* That the Lord's Body was Divine at his resurrection, is, in
.like manner, everywhere testified by E. S. ; and is admitted in the
paper " On the Identity :" consequently, as declared in the above
extract, and attempted to be evaded in that paper, it was then " no
longer material ;" consequently, if there is meaning in words, not
the same, as to substance, as when it was crucified.
Another conclusive proof, that if there were wounds, or marks as
of wounds, in the body seen by the disciples, it could not be the same
as to substance with that which was crucified, is, that if it were, it
could not either have had wounds remaining in it, or have pre
sented the appearance as of wounds. This truth, which, we
believe, has hitherto been overlooked by all parties, will be illus
trated hereafter.
2. A second way of accounting for the appearances as of wounds,
if actually seen, is by supposing, that the Lord, fulfilling, as we
know he did in all points, the requisitions of order as appointed for
man, was, after his resurrection, as man after his resuscitation, at
first in his externals, and did not appear to those who beheld him,
while in this state, as he is in his proper Divine Person, but with
some relics of, or appearances resulting from, the last state in which
he was when the body died on the cross. That man, in his first
state after death, remains commonly for some time in his exteriors,
and retains the appearance that his person had in the world, is
certain from the truths brought to light respecting the state of man
after death in the writings of the New Church. f But we do not
find from any testimonies in those writings, that a person who has
suffered death by violence, appears in his first, or in any state after
his resuscitation, marked with the wounds, and those unclosed, by
which he was put to death. There are indeed numerous stories
current in the world, of persons who have been murdered visiting
their friends (generally, we believe, only in dreams), with the appear
ance of the injuries by which they were killed : but admitting that
some of these tales may be true, it will by no means thence follow,
that such persons so appear in the spiritual world, and this for some
time : (for, if the Lord's body was so marked at all, it retained the
* Doct. Lord, n. 35. f See Heaven and Hell, .1. 457- 492,493,499, 501, 504.

THE lord's humanity. 169
marks eight days at least, since it was not till then that he was seen
by Thomas.) It may indeed be possible, that, in the case of those who
have died by violence very suddenly, the thought from sensation of
the wounds inflicted, which had been their last thought in the
world, might also be the first on their resuscitation, and might
occasion a corresponding appearance in the extricated spiritual body.
But this could only be a very transient state indeed, preceding " the
first state of man after death" described by our Author. As soon as
the man comes into this first state, it is very certain that, from the
suddenness of his transit, he would, not be aware that he was in the
spiritual world at all. The idea of his murder would probably be
the first thought in his mind ; but instead of finding himself in the
condition of a murdered man, he would be overjoyed at feeling him
self safe and sound, and would only think that he had awaked out
of a terrible dream. That such would be the state of a murdered per
son after his resuscitation in his spiritual body, on coming into what
is described as the first state after death, no person, we apprehend,
who has well digested what is related on that subject throughout the
writings of E. S., will entertain much doubt : and if so, while it is
certain that there can be no real wounds in a spiritual body, it will
hence follow also, that there can be no appearance of them.
But perhaps it will be said, that the case of man and his spiritual
body is nothing to the purpose, since the Lord rose from the dead,
not in a Divine Spiritual Body, but in a Divine Natural Body.
This is true. But though the Lord's Risen Body, as being Natural,
answers by analogy to the material body of man in the world and
not to his spiritual body after death, — or is that with respect to the
Lord which the material body is with respect to man ; yet as being
Divine it has more affinity with the spiritual body. For " what
is material does not live, but only what is spiritual," * even with
man in the world ; but the Lord, as to his Risen Body, not only
lives, but is Life Itself : f an(I between Life Itself and that which
lives derivatively, or the spiritual body, there is manifestly a nearer
affinity, than between Life Itself mi that which does not live, or
the material body. On this account, our Author so often adverts to
the case of the Lord after his resurrection as seen by the disciples,
to prove that man after death is in a human form.% Such an
argument would prove nothing but the confusion of the writer's
ideas, were it not true, that between the substantial bodies of spirits
and angels and the Divine Substantial Body of the Lord, there is
an affinity which does not exist between the Divine Substantial
Body of the Lord and the material bodies of men. It is our Author's
constant doctrine that all spiritual bodies are substantial (using the
term in its philosophical sense) ; and that material bodies are not.
Hence the Lord's body, though in degree Natural, is considered as
belonging to the spiritual world ; whence our Author declares it to
* H. <k H. n. 432. t Ap. Ex. 1112, &c.: J Tr. Chr. Rel. 793, Ap. Ex. 53, &c.

170 THE glorification of
be a truth known to the angels, that, "in the whole spiritual world,
the Lord alone is fully a Man."* That it must be so, also, is
evident from the fact, that all of good and truth is spiritual, and is
dispensed to man, not from the sun of the natural world, which is
the first substance in nature, but which is only pure fire, and in itself
dead, but from the sun of the spiritual world, which is pure love, and
in the midst of which is the Lord, both as to his Essential Divinity
and his Divine Humanity.-)- In degree, the Lord's Risen Body is
Natural, being the same with respect to him as our material bodies
are with respect to us ; and because he thence flows immediately into
nature ; but it is not natural as being material, or as partaking, as
to substance, of anything of nature ; for "he put off nature, which
in itself is dead." Thus, as was shewn in the last chapter, though,
when the disciples beheld him after his resurrection, they remained
conscious of the objects in the natural world around them, they still
did not see him with the eyes of the body.
Although then we have no objection to the way of accounting for
the appearances as of wounds, if actually seen, in the Lord's Risen
Body, by supposing that he was, after his resurrection, at first in his
externals, and did not then appear to those who beheld him as he is
in his proper Divine Person, but with some relics of, or appearances
resulting from, the last state in which he was when the body died on
the cross ; — although, we say, we should have no objection to this
mode of explaining the subject in itself, yet all the considerations
which present themselves when meditating on it, seem inconsistent
with such an idea. Nevertheless, it is certain that the Lord was,
at this time, in his externals, as man is, in his first state after death ;
as is evident from his not appearing with the glory displayed at his
transfiguration, and at all the appearances after his ascension. He
was now, as shewn in the last chapter, as to the ultimates of his
Humanity, or as to the Body, Divine Truth, and not yet Divine
Good, as he was already as to his interiors : for he first made his
Humanity Truth Divine (which he was, as to the body, at the
crucifixion, and which is Divine Truth finited by reception by a
finite subject), next Divine Truth, which he was, as to the body, now ;
and finally Divine Good, which he already was as to every principle
above the ultimate, and became, as to this also, at the ascension. J
While he was yet Divine Truth, then it is certain that the Lord was
in his externals. Still, in Divine Truth Itself, it is impossible to
conceive of anything as existing which could be correspondingly
exhibited as wounds : thus, if any such marks were seen, it must
have been, not the result of any previous state in the process of his
glorification, but a representation of the denial of the Divinity of his
Humanity, and of his Divine Truth as falsified when received by the
* T. c. R. 109. t N. 25.
J It must be remembered, to prevent an appearance of contradiction in our
Author's writings, that by Divine Good is not meant Good alone, but Divine
Truth in perfect union with Divine Good ; as is sometimes explained.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 171
perverted church. The marks then, if seen, did not belong to his
Divine Person itself, any more than the denial of his Divinity can
belong to his Divine Truth Itself. This point is worthy of particular
notice. The Lord, as to his Divine Humanity, is, and was at this
time, the Divine Truth Itself. Between himself as a Person and
himself as the Divine Truth the parallel is perfect, because they are
one and the same. It is as impossible, then, for his Divine Person
Itself to be disfigured with wounds, or the marks of them, as it is
for his Divine Truth Itself to deny his Divinity. If such
appearances were exhibited by the Lord's own act, it was to give
instruction as to the way in which he is received by the perverted
church, — to exhibit his Divine Person, not as it is in itself, but as
thought of by men, and to present his Divine Truth, not as it is in
itself, but as falsified by mankind. Or, if intended to produce con
viction as to his identity (for which, however, we have seen it could
not really be necessary), it was in accommodation to the ideas which
the scene of the crucifixion had left in the minds of ihe disciples.
But it is to be remembered, that Divine Truth, as it is in itself,
cannot be separated from Truth Divine, or as it is received by finite
creatures. It is only by means of Truth Divine, that men can have
any idea of Divine Truth ; and when the influx of Divine Truth is
not with sufficient power to remove men's erroneous apprehensions,
Truth Divine, which is its exterior sphere, suffers perversion, and
Divine Truth is viewed as something very different from what it
really is. Now, at this period, such was the case with the Lord.
Being, as to the ultimates of his Humanity, as yet, Divine Truth
and not Divine Good, that is, Divine Truth not in perfect union
with Divine Good, the influx of Divine Truth with power, called the
Holy Spirit, proceeding from his Humanity thus completely glorified,
was not yet given ; and thus, the mistaken apprehensions of the well
meaning but weak disciples could not as yet be dispelled. Viewed
thus, the second mode of accounting for the appearances, if seen, by
considering the Lord in his externals as the Lord out of himself,
that is, as received by men, coincides with the third, which we will
now develope.
3. The third way of explaining the subject is, That the appearances
as of wounds were neither in the Lord's proper Person, nor in any
way adhering to him, but were solely the result of that law of divine
order, by which every individual sees the Lord according to his.own
state. We really think that, if this is truly a law of order, or if
such is the fact respecting the Lord as seen by man, nothing more
can be desired for the satisfactory solution of the case : and that such
is the fact, no reader of the writings of Swedenborg can have any
doubt. Witness the following testimonies ; which, for distinctness,
and because we shall have to take them up again, we number va. order.
(1.) " In the other life, — the Lord is always the sun, and light
itself ; but before the wicked he appears as darkness : for ihe Lord
appears to every one according to his state.  This may be further

172 THE GLORIFICATION OF
exemplified in the case of vastation, of punishment, and of condem
nation, which, in the Word, are frequently predicated of the Lord,
when, nevertheless, they are only predicable of the members of the
church, who vastate, punish, and condemn themselves. It appears
indeed, to man, as if the Lord vastated, punished, and condemned ;
and by reason of its appearing so, it is said to be so, agreeably to
such appearance. For unless man was instructed by appearances,
he would never suffer himself to be instructed, since what is con
trary to appearance he does not believe or conceive, except at a late
period of life, when his judgment is ripened, and he is endowed with
the faith of charity."*
(2.) " They who are unacquainted with the arcana of the Lord's
kingdom, suppose that the Lord casts the wicked down into hell ; —
but the case is altogether otherwise : it is the man himself — who
casts himself down. Nevertheless, since it appears otherwise, there
fore it is described in the Word according to such appearance, yea,
according to the fallacies of the senses, especially when addressed to
the Jews, who were unwilling to apprehend anything but what was
according to the senses, whatsoever might be the fallacies thus in
volved. — Hence it is evident, that unless the internal sense of the
Word be known, man may easily fall into phantasies. The case
was similar with respect to the smoke and fire which appeared to the
people from Mount Sinai, when the law was promulgated ; for
Jehovah, or the Lord, appears to every one according to the nature
and quality of each. — The case would be the same, if any other
person who lives in hatred and its defilements, should see the Lord :
he would only be able to see him from the principle of hatred and
its defilements, which, receiving the rays of goodness and truth from
the Lord, would change them into such fire, smoke, and darkness. ''*f*
(3.) "Because the posterity of Jacob were merely in externals
and unwilling to be acquainted with anything internal, the Lord
appeared (to Moses) in a bramble. For when the Lord appears, he
appears altogether according to the quality of the man, because man
receives the Divine Being or Principle no otherwise than according
to his quality. On this account, also, when the Lord appeared on
Mount Sinai, he appeared to the people as a fire burning even to the
heart of heaven, and as darkness, clouds, and thick darkness : he
would have appeared altogether otherwise, if the people, who were
looking on beneath the mountain had not been of such a quality." J
(4.) " The Divine Being or Principle cannot appear otherwise
to any one than according to the state of his life, and thence of his
apperception. ' ' §
(5.) " In general, the Divine Being or Principle appears to every
one, in the other life, according to the quality of his faith and love." ||
(6.) " It is said, that ' the fire of Jehovah is kindled in his
wrath, and burns even to the lowest hell,' although there is not any
* Arc. Coel. 1838. + N. 1861. J N. 6832. § N. 8761. || N. 8814.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 173
fire of anger in Jehovah, much less that burns to the lowest hell. —
But it is so said in the literal sense of the Word, because it so
appears before the man who is in evil, and also before the simple
man : for the Word in its letter is written according to the appre
hensions of natural men. But as the angels, who are spiritual, do
not see the truths of the Word apparently, according to the appre
hensions of men, but spiritually, therefore the sense qf such ex
pressions as above mentioned is with them inverted, and this inversion
is the internal or spiritual sense ; which is, that the infernal love
with man is such a fire, and burns even to the lowest hell."*
(7.) " The Lord was represented by such a sign [as the brazen
serpent] before the Israelitish and Jewish people, because they were
merely sensual men, and the sensual man cannot elevate his thought,
in looking to the Lord, above the sensual principle : for every one
looks at the Lord according to the elevation qf his under standing. "t
Many more such statements might be cited : and who that knows
that such is the genuine doctrine of the New Church respecting the
appearances of the Lord to man, can think anything else necessary
to explain the appearances of wounds in the Lord's Divine Body, if
seen by the disciples, without imagining his Divine Body itself to
be marked with wounds, " the work of nails and a spear V But to
make the case so plain, that, according to the common misquoted
text, " he that runs may read," or, according to E. S., " to convince
even the natural man, if he is willing to be convinced,"*!: we will
repeat the chief parts of the above quotations with such verbal
alterations as will make them apply immediately to the present
subject (numbering them as before, and marking by Italics the
substituted words) .
(1.) Supposing then the existence of the wounds had been expli
citly asserted as seen by the disciples, might it not be most truly
said, in the adapted words of the passage No. (1), " The Lord
appears to every one according to his state. This may be exemplified
in the case of the wounds predicated of the Lord's body after his
resurrection, when, nevertheless, they are only predicable of the
members of the church, who have such ideas of him. It appeared
indeed to the disciples, as if the Lord shewed them such wounds ;
and by reason of its appearing so, it is said to have been so, agreeably
to such appearance. For unless ihey had been instructed '„j appear
ances, they would never have suffered themselves to be instructed as
to the reality of the Lord's resurrection : since what is contrary
to appearance they did not conceive or believe, except at a later
period, when their judgment was corrected by the power of the Divine
Proceeding after the Lord's ascension, and they were endowed
with the faith of charity."§
(2.) Or, in the words of No. (2) : " They who are unacquainted
* Ap. Ex. 405. + N. 581. % Doc. Ser. n. 4.
§ That no injustice is done to the disciples in what is said of them here, and
in what foUows, wiU fuUy appear in the sequel.

174 THE GLORIFICATION OF
with the arcana of the Lord's glorification, suppose that the Lord
had appearances of wounds in his risen body ; but the case was
altogether otherwise : it was the disciples themselves whose state
caused them to see such appearances. Nevertheless, since it
appeared otherwise, therefore it is described in the Word according
to such appearance, yea, according to the fallacies of the senses,
especially as the Lord's words which seem to affirm it were
addressed to the disciples, who, like the Jews in general, were at
that time unwilling to apprehend anything but what was according
to the senses, whatsoever might be the fallacies thus involved.
Hence it is evident, that unless the internal sense of the Word be
known, man may easily fall into phantasies. — The case would be the
same if any other person, who thinks of the Lord's risen body as
being material, should see the Lord : he would only be able to see
him from such material idea, which, receiving the rays of goodness
and truth from the Lord's Divine Body, would change them into
such appearances of wounds and infirmity. ."
(3.) Let us try No. (3), " Because the disciples were merely in
externals, and as yet not willing to be acquainted with anything
internal, the Lord appeared to them as if still pierced with the
wounds inflicted on the cross. For when the Lord appears, he
appears altogether according to the quality of the man, because man
receives the Divine no otherwise than according to his quality;"
— and, (according to No. (4) ), "the Divine Being or Principle
cannot appear otherwise to any one than according to the state
of his life, and thence of his apperception ;" or, (according to
No. (5) ), " in general, the Divine Being or Principle appears to
every one, when his spiritual sight is opened, according to the quality
of his faith and love."
(6.) The same truth is equally illustrated from No. (6) : " It
seems to be said, that the Lord had marks of wounds, and holes, the
work of nails and a spear, in his risen body, although there were
not any marks of wounds, much less holes made by nails and a
spear. But it is so said in the literal sense of the Word, because
it so appears — before the simple man : for the Word in its letter is
written according to the apprehensions of natural men. But as the
angels, who are spiritual, do not see the truths of the Word ap
parently according to the apprehensions of men, but spiritually,
therefore the sense of such intimations as above mentioned, is with
them inverted, and this inversion is the internal or spiritual sense ;
which is, that the non- acknowledgment of the Divinity of his
Humanity in ultimates, or thought of it as material, is represented by
the appearance as of marks of wounds in the Lord's Divine Body,
and of holes, as if the work of nails and a spear."1'
(7.) So No. (7), " The Lord represented himself as with the
wounds inflicted on ihe cross before the disciples, because they
were still merely sensual men, and the sensual man, in looking at
the Lord, cannot elevate his thoughts above the apperceptions of the

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 1 7
senses : for every one views the Lord according to the elevation of
his understanding."
Add to these, the similar application above,* of the Author's
words in Doct. Ser., n. 94, respecting believing in simplicity the
statements of the Word about anger, &c. in God.
Perhaps we shall be told, that all this is nothing to the purpose,
as Swedenborg might thus be made to say anything. We answer :
We have not now made him say anything beyond what he has, said,
in effect, in the passages cited in his own words. Beside the in
stances which he mentions, the Author expressly affirms, that the
Word in the letter contains "much more of the like nature ;*'
and will any one assert, that thought respecting the Divine Person
as torn with wounds, is not precisely " of the like nature" with
thought respecting the Divine Mind as torn with passions ? Are
not the two cases perfectly parallel, so that all that is said of the
one is equally true of the other ? In fact, in the above modifi
cations of our Author's language, we have merely introduced specific
truths fully included in the general ones asserted by him : And
the only reason why he has not said exactly the same things, in the
same or similar words, we are satisfied, is, because it never entered
his head to imagine, that any reader of his writings would think
of the Lord's Risen and Divine Body as really bearing such
marks. When a single passage is produced from his works, in
which he actually mentions the existence either of such wounds or
such appearances, we will acknowledge that we have now spoken
rashly ; but not before.
4. We may now see what is to be thought of the assumption, in
the paper " On the Identity,"-]- that the member of the Church in
all ages is bound to receive the same opinion respecting the identity
as to substance of the crucified and Risen Body, and its remaining
pierced with wounds, as was entertained by the apostles when the
Lord appeared to them and said, " Behold," &c. To say that the
members of a dispensation different from, and superior to, that which
the apostles were the divinely commissioned agents for establishing,
should hold the great truths of the church precisely as held by the
apostles, and should not in any point go beyond the ideas contained
even in their Epistles, written when they had received their highest
illumination ; even this would sound not very congenial to the
ideas which all members of the New Church have imbibed, respect
ing the superiority of the truths revealed for the New Jerusalem
dispensation : but to say that the New Church is to entertain no
other ideas respecting the Lord's Risen Body than were conceived by
the disciples in the gross state in which they were when favoured
with the sight of their Risen Master, — on which very occasion, as
we learn from Mark, " he upbraided them with their unbelief and
hardness of heart ; '' j — this were to renounce the superior light of
• P. 158, note. f P. 93-96. J Chap. xvi. 14.

176 THE GLORIFICATION OF
the New Dispensation indeed. It also were requiring us to believe
what we have no means of knowing, since not a syllable is recorded
as to what they thought on the occasion : thus what we are to
believe, is only what another person thinks they would have thought.
Admitting it, however, to be not improbable, that they did think
the Divine Form that appeared to them to be the material body that
was crucified, material still, and still, as none but a merely material
body could be, pierced with wounds ; then we think it abundantly
certain, from what has already been shewn, that such thought was
the mere result of their gross state of apprehension at the time, and
that the appearances were mere accommodations to their thought ;
since it is so certain that " the Lord appears to every one according
to his state."
Now that, as already intimated, we do the disciples no injustice
in this conclusion ; and that all we have said respecting them is
amply borne out by our Author ; is proved by the following testi
mony : " The reason that internal truths were not received [signified
by Rachel's being barren] , is, because interior truths are such as
transcend man's faith, inasmuch as they do not fall into his ideas,
neither are they according to external appearances or the fallacies
of the senses, by which every man suffers himself to be led, so as
not to believe what does not, in some measure, coincide with them. —
Such also was the nature of man when the Lord came into the
world ; and still more corporeal were they become, especially they
who were of the church. This appears manifest from the disciples
themselves, who were continually attendant on the Lord, and heard
so many things concerning his kingdom ; and who nevertheless could
not as yet perceive interior truths, not being able to form any other
notion of the Lord than what the Jews at this day entertain con
cerning the Messiah whom they expect, viz., that he would exalt
them to dominion and glory above all nations of the universe : and
after they had heard so may things from the Lord respecting his king
dom, still they could not but think that the kingdom of heaven was
like an earthly kingdom, and that God the Father was supreme
therein, and the Son next him in supremacy, and afterwards they
twelve, and that thus they were to reign in order ; wherefore also
James and John desired that they might sit, the one on his right
hand and the other on the left : and the rest of the disciples were
angry at their desiring to be greater than the rest. On this
account, also, the Lord, after he had taught them what it was to be
greatest in heaven, still spake according to their apprehension,
namely, that they should sit on twelve thrones, and judge the twelve
tribes of Israel. If it had been told them that by the disciples
were not meant themselves, but all who are principled in the good
of love and faith, &c, — they would have rejected the saying, and,
leaving the Lord, would have returned every one to his own
occupation. The reason why the Lord so spake, was, that they
might receive external truths and be thereby introduced into in-

the lord's humanity. 177
ternal truths. For in those external truths which the Lord spake,
internal truths are stored up and concealed ; and in process of time
these latter are made manifest, and, when this is the case, those
external truths are dissipated, and serve only as objects or mediums
of thinking about internal truths." *
Need any more be cited (and abundance more might), to prove the
gross state of apprehension in the disciples ? Could men, addressed
to whom the Lord's words respecting the things of his kingdom fell
by correspondence into the language of appearances drawn from their
carnal apprehensions, behold the Lord's Divine Person as it was in
Itself, without an interposed veil of appearances, also correspond
ingly drawn from their carnal apprehensions ? And what was the
purpose of the Lord in manifesting himself in this way, while their
sensual state rendered them incapable of beholding or receiving him
in any other, but the same as when he spoke of their sitting on
twelve thrones, &c. ? that is, because, otherwise, " they would have
rejected the saying, and returned every one to his own occupation ? "
And where was anything of deception in either case, since the
earthly things spoken or exhibited flowed necessarily according to
correspondence, the truths intended being the spiritual things cor
respondingly exhibited; and when even the uncongenial form in
which they were outwardly presented, was made the means of their
receiving external truths, and being thereby introduced into internal
truths ? Thus, by the promise of sitting upon thrones, they were
kept in the acknowledgment of the Lord as a King, and prepared for
being afterwards enlightened as to the nature of his kingdom ; and
by the appearance (if seen) as of wounds, they were led to acknow
ledge that the Lord was risen indeed, and was in ultimates a Man,
and were prepared to be afterwards enlightened as to the Divinity
of his Humanity. Because the Lord said to the disciples, "When
the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall
sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel," when no
such thing was literally intended, — were it allowable to say, in
the inconsiderate language of the paper " On the Identity," f
" Then the Lord taught an untruth, and practised on his disciples
to cause them to believe it as a truth ! " And is it allowable to say
the same respecting the appearances as of wounds, if seen, by the
disciples ? The cases are exactly alike, and all that is predicable of
the one, is predicable of the other ; except, that, in the case of the
promise about sitting on thrones, there is a specific gratification,
highly delightful to self-love, held out to the disciples, to deprive
them of which, in the style of the paper " On the Identity," would
not be a simple " untruth," but a fraud ; whereas their seeing marks
as of wonnds, when none were there, could only occasion a mistake,
by which self-interest received no injury. But the fact is, there
was no " untruth," on the Lord's part, either in the one case or in
*A. C. 3857. t P- 9*.

178 THE GLORIFICATION OF
the other, nor anything " practised on his disciples to cause them
to believe it as a truth." To conceive such a thought, is the pure
result of " viewing the Word outwardly and not inwardly." The
paper " On the Identity" here addresses us, and says, " Can you,
gentlemen, by any stretch of imagination, conceive the disciples, — or
rather yourselves in their place, — as saying to their Master, in
reply, ' We see the marks of crucifixion, indeed, but we know that
the body in which those marks seem to appear was never crucified ;
the body that we see, notwithstanding the marks you shew, is not
the same body that was crucified, — the marks are not real, but
illusive.' "* Being personally appealed to, we frankly answer, " No,
we cannot. It must have been perfectly impossible for the disciples,
or for us in their place, to have thought, or said, any such thing."
But the reason is, because the marks, if seen, were not an illusive
appearance purposely put on by the Lord to lead the disciples into
error (how shocking such a thought !), but were the actual produc
tion of their own state of mind. They could not think of, and
thence could not see, the Lord otherwise : and he in his mercy per
mitted them to see him as alone they could see him, in order that,
being thus convinced that he was alive, they might be afterwards
led to receive the conviction, that he was Life Itself. As they who
are in evil see the Lord's love as anger, so did (we will suppose)
the disciples, in their, as yet, non-acknowledgment of the Divinity
of his Humanity, see the Lord's Person as pierced with wounds. In
the former case, the anger is not in the Lord, but only in the carnal
conceptions, through the mist of which the wicked perceive him :
and in the latter case, the wounds were not in the Lord's Divine
Body, but in the carnal conceptions, through the mist of which the
disciples saw him. And both the one appearance and the other are
or were deemed by the respective parties to be real, nor could they
possibly think or see otherwise, because " every one sees the Lord
according to his own state."
Perhaps it will be said, that the disciples were not in the same
carnal state, and had not the same carnal conceptions respecting the
nature of the Lord's kingdom, when they saw him after his resurrec
tion, as before. We answer, The contrary is certain. That their
grief, on account of the crucifixion, was mixed with great disappoint
ment on account of the end thus apparently put to their expectations
of a temporal^ kingdom, is proved by the discourse of the two going
to Emmaus : and that their conviction of his having returned to
life renewed those expectations, is evident from their asking him,
just before his ascension, whether he was not then about to " restore
again the kingdom to Israel ! " f It is even probable that his ascen
sion would have been as great a disappointment to them as his
crucifixion, had not an angel, comforted them by saying, " This same
Jesus, wliich is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in
like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven : " % words which,
• P. 94. + Actsi. 6. X Ver. 11.

the lord's humanity. 179
no doubt, they interpreted, agreeably to their wishes, into a promise,
that he would soon come back, to set up such a kingdom as they
wished for. And though the new Divine Proceeding which was
given soon afterwards, had sufficient power to dispel the grosser part
of these apprehensions, yet it is evident from many things in the
Epistles, that the expectation of a personal coming of the Lord, in
the life-time of that generation, continued to be entertained ; the
proper meaning of the prophecies respecting the second coming being
truths belonging to the New Dispensation to be given at the second
advent, and which, therefore, could not be revealed to, or by, the
apostles of the first. Thus there can be no doubt whatever, that the
apprehensions of the disciples respecting the Lord and his kingdom,
at the time when they saw him after his resurrection, were of the
same nature as when, probably a fortnight before, the seeming pro
mise was given them that they should sit upon twelve thrones : and
thus, what they then saw of imperfection in the Lord's person, must
have been as much of the nature of an appearance, as what they
before heard from his lips.
But not only did the Lord not then appear to the disciples such as
he was in his own Divine Person, but it is questionable whether he
ever so appeared to any human being. Amongst the appearances most
perfectly representing what his Person is in itself, was that to the
disciples at the transfiguration, when " his countenance shone as the
sun, and his raiment was white as the light :" yet it is certain .that
what was then exhibited as a shining garment, was not literally a gar
ment, but was his Divine Truth Proceeding, which appeared as such.
Perhaps it will be said, that here, at least, the disciples saw, if not the
Lord's Person, as it is in Itself, yet real appearances which corres
ponded to what it is in Itself. This is true ; and the reason was, as
shewn in our last Chapter, because they were at this time raised into a
purely spiritual state, and thus elevated above the sphere of their own
sensual apperceptions ; and because, also, what they then saw was the
Lord's Divine Spiritual Body, fully glorified, or in which Divine Truth
was fully united to Divine Good ; the proceeding sphere of which,
therefore, had power to remove the defective apprehensions of the
disciples when elevated into it : in all which respects, this transac
tion differs from those immediately after the resurrection. Besides,
the Lord not having yet been crucified, the disciples had not that
scene yet impressed on their memory, to furnish the images corres
ponding to non-acknowledgment of the Divinity of the Humanity,
into which the Divine Sphere afterwards flowed, and so occasioned
the appearance of wounds as if in his Risen Body.
But let us notice, also, what is to be concluded from the instances
in which the Lord was seen after the ascension. Thus, when he
appeared to John as related in the Apocalypse, because " his feet
were like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace," " and out of
his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword," * are we to conclude that
• Ch. i. 15, 16.
n2

180 THE GLORIFICATION OF
the Lord's feet are really excandescent brass, and that for a tongue,
he literally has a sharp two-edged sword protruding from his mouth ?
If the former is only said comparatively, yet the latter is said
positively ; thus the evidence that a sharp two-edged sword really
proceeds out of the Lord's mouth, is far more decisive than that for
the reality of the wounds seen by the disciples : yet who believes
such an appearance to be an exhibition of the Lord's tongue as it is
in itself? So, he that sat upon the throne " was to look upon like
a jasper and a sardine stone, " * but who supposes that this was
anything but an appearance, and that the Lord is, in his own proper
person, either a jasper and a sardine stone, or like them ? Again, it
is said of the Lord, when seen as the Word of God, thathe " hath on
his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord
of lords :"f but who conceives that the Lord has really this title im
printed on his thigh ? Yet why not, if he really had wounds in his
Risen Body ? Was the former a mere appearance ? Then, a fortiori,
the latter must have been such, so much more degrading as such
marks would be to his Divine Character. The Lord, again, as to his
Divine Humanity, was seen as a Lamb " standing as it had been
slain.""!: Was this to indicate, as concluded by literalists, that the
Lord retains in heaven the wounds by which he was slain, to plead
them before the Father ? Or is Swedenborg's exposition true, that
it was a mere appearance, representing the denial by the Church
of the Divinity of his Humanity ? Then who can doubt, if marks
of wounds were seen as in the Lord's Risen Body by the disciples,
that these also were mere appearances, presenting a similar repre
sentation? And who can doubt, further, that if Swedenborg had
ever noticed and explained the wounds seen by the disciples at all,
he would have explained them as he has done the wounds of the
Lamb? Perhaps it will be objected, that appearances of the Lord, recorded
in a prophetical book, may be different in their nature from those in
the historical books. We answer, Such difference cannot be main
tained : witness the appearances of the Lord described by Moses, the
mere appearances attending which are pointed out by our Author in
extracts cited above ; and witness the appearance at the transfigura
tion. But if any such difference could be established, it is far
outweighed by the fact, noted above, that it is never said, either by
the Lord or by the evangelists, that there were marks of wounds in
the Lord's Risen Body ; the utmost that can be inferred is, that
the disciples saw, or seemed to see, such appearances: indicating,
plainly, that they were not in him, but in their mode of viewing him.
On the whole, from Swedenborg's account of the disciples while
the Lord was with them, and till after his ascension, it is obvious
that their state at the time abundantly accounts for the appearances
seen by them : And from a review of the other recorded appearances
* Ch. iv. 3. t Ch.xix. 16. X Ch. v. 6.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 181
of the Lord, as compared with that to the disciples on his resurrection,
it may be concluded with certainty, that if it is " the indispensable
duty of the man of the church to believe" the supposed fact of the
wounds, in the one case, it can be no less his indispensable duty to
believe the expressly asserted facts in the others : and yet, that many
of these, even when less unworthy of the Divine Person as it is in
Itself, were mere appearances, is doubted by none.
5. There is still other evidence, in proof, that the marks of wounds,
if really seen by the disciples, were mere appearances occasioned by
their defective state of reception. The same truth results from the
manner of the Lord's manifestations of himself to other persons after
his resurrection.
The Lord was first seen by Mary Magdalen ; and, intimately as
she was acquainted with his person before, though she " saw Jesus
standing," she " knew not that it was Jesus." Though he tenderly
said to her, " Woman, why weepest thou ? whom seekest thou ?"
" she supposed him to be the gardener." It was not till he addressed
her again, with that power of making the simplest expression convey
to the hearer the meaning intended, which, as we observed above,*
must belong to the Lord's words spoken immediately from his Divine
Person, — it was not till he thus " saith unto her, Mary ! "f that she
recognised his " identity." Now, must not his thus appearing to her
as a stranger, under an incognito impervious even to her devoted
attachment, have been occasioned by her state as to the reception of
him, — exactly corresponding, as it did, to her ignorance of his being
alive, her persuasion, that, though gone from the tomb, he had been
" taken away," and her consequent inability to receive, through the
understanding, the conviction that he had risen ? And why, when
proposing to produce that conviction, instead of appealing to her
heart by the mode of his pronouncing the word " Mary," did he not
(supposing he ever did it to others) display before her eyes his
wounded hands and feet ? Clearly, because her difficulty of acknow
ledgment was not of the same kind, and therefore the difference of
her state drew from the Lord a different sort of manifestation. It is
perfectly clear that she never thought of desiring to behold marks of
wounds, to convince her either of the Lord's identity, or that he was
still a Man, and not merely a spirit, and that she had no incredulity,
either as to his Divinity or his full Humanity : therefore she saw
nothing of the kind.
Very similar is the case of the two disciples, with whom Jesus
walked most of the considerable distance (about seven miles) from
Jerusalem to Emmaus. They, also, knew that the Lord's body was
gone from the sepulchre, and had heard the report of the women, who
had been told by angels that he was alive ; but though, perhaps,
not absolutely incredulous, they were " slow of heart to believe," and
thought his crucifixion fatal to the expectation, that it was " he that
* P. 161. t John xx. 14—16.

182 THE GLORIFICATION OF
should have redeemed Israel." This mixture of doubt and belief
then, while it enabled them to see the Lord, prevented them from
knowino- him ; and though " their hearts burnt within them while he
talked with them by the way,"* and they had such protracted oppor
tunity for observing him, they remained unconscious of his identity.
This incapacity in their state for recognising him, was the reason,
that, as Mark expressly says of this circumstance, " he appeared in
another form unto two of them."*f Be it observed, that the cir
cumstance of his appearing differently to different persons, is here
expressly stated. Whatever the particulars of that other form
might be, it certainly did not include the marks of wounds in his
hands and feet ; for had they been there, and the Jews wearing no
covering on the feet but a sandal, which was a mere sole, it were
very unaccountable that, in so long a journey, they should have
failed to observe them. At last, however, when "he took bread,
and blessed, and gave to them, their eyes were opened, and they
knew him ;"J not because they now at last noticed the wounds
in his hands (yet certainly, if there, they could not possibly have
failed to see them ; and had this been what caused their recognition
of him, it could not fail to be mentioned) ; but because, as explained
by E. S. in an extract cited above,§ they were affected by the cor
respondence of that action.
So, in the case of the women spoken of by Matthew, when " Jesus
met them, saying, All hail," "they came, and held him by the feet,
and worshipped him ;"|| but not a word of their putting their
fingers into the print of the nails, or of their having any idea that
such marks were there.
The Lord manifested himself, again, at the sea of Tiberias to
seven of the disciples, who, tired, apparently, of waiting so long in
vain to be made grandees of state, had actually " returned to their
own occupation" of fishing. In this instance also, at first, " the
disciples knew not that it was Jesus ;''*{[ and it is pretty clear,
when they did, that they saw no marks of wounds. But we do not
insist much upon the proof here afforded ; because a theory which
assumes that the wounds supposed to be seen before, were natural
wounds, the work of nails and a spear, may naturally assume also,
that, several weeks, probably, having now elapsed since their inflic
tion, they had had time to heal. For the same reason, we waive all
notice of still later appearances.
From all the circumstances results this dilemma : Either there
really were "the prints of the nails" in the Lord's hands and feet,
or there were not : If there were, it was by a mere appearance,
the result of something in their own state, that Mary Magdalen,
the two disciples, and the others, did not see them : If there were
not, it was by a mere appearance, the result of something in their
* Luke xxiv. 13, 16, 20—25, 32. t Chap. xvi. 12. X Luke xxiv. 30, 31.
.§ P. 163. || Chap, xxviii. 9. If John xxi. 4.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 183
own state, that other parties seemed to see them (supposing they
did so). That, in some instances, the Lord appeared to those who
saw him according to their state, is proved. Swedenborg's
testimony, that there is a law of divine order, from which every
individual sees the Lord according to his own state, and cannot see
him otherwise, is confirmed and demonstrated, even from the letter of
the Word, in regard to (at least) some of the appearances of the
Lord after his resurrection. Let then every reader judge for himself,
according to his ideas of what is most worthy qf the subject, whether
the appearance as of wounds, if really seen by the disciples, was the
result of the operation with them of this universal law, or whether
the wounds were imprinted on ihe Lord's Divine Body itself.
It is now fully ascertained, that in no respect whatever do the
Lord's words, " behold my hands and my feet," &c, support the
notion, that there were wounds, or marks, or appearances of them,
in the Lord's Risen and Divine Body Itself ; or that it was the same
in substance with the body crucified ; or that materiality adhered to
it in any sense whatever. As stated in an extract above, if the
passage really appears to intimate the existence of such marks, " it
is described according to appearance, yea, according to the
fallacies of the senses ;" to confirm which as genuine truth, is to
"fall into phantasies." According to the genuine Canon of
Faith laid down above, " Any notions said to be drawn from
the literal sense of the Word, which are inconsistent with the
pure truths of its internal sense must be false, and the texts on
which they are founded are, in the letter, appearances of truth,
expressed according to the apprehensions of the natural man :"
But any notions which impute unworthy attributes to the Lord,
whether impotence of mind, such as anger or the like, or imper
fection of body, such as wounds, are inconsistent with the pure truths
of the internal sense of the Word : according to which, the Lord
is Perfection Itself, both with respect to his Essential Divinity
and his Divine Humanity : Therefore, such notions must be false;
and if the words, " Behold," Sec, do seem to imply anything of the
kind, they so far present, in the letter, appearances of truth, and are
expressed according to the apprehensions of the natural man. The
soundness of this argument we apprehend, " no logician can deny."
We fear that the length to which our observations have been
carried, will prove tedious to some ; yet as the subjects discussed,
both direct and collateral, are matters of great interest in themselves,
and have not hitherto been seen in clear light by many, we hope that
this endeavour to place them in such light will be acceptable to all.
Already, we trust, it has amply appeared, that the Lord's words,
" Behold my hands and my feet," &c. understood agreeably to the
real truths and genuine doctrines of the New Church, afford no
countenance to the notion, that the Lord's Risen Body was marked

184 THE GLORIFICATION OF THE LORD'S HUMANITY.
with wounds, or was in any sense material. But, extensive as are
the proofs abeady brought forward, the observations of the paper
" On the Identity" require that we should further proceed to shew,
that such notions are in themselves impossible to be true; and
afterwards, that none of the instances in which the words are quoted
by Swedenborg afford real countenance to such an interpretation
of them. Finally, the positive statements of that paper being all
disproved, the principal objections advanced in it, against the specific
sentiments proposed in our Review, on the subject of the Lord's
putting off the material particles and putting on the Divine sub
stantial in their place, must finally be shewn to be ill-founded. This,
then, by divine aid, we will perform, as briefly as possible, in our
next. We repeat, that it is with great pain that we have been
driven to the refutation of a paper of Mr. Mason's ; and that in
nothing that we have said do we mean the slightest personal impu
tation against its author. We have written, and shall write, purely
in behalf of what we believe in our inmost conscience to be the
truth, to decline the advocacy of which, when called upon, would be
a derelection of duty. Commending, then, what has been already
given to the blessing of the Lord, in vindication of the real Divinity
of whose Humanity it has been penned, we take leave of our readers
for the present.

185

CHAPTER IX.
THE VIEWS OF THE EDITORS RESPECTING THE LORD'S RESURRECTION —
(Concluded.)
BY MR. NOBLE.
V. We now proceed, according to the announcement of our inten
tion in the last chapter, to offer some considerations which evince, That
such notions as suppose that there really were wounds, or marks
of wounds, in the Lord's proper Divine Body, and thus that it was
ihe same as to substance, or consisted of the same material particles,
as the body crucified, are in themselves impossible to be true :
deducing thence, as we proceed, the real truth upon the subject.
In what sense the body which rose was the same as that which
was crucified, the paper " On the Identity," with all its rigour
of affirmation in words, is far enough from indicating clearly. In
words, the most absolute identity is asserted ; yet that there was
not identity in all respects is even there admitted ; so that, even
according to the reasoning of that paper, the body was only the same
" in some sense," after all. The difficulties and contradictions
attending the notion of its identity in any but a very restricted sense
are so insurmountable and obvious, that great caution is used to avoid
the acknowledgment of them too openly ; yet enough is shewn to
betray the consciousness of their existence. An identity as to sub
stance is certainly meant to be maintained, — else why such displea
sure at the notion of the dissipation of the material particles ? — yet
there is a shrinking from the avowal even of this, the main object in
view, on the alleged ground, that neither the writer nor any body else
knows what either matter or substance is ! * — an evasion so weak, as
to be equivalent to a confession of the untenableness of the point.
We must assume, however, to give tangibility to the assertion of
" the Identity of the Crucified and Risen or Glorified Body of the
Lord," that an identity as to substance is what is primarily intended :
and we will endeavour to shew, that in whatever way such an identity
can be meant to be maintained, it cannot be true.
We can see but three ways in which such an identity can be sup
posed. The first may be, by imagining, That the body crucified and
laid in the sepulchre was simply restored to life, being still com
posed in all respects of the same matters and substances as when
it died ; which alone would be a real and absolute identity. The
* Pp. 97, 104 (note).

186 THE GLORIFICATION OF
second supposition will be, That though the body remained the same
in appearance, and retained all the material particles in the same
places, yet Divinity was superadded, and so mixed with the pre
vious matters, as to change the quality of the whole, and to make
the compound no longer " merely material," but what the paper on
the Identity denominates "Divine material;" in which case, it is
obvious, the identity would be merely partial, the body crucified
bearing no more proportion to the body raised, than a few pounds of
dust* to Infinity. The third supposition must be, That the body cru
cified and the body raised were the same, only by ihe transmutation
of the material particles into the Divine Substance, that is, by the
actual transmutation of a few pounds of dust into Infinity : in which
case, it will be seen, there is no real identity, as, though the original
matters were not put off, they can be no longer, when transmuted,
the same substance as before.
When placed before the mind in a distinct form, the perfect
impossibility and self-contradictoriness^ of all the schemes must be
felt as so palpable, that most persons, we apprehend, will shrink
from the thought of seriously affirming any of them. We have read
the paper " On the Identity" several times, with the hope of drawing
from it some more rational and intelligible idea of the grand subject
of the Lord's glorification in ultimates ; but in vain. We should be
very sorry to mistake, and thence to misrepresent, the writer's mean
ing ; but we think we cannot do so, when we say, that one or other
of the above schemes is the one supposed ; though he possibly has
not yet acknowledged to himself that he holds either. In reading
various parts of the paper, sometimes one has been suggested, and
sometimes another : but they do not seem to be readily combinable ;
and no trace of any other could we find. It may seem a waste
of words to say anything in refutation of them : when reduced to a
tangible form they sufficiently refute themselves : yet as the notion
of identity as to substance in the Lord's crucified and risen body
seems strongly rooted with some, a few observations on these —
the only conceivable modes, as appears to us, in which such identity
could exist, may help to dispel the fallacy.
It is to be borne in mind, that the only proof assumed to exist
of the supposed identity, is, the retention, in the risen body, of the
wounds, or marks of wounds, " the work of nails and a spear," made
on the cross.
1. The hypothesis, then, respecting the Lord's resurrection, which
promises, at first sight, to account most fairly for the retention of
the marks, is certainly that which supposes, That the body crucified
and laid in the sepulchre was simply restored to life, being com
posed in all respects of the same matters as when it died. We
have already given conclusive proofs, t that the Risen Body could
* " The former human, viz. the maternal, is that of which dust and aslies are
predicated." A. C. n. 2265.
t Pp. 166—8.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 187
not be the same in this sense : but we also intimated that there is
yet another proof ; which is, That the identical material body laid
in the sepulchre, if raised, could not retain the wounds of which
it died ; and yet the supposed retention of these wounds is the only
foundation of the notion of the identity as to substance.
It is with reluctance that we offer any illustration of this point,
on account of the difficulty of presenting a vivid picture of the
situation of the body as crucified and wounded to death, and the
consequences of its supposed revivification as thus abused, without
seeming to hurt the reverential feelings with which the whole sub
ject should be contemplated. Yet if received by the reader as
intended by us, no such improper effect will be produced. Our
reverence for the Lord himself, and humble admiration of his mercy
in the whole work of redemption, cannot be diminished, but in
creased, by a view of the circumstances of horror which attended
its last acts, and of the condescending love which permitted such
tortures and indignities to be inflicted on the Humanity and material
nature derived from the mother, while yet in vital connexion with
the Lord's Divine Soul, and with the Humanity thence already put
on, except as to the ultimate of all. And if we are thus enabled
more clearly to see, that nothing which could thus suffer, could thus
be maltreated, and could thus die, could be capable, in such state,
of resuscitation, or of constituting, in any state, any part of the
purely Divine Humanity, which, through the medium of such
sufferings and indignities inflicted on the infirm Humanity, the
Lord put on to the very ultimates, we surely shall be better enabled
to view the whole subject with unmingled emotions of reverence,
admiration, and gratitude. Withthe same feelings, then, with which
little children in heaven may present the circumstances of the Lord's
resurrection in their instructive sports,* — removing everything
unworthy of the subject from our idea of the Lord's Divine body
itself, — would we endeavour to consider those of the crucified body,
to show that, if resuscitated, it could not have still had in it the
wounds and injuries with which it was entombed.
(1.) For how, be it asked, are the healing of the sick, whether
medically or miraculously, and the raising of the dead, in any case
performed ? Can the sick be restored to health and activity, unless
the disease or the injuries of which they are languishing be first
cured ? Can the dead be raised to life, before the disorganization
of the bodily frame by which its death was occasioned, whether
the consequence of disease or of violence, is removed, and the body
restored to that state of correspondence with the spirit, the want
of which is the cause of death 1 When the Lord cured the sick
and hurt who applied to him, did he miraculously enable them to
perform the usual functions just as they were ? or did he remove the
diseases and defects themselves ? When he healed the man who
* Heaven and Hell, n. 335.

188 THE GLORIFICATION OF
had the withered arm, for instance, did he merely give strength to
the arm, by a perpetual miracle, as it was ? or did he " restore it
whole as the other ?"* With respect to himself, his body died
like that of other crucified persons ; which is, partly through loss of
blood from the wounds made by the nails kept open by the strain of
hanging by them, partly from exhaustion and loss of the nervous
fluid through extreme and protracted suffering, and sometimes from
an effusion of blood or lymph on the brain or some other vital part.
In the Lord's case, medical expositors are of opinion, that there was
an effusion of lymph in the pericardium, or bag that contains the
heart ; which would account for the water that issued with the blood
when his side was pierced with the spear. After he was already
dead from the preceding causes, the terrible wound just mentioned
was inflicted on the body, and must have caused the emission of
nearly the whole of the remaining fluid blood, which alone was amply
sufficient to prevent, as it was intended, all possibility of reviviscence
with such a wound unclosed. Upon the supposition, then, that the
material body which was crucified arose, are we to imagine that the
Lord raised the identical body in this mangled and bloodless state,
still pierced with a mortal wound, still destitute of the vital fluids ;
and animated it, still a corpse, as in such a state it must be, giving
it activity by a continued miracle ? Or must we not imagine, that
he raised his own body as he restored the bodies of others, — by first
perfectly healing all the injuries it had sustained ? This is a fact,
which, we should suppose, no person claiming the exercise of reason
will think of denying. If the Lord raised his crucified body, he
doubtless, as in the case of all the other sick and dead whom he
restored, first " made it whole" — healed the injuries of which he
had died. But if so, what becomes of the supposition, that he
retained, eight days after, the marks of the wounds in his hands and
side, — that is, the wounds themselves, still open, and capable of
admitting, respectively, a finger and a hand ?f
Thus, most unquestionable it is, strangely and generally as it has
been overlooked, that the very circumstance considered alone ade
quate to account for the appearance of the wounds in the Lord's
Risen Body — its supposed identity with the body crucified, — is
totally incompatible with the existence of such marks. If, then, the
identical body, as to substance, was raised, and the marks still were
seen by the disciples, it must truly have been by an "illusion"
" practised upon them" by miracle, that they fancied they beheld
them. But independently of the impossibility of the retention of the
wounds, the only supposed proof of absolute identity, there is another
circumstance, already mentioned incidentally, which proves that the
* Mark iii. 5.
+ That the reader may be satisfied of the accuracy of the medical part of the
above argument, we beg to state, that we are indebted for it to an eminent
physician.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 189
body raised could not be the same as to substance with the body
crucified, and especially with the body which the Lord had when he
said, " Take, eat : this is my body." A considerable portion of the
finer fluids of the material body was expelled in his agony in the
garden, being the commencement of the series of sufferings which
constituted his last passion, and when " his sweat was as it were great
drops of blood falling down to the ground." A further great loss of
blood, and of the fluids necessary to life, was sustained by the cruci
fixion itself, when the corporeal system was so drained of its vital
elements, that death actually ensued, the body was reduced to the state
of a corpse, and its revivification was rendered impossible, without
the miraculous restoration of the substances abstracted. Finally, a
wound was made by a bulky spear-head in the side, large enough to
admit a man's hand, which pierced the envelope of the heart and
probably the heart itself, and from which must have flowed most of
the blood yet remaining in the body. Little was now left of the
material frame but the mere shell of solids, and that in a most shat
tered and mangled state. Now the blood and finer fluids are the
most important substances of the bodily constitution : and these were
to be restored, if still material, by a new creation, before the body
could live again. As to its most important parts, then, the body
which rose could not, upon any supposition, be the same in sub
stance with that which was crucified. No fact whatever can be
more demonstratively certain.
(2.) We have now the means of ascertaining the real truth upon
the subject. For may we not justly here ask, Are we to suppose
that the material blood thus once " expelled," ever had its place
supplied by a miraculous production of more of the same kind ? Is
it not far more reasonable, far more agreeable to all perceptions of
truth of every degree, to conclude, that the material blood, in which,
according to Scripture, Swedenborg, and all true philosophy, is the
life — the natural and animal life — being thus providentially dissi
pated, opportunity was given for the divine life, in its own divine
substance, in the corresponding degree, to descend from within, and
that thus truly divine blood, being the Divine Truth in substance,
took the place of the former ? It is common enough with New-
Church preachers, and has probably been done by Mr. Mason as well
as others, to speak of the absurdity of supposing, that the material
blood shed upon Calvary is the blood, through faith in which we are
saved : is it not equally absurd to imagine, that the material blood
thus shed, because wanted no longer, and an absolute impediment to
the divine work now about to be wrought, had its place supplied by
a new creation of other material blood ? Is it not almost self-evident,
that what succeeded in its place was the divine blood itself — the
Divine Truth — the veriest real existence, brought into the ultimate
degree ? As, by the confession of all parties, all within the mere
body was already Divine, what could thence descend into the sphere
of the body, to perform the functions of the blood in the body about

190 THE GLORIFICATION OF
to be raised, but that which was Divine also ? It really seems equally
the obvious conclusion of reason, and the dictate of perception, that,
the greater portion of the blood, without which no material body can
live a moment, being thus " put off," the blood " put on " in its
place, must, as in every other example of a " putting on" after a pre
vious "putting off" mentioned in the New- Church writings, have
been Divine.
We think that we have now obtained proof even from the letter of
the Word (at least far more conclusive than any that can thence be
drawn for the identity as to substance of the Risen Body and its
retention of the wounds), That that part of the body crucified which
consisted of the blood was for ever put off, and a corresponding
Divine Principle or Substance put on in its place. The former
part of this statement is expressly made in the Word : and the latter
follows by necessary consequence from the known order of the Lord's
glorification, though not mentioned in the letter of the Word, other
wise than as included in the representative description of the whole
descent or putting on from within, as the descending from heaven of
the angel of the Lord.
But if it is thus certain, that the Lord's Risen Body was without
the material blood by which the crucified body had lived, and that
the Divine Truth of the Lord's Divine Humanity in ultimates was
put on in its place, it follows with equal certainty, that the same was
the case also with respect to the flesh and bones. The mere shell,
consisting of these only, composed " the residue of the Humanity
from the mother," the rejection of which, we are expressly assured,
was " signified by the burial."* But none will pretend, that a shell
of material flesh and bones could receive in its vessels any other than
material blood. To think of confining in the vessels of a body of
flesh the Divine Substance — the Life Itself, which, in the Lord's
Divine Humanity, took the place of the blood in the infirm humanity,
— would be more extravagant, than to attempt to keep nitric acid in
vessels of copper, or fluoric acid in vessels of glass, or to pour melted
iron, in its highest state of excandescence, into a mould of wood, or
to confine the all-permeating ether in any earthly substance.t But
* Doct. Ld., n. 16. Tr. Cr. Rel., n. 130.
f As we doubt whether the testimonies we have given, both hi our Review of
Mr. Hindmarsh's Essay and in our previous articles in this discussion, on the
impossibility of any substance whatever not Divine bearing the immediate con
tact of what is Divine, have been sufficiently attended to, we wiU here add the
following : " Things purely divine are such, that, supposing them applied or
ascribed to man, he would instantly die, and, like a stake cast into the body of
the sun, would be consumed, so that scarce his ashes would remain. Therefore
the Lord, with his Divinity, approaches both angels and men by the medium of
a hght tempered and moderated according to the abUity and quahty of each. — He
approaches in like manner by heat. In the spiritual world is a sun, and in the
midst of it the Lord. From that sun the Lord, by the medium of heat and light,
enters by influx into the whole spiritual world, and into aU that dweU there ;
and— into the souls and minds of men. That heat, in its essence, is his Divine
Love, and that light, hi its essence, is the Divine Wisdom. This light and heat
the Lord adapts to the ability and quality of every recipient angel and man ; and

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 191
respecting the particulars of this wonderful work, — the putting off
of the material flesh and bones and the putting on of the Divine
Substantial in the corresponding degree, — we have no information.
On the afternoon of the sixth day of the week the crucified body was
entombed, and on the morning of the first day of the week following
the Divine Body arose : but no human eye beheld, and no finite
understanding can grasp, what passed in the sepulchre in the interval.
But we know for certain that the body entombed was dead ; and a
dead body is the most perfect opposite to life which nature exhibits :
we know also, that the body which rose was not merely alive, but was
Life Itself : and we thus have all the reason that we can have to
believe, that it was not by a slip of the pen, but in the full exercise
of his accustomed illumination, that E. S. wrote, in his manuscript
work on the Athanasian Creed, " That the Lord in the sepulchre,
thus through death, rejected all the Humanity from the mother, from
which he underwent temptations and the passion of the cross, and
dissipated it, by reason that it could not be conjoined with the Divine
Itself, and so assumed a Humanity from the Father : thus that the
Lord, with the Humanity, rose again, perfectly and clearly glorified."
We have now, through Divine aid, accomplished more than we pro
mised when we began this section. We only undertook to prove the
impossibility of the hypothesis, That the body laid in the sepulchre
was simply restored to life, being composed in all respects of the same
matters as when it died ; with the impossibility of the assumed fact,
constituting the only ground on which the identity, on any hypothesis,
is made to rely. That the body laid in the sepulchre, if raised iden
tically, would retain the marks of the wounds of which it died. We
trust the total impossibility of both points has appeared with an
evidence, which none who exercise their understanding on the sub
ject can overlook. But the same facts, we have found, which, on
being considered, dispel the fallacy, are equally potent in pointing
out the truth. It is still true, as in the days of Samson, that " out
of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweet
ness ;" or that when evil and falsity are removed, goodness and truth
succeed in their place. A feeling of holy awe has accompanied us,
while touching on particulars so delicate and minute : but the facts
this is effected by means of spiritual airs or atmospheres, which convey and trans
fer such light and heat. The Divine Principle itself immediately encompassing
the Lord, is what constitutes that sun. This sun is distant from the angels as
the sun of the natural world is from men, to prevent its touching them with its
naked and immediate rays ; for in such case they would be consumed, as was
said above, hke a stake cast into the body of the sun. — The sun of the spiritual
world, such as it is since Jehovah God assumed the Humanity, and added to it
redemption and new righteousness, is described in these words in Isaiah : "The
light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, &c." (T. C. R. 641.)
Thus we see that the ardency of the sun of heaven was not diminished, but in
creased, by the Lord's assumption of Humanity ; that, although only the first
proceeding from him, its intensity is such as would consume the most exalted of
created beings if brought near to it ; and that, in the midst of this sun, the Lord
in his Divine Humanity abides. Who can suppose, that the sheU of dead earthy
matters taken down from the cross could bear such contact ?

192 THE GLORIFICATION OF
recorded in the Word have, as it were, led us by the hand, and have
conducted us to the plain, and, we humbly trust, impregnable con
clusion, That the fluids of the crucified body being certainly put
off, corresponding Divine Substances were put on in their place ;
and as the solids of that body could contain in their vessels no
fluids but material ones, the same process must have taken place
in regard to these also. Thus, as to substance, it is perfectly
impossible that the crucified and the Risen Body could be the same.
2. The second hypothesis upon which identity as to substance of
the crucified and Risen Body may be attempted to be supported, is,
That though the body remained the same in appearance, and
retained all the material particles in the same places, yet Divinity
was superadded, and so mixed with the previous matters, as to
change the quality of the whole, and to make the compound no
longer " merely material/' but what the paper on the Identity
denominates "Divine Material." The identity, however, in this
case, would be merely partial, scarcely amounting to identity at all ;
since the proportion between the body entombed and the body raised
would be no more than that of a few pounds of dust to Infinity.
But, we apprehend, the same objection of impossibility lies against
this scheme as against the preceding ; and that it is not only liable
to this fatal objection on the same grounds as that is, but on others
of its own.
(1 .) It is to be borne in mind, that the only alleged proof of the
identity as to substance of the body as crucified and as risen, is the
assumed fact of its continuing to retain the " prints" of the nails and
spear, — the holes made by those material implements. But if, as we
have seen, the retention of those marks was impossible, even on the
supposition of the simple restoration of the material body to life, much
more palpable is the impossibility on the supposition of the combina
tion of the former material particles with the Divine Substance Itself,
with which no nails or spear could ever, by any possibility, have come
in contact, and on which, did not this impossibility stand in the way,
it would still be far less possible for them to inflict a wound, than to
stamp permanent marks on water, on air, or on the purest ethereal
fluid. To speak of the existence of marks, " the work of nails and
a spear," in a body in any sense Divine, were certainly one of the
most self-contradictory propositions ever enunciated. The unques
tionable fact, that if there were the marks of wounds in the Lord's
Risen and Divine Body itself, they were " the work of nails and a
spear," is alone enough to raise the barrier of utter impossibility
against the whole hypothesis.
Another objection, fatal to the former hypothesis, is also equally
so to this. If the Divine Substance which descended in the place of
the blood and other fluids poured out in the garden and on the cross,
could not possibly be contained in the vessels of the material frame
only adapted to confine the latter, equally impossible must it be for
the Divine Substance to enter into any combination with the material

the lord's humanity. 193
particles, when these, on the mere approach to contact, would, accord
ing to the express statements of E. S., "be instantly consumed ;
like a stake cast into the body of the sun."
But independently of all reasoning on the subject, we have the
express affirmation of Him to whom it was given to deliver from the
Word, seen in divine illumination, the true doctrine of the Lord,
that any such combination of the Divine Substance with the mate
rial nature, rendering this "divine-material," and abolishing its
original properties, were impossible. Having cited a passage from
the Athanasian Creed, which states that the Lord had " a Divine
Essence from the Father and a Human Nature from the mother,"
and "that this Human Nature from the mother was not transmuted
into the Divine Essence, neither commixed therewith," he adds,
" Indeed, such transmutation of the Human Nature into the Divine
Essence, or commixture therewith, is impossible." * Citing the
words of the Athanasian Creed more precisely, he afterwards says
that the following passages are true, if applied to " the maternal
Humanity, in which the Lord was when in the state of humiliation :
' That Jesus Christ was God and Man, God of the substance of the
Father, and Man of the substance of the mother, born in the world :'
— also, ' That this Manhood was not converted into the Godhead,
neither commixed therewith ;' it being put off, and a Divine
Humanity assumed in its place. "f There cannot be a plainer inti
mation that whatever was not Divine in itself, and therefore, if
retained, must have been commixed with the Divine Substance, was
" put off," and what was Divine " assumed in its place," such com
mixture of what is Divine with what is not Divine being impossible
in the very nature of things, or by the immutable laws of Divine
Order. This testimony may perhaps be attempted to be put aside in
regard to commixion, as it has been attempted to be put aside, in the
paper On the Identity, in regard to transmutation ! the utter failure
of which attempt we shall see by and by.
But the fact is, that the writer of the paper On the Identity, is
conscious of the complete impossibility of the commixture of the
Divine Substance with anything not Divine, such as the crucified,
material, dead body undeniably was. How then is this insuperable
obstacle to be surmounted ? By the extraordinary expedient of de
priving the Divine Nature, in regard to this subject, of substance
altogether ! Divinity, according to the paper On the Identity, is,
so far as the Lord's glorification is concerned, not a substance, but a
" quality," an " energy," and a " state ! " Divine substance does
indeed exist, but then it passes into created substance by impercep
tible gradations, thus not by any discrete degree, but by degrees of
continuity, so that it is impossible to determine where uncreate ends
and created begins ! We will examine some of the arguments.
(2.) " If it be demanded of me," says the writer of the paper On
* Doct. Ld. n. 35. t Io^- a- 59.

194 THE GLORIFICATION OF
the Identity, " ' Do you believe that the Lord's glorified body con
tains the very same material particles that it did when upon the
cross ? ' I only answer, that I do not know what a ' material particle'
is, and I doubt whether my questioner can shew me." * Was ever
so poor an evasion ? Suppose it could not be shewn what a material
particle is, how would this affect the question ? Would it be at all
less certain that there are such things as material particles ? Or if a
material particle be too subtle a thing to be grasped by the imagina
tion, as lying beyond the reach of the senses, would this abolish
matter in the mass, whether composed of an aggregate of invisible
particles or not ?
"And if it be demanded," he proceeds, "how I can believe that the
material body could be made divine, I may perhaps reply, not only,
that the Lord hath said it [the contrary of which has been shewn] ,
but that as E. S. tells us that man takes with him to heaven a cover
ing to his spiritual body formed of the purest substances of nature
(the gross body being for ever laid down) , they being, I presume,
made spiritual by the indwelling spirit imparting to them a quality
which makes them homogeneous to the spiritual world ; — I see not
why, by analogy, the whole material body of the Lord should not, by
his divine energy descending into and wholly pervading it, be made
divine." f That this theory may become an argument, it must
first be proved, that the pure substances of nature which form
the cutaneous covering of the spiritual body are " made spiritual by
the indwelling spirit," which as much dwells in them while in
" the gross body" as afterwards. The fact is, that, according to
E. S., these purest substances of nature are of a quality intermediate
between purely spiritual substance and the visible or sensible sub
stances of nature, and have no quality when separated from the
body but what was equally in them before. But supposing it were
otherwise, and all the assumed premises were valid, still the " ana
logy," on which the validity of the conclusion depends, wholly fails.
The premises suppose, that the spirit makes spiritual these pure
natural substances only when " the gross body is for ever laid down."
" By analogy," then, " the gross body" which could be crucified and
die, must have been " for ever" put off, before even its interior
substances could be made Divine. This is the only conclusion
which follows from the premises, — a conclusion directly opposite to
that for which the argument was invented.
Thus the idea that the Divinity added to the material particles of
the crucified body, and ' by combination with which this is said to
have been made " Divine-material," was nothing but an " energy,"
is easily seen to be groundless. Is that of the superadded Divinity
being merely a " state" at all more tenable ?
(3.) We continue the last quotation : " I see not why the subject,
— that body which was crucified. — might not be glorified, the subject
* P. 96. t Ibid.

the lord's humanity. 195
remaining the same, although not in the same state in which it was
before ; the process of glorification not consisting, I conceive, in the
substitution of one subject for another (as your theory asserts), but
in an alteration in the state of the same subject ; and thus in the
putting off the state of the subject without putting off the subject
itself, and the putting on a new state, the subject all the while pre
serving its Identity." * In this use of the word subject there is a
fallacy. The subject of the Lord's glorification in ultimates was
his body considered generally and abstractedly not as consisting of
a certain number or weight of material particles. To assume
the latter is to assume the very point in dispute — it is a mere
begging_ of the question. Is it not a thoroughly ascertained fact
in physiology, that man is continually changing the particles of
which his body is composed, so that, in the course of a few years,
his body contains none of the particles of which it consisted before,
and thus is not, as to substance, the same body as before ? Is this
fact to be set aside by the fallacious argument, " I see not why the
subject — the body consisting qf the former particles, — might not
be renovated, the subject remaining the same, although not in the
same state in which it was before ; the process of renovation not
consisting in the substitution of one subject for another, but in an
alteration in the state of the same subject," &c? It is perfectly
true that the subject of this renovation is the body, but the body
generally or abstractedly considered, not as consisting of the
identical original particles ; for the putting off of these, and the
putting on of others in their place, is the very thing meant by its
renovation. So with respect to the Lord, the putting off of the
infirm humanity and the putting on of the Divine Humanity is the
very thing meant by his glorification. The renovation, in the way
described, of man's body, is also a natural image of the glorification
of the Lord's ; the grand difference being, that the new bodies which
man thus successively acquires, being still formed of substances
taken from the world, are all of the same general quality ; whereas
the Body with which the Lord rose, being Divine, was altogether
different in quality from that which was crucified, which was in all
respects merely human. Nor will the suddenness, or quickness, with
which, in respect to the Lord, the putting off of the material par
ticles and putting on of the Divine Substantial, was effected, destroy
the general parallel. In him, also, the same process of renovation
of the body from without had always been going on, as in other
men ; but without altering its general merely human nature ; as
shewn in our article in the No. for November.-*- In this respect,
as Mr. Mason himself admits, " all ordinary waste was supplied in
the ordinary way :"J that is, by ordinary aliments and by absorption
from the atmosphere. So that, however his natural body might
thus have come to consist of pure material substances, in finite
* P. 96. t In a fourth Letter (unpiinted.) J Chap. vi.
02

196 the glorification of
correspondence with his Divine Essence, it still was mediately from
the mother, thus finite, and merely material. Therefore the last
great renovation, though effecting an immense change of state, only
effected it by a total change of substance.
The subject of the immense alteration of state in the Lord's body
at his resurrection as being only a consequence of a total change of
substance, may also be illustrated by the changes of state produced
in the human system by medicines. When a person is in what is called
an ill habit of body, and is treated by his physician with medicines
called alteratives ; how do these act ? Is it by changing the state
of the solids or fluids without any change of their substance ? Is
it not -by expelling from the system the morbific matters and impure
substances, and exciting it to take up from the food and the atmo
sphere purer substances in their place? Who then can conceive of an
infinite change of state, — a change from mere humanity, materiality,
and death, to Divine Humanity, Divine Substantiality, and Life
Itself, without a commensurate change of substance ?
But the paper on the Identity continues, " The whole of the
strong expressions of E. S. relating to the ' putting off' of what was
from the mother will better apply to the putting off the state of the
subject, than to the putting off the subject itself." The fallacy in
the use of the word subject — putting it for a certain congeries of
material particles instead of the body generally, still continues.
Swedenborg's strong expressions are, the putting off exterminating,
abolishing, dispersing, and the like, of the Humanity from the
mother, or of the infirm humanity ; of the whole of that Humanity,
of all that Humanity, of everything whatever from the mother, and
soon. Now can "straightforward candour" say, that such truly
" strong expressions" apply better to the state of the subject than
to the substances occasioning such state ? Can more comprehensive
terms than all and everything be devised ? And do not all and
everything embrace the thing itself as well as the state of it ? When
similar transformations of Swedenborg's plain meaning were once
before attempted to be accomplished by the continual unauthorized
introduction of the magic word state, we well remember how Mr.
Mason felt and spoke upon the subject ; and little did we suppose
that he would ever pursue the same course : his doing so, is a plain
mark of the insuperable difficulties with which he feels his theory
to be surrounded. If such were Swedenborg's meaning, why, in all
the thousand places where he treats of the putting off of the Hu
manity from the mother, has he never said so ? Why, when it was
so natural to expect, that his readers would understand his constant
declarations about putting off that Humanity to include the material
particles, has he never warned them that he meant no such thing,
but 'only a change of the state of them ? He does indeed often
speak of the states in which, not the material body, but the Lord,
was, while glorifying his Humanity ; but never does he commit the
solecism of calling either the Humanity from the mother, or the

197
Divine Humanity, a state. He treats largely, for instance, of his
two general states of humiliation and of glorification : but how does
he account for his being in two such contrary states ? In this lumi
nous way : " In consequence of his having, at first, a Humanity
from the mother, which he put off by successive steps, the Lord,
during his abode in the world, was alternately in two states ; the
one was a state of humiliation, or exinanition, and the other a
state of glorification, or union with the Divinity which is called the
Father. He was in the state of humiliation, at the time, and in
the degree, that he was in the humanity from the mother; and he
was in the state of glorification, at the time, and in the degree, that
he was in the Humanity from the Father. In the state of humilia
tion, he prayed to the Father as to a Being distinct from himself ;
but in the state of glorification, he spake with the Father as with
himself. In this latter state he said that the Father and he were
One ; but in the other state he underwent temptations, and suffered
the cross, and prayed to the Father not to forsake him : for what
was Divine could not be tempted, much less suffer the cross." (Doct.
Ld. n. 35.) Can language be framed more precise, to show that
the Humanity, either from the mother or from the Father, was not
a state, but a thing ; and that the Lord, the general subject, was in
a state of humiliation or of glorification according as he was in one
Humanity or the other ?* Nor will any refinements about the sub
stance immediately taken from the mother having been put off long
before avail anything against this explicit testimony, that the Lord
was in the Humanity from the mother when he suffered the cross.
* It wiU hardly be pretended that E. S. does call the Humanity from the
mother a state, on account of his words in A. C. n. 2288 : "His state of humi
liation was when he was in the Human Principle, which he derived hereditarUy
from the mother ; his state of glorification was when he was in the Divine Prin
ciple, which he had from Jehovah his Father. The former state, namely, the
Human Principle from the mother, the Lord altogether put off, and put on the
Human Divine Principle, when he passed out of the world, and returned to the
Divine Principle Itself, in which he was from eternity, together with the Human
Principle made Divine." Here, when he says, "the former state, namely, the
Human Principle [or Humanity] from the mother," he does not mean to say
that that Humanity was only a state ; but it is one of the elliptical forms of
speaking, wliich, notwithstanding the uncommon precision of his language so
much insisted on in the Letters on the Identity, abound throughout his works,
and which are often such, that the construction of the sentences is not gram
matically complete. " The former state" refers to the state of humiliation just
before mentioned, which it is said he was in when in the Humanity from the
mother : and the eUiptical sentence completed at length would be like this ;
" The former state the Lord altogether put off— that is to say, he altogether put
off the Humanity from the mother, in which he was when in that state, and put
on the Divine Humanity,— when he passed out of the world," &c. So when it
is said (A. C. n. 2795), — " the Lord came into the world, and put on the human
state itself with its infirmity ; for thus he was capable of being tempted as to
the Humanity,"— it wiU not be pretended that he only induced a human state
on his Divinity without any actual assumption of human nature itself. He put
on the human state, or the state of a man, by actually assuming a Humanity,
like that of ordinary men, by birth of a human mother. We believe these are
the only two passages in the whole of the writings of E. S. in which the word
' state is used in such connection.

198 THE GLORIFICATION OF
Will it be pretended, that the general term, the Humanity from the
mother, does not include the material body ? What was it, but the
material body, that was nailed to the cross ? What was it, but the
material body, that died on the cross ? What was it but the imme
diate sensations of the material body that suffered the tortures of the
crown of thorns, the scourge, and the hanging on the cross ? Then
what is meant, in the above passage, when it is said that the Lord
was in the Humanity from the mother when " he suffered the cross,"
seeing that " what is Divine," or the Divine Humanity, " could not
be tempted, much less suffer the cross," but the material body, and
its immediate sensations ? What, likewise, was it but the material
body, when deprived of its sensations, that was transfixed with a
spear, and thus deprived of its remaining fluid blood ? And what
was it but the material body, deprived of its fluids, destitute of sen
sation, a mere mass of dead matter, which constituted " the residue
of the Humanity from the mother," the rejection of which was
signified by its being put in the tomb, and which was actually there
rejected ? We will not say, that if Swedenborg meant otherwise,
he was " the most illogical blunderer" that ever wrote : but we will
say, that whoever can understand him otherwise must have great
singularity of apprehension.
(4.) We proceed with our quotation from the paper On the Iden
tity : " I can conceive a change of state arising from a change (by
substitution if you please) of those interior forms according to the
character of which is the quality of the state, but I cannot conceive
of the substance of the subject being changed, for what do we
know of the substance of things beyond their superficies ?" *
Reading this with New-Church ideas, and supposing the word
forms to be used in the sense in which it occurs in E. S., we
could not at first understand it. When E. S. uses the word forms,
he commonly means by it substances in forms. What else is the
meaning of the phrases so often occurring, that man is a form
receptive of love and wisdom from the Lord, — that every one is the
form of his own life or love, and the like ? Thus when, for instance
(Div. Prov. n. 319), he mentions " the organic forms of the mind,"
and speaks of " vortical ingyratidns and egyrations wonderfully con-
fasciculated into forms receptive of life," does he not mean the same
as when he calls them, in the next line, " these purely organic sub
stances and forms 1" How could he think oi forms as not having
substance, and write as follows ? " That /cms or substances are the
recipients of life, may be manifest from singular the things which
appear in living subjects ; also that recipient forms or substances are
arranged in a manner the most suitable for the influx of life.
Without the reception of life in substances, which are forms, there
would not be any living thing in the natural world, nor in the
spiritual world. Series of most pure fascicles, like stamina, are
what constitute those forms. The case is similar with those things
* P. 97.

the lord's humanity. 199
which therein are eminently modified ; for modifications receive their
form from the forms, which are substances, in which they are, and
from which they flow ; for substances or forms are the determining
subjects," &c. (A. C. n. 7408.) Thus, a change by substitution
of interior forms, in the language of E. S., would mean, a change
of the substances or forms ,- forms, in him, and in philosophical
writers in general, when used alone, and not in express contra-dis-
tinction to substances, never meaning mere shapes independent of
substance. In this latter sense, however, we must take the word,
if we would think with the writer of the paper On the Identity ;
and then we shall find it a word without any sense, in most of the
innumerable places where it occurs in Swedenborg. As to the
argumentum ad ignorantiam, " I cannot conceive of the substance
of the subject being changed, for what do we know of the substance
of things beyond their superficies?" — we were not aware that all
men's knowledge of substances was quite so superficial. But if it
were, the "superficies" is a sufficient index that the substance of a
tree is something very different from the substance of a stone : and
were a stone even carved into the form of a tree, an examination of
its superficies would soon convince us, that the substance of a tree
was not in it.
(5.) Now comes the most astounding paradox of all : " The
Divine is the substance of all substances ; and there is a line between
the substance of God and of the creature, but who can trace
that line ? — yet that man ought to be able to do it, who talks
familiarly of material substances being put off and divine substances
putton, a language to which, I confess, I can attach no ideas."*
We always before thought, that God, or the Divine Substance, is
so infinitely superior to everything finite and created, that the diffi
culty was, not, to avoid confounding the Divine Substance with the
created, or God with the creature — not, to avoid profanely grasping
hold of the former while we think we are only handling the latter, —
but, to conceive how there can ever be any conjunction of the one
with the other at all. The constant testimony of E. S. is (what in
deed, as being self-evident, was abundantly known before him), that
between Infinite and finite, Uncreate and created, there exists no
proportion ; t and it is his remark, that it appears as if the Infinite
could not be conjoined to the finite, because there exists no
proportion between infinite and finite, and because what is finite
is not capable of comprehending what is infinite." (D. P- n. 54.)
But it seems, if we would accept the hypothesis of identity as to sub
stance of the Lord's crucified and Risen Body, we must reject all this
as erroneous. Infinite and finite, instead of being separated by an
impassable boundary, and bearing no proportion to each other, are but
different continuous degrees of the same general thing, divided by a
line so imperceptible that no one can trace it : we may easily blunder
beyond it without being aware, and matter may have passed into
• P. 97.
t As in A. C. n. 2572, H. H. n. 273, D. L. W. n. 76, D. P. n. 32, &c, &c.

200 the glorification of
Divino Substance while to our perceptions it is mere matter still !
No person of common perception, we apprehend, will be persuaded
out of the eternal difference " between the substance of God and of
the creature," and its necessary consequence, that, in the case of the
Lord, the one was put off and the other put on, by the argumentum
ad ignorantiam, so incessantly resorted to, in one shape or other, in
the paper On the Identity.
We again continue the quotation. " E. S., in treating of the
Lord's glorification, never talks qf substances being put off, I believe,
but only of forms, and states, or " principles."* The same erroneous
notion oi forms as empty shapes continued. Whenever Swedenborg
talks of the putting off oi forms, he uses the word in the sense already
explained, as meaning substances informs, or formed substances, or
the subjects of affections, and thoughts, and states. As this point is
of great importance, we will prove it.
" It is to be observed," says E. S., " that knowledges and truths
are no more things abstracted from the very pure substances which
are those of the interior man, or spirit, than sight is abstracted from
its organ the eye, or than hearing is abstracted from its organ the
ear. There are purer substances, and those real, from which they
exist, the variations of the form of which, animated and modified by
an influx of life from the Lord, present them. — Spirits themselves
are forms, that is, they consist of continuous forms, equally with
man ; but of such as are purer, and not visible to the bodily sight,
or that of the eye." (A. C. n. 3726.) The first part of the above
extract proves, that knowledges and truths are not independent of
substance ; and the latter part of it evinces, that forms, in the
author's language, when the word is used alone, are substances in
forms ; unless we are prepared to admit both angels and men to be
composed of shapes without substance.
" When man is regenerated he is made altogether another person,
and is made new, wherefore he is said to be born again, and created
anew. Then, although his face is similar to what it was before, yet
his mind is not similar. — The change of state cannot be perceived in
the body of the man, but in his spirit, the body being only the cover
ing of his spirit ; and when the body is put off, then his spirit appears,
and indeed in altogether another form, when he is regenerated.
Hence it may appear what a regenerate person is, or one that is born
again, or created anew, viz. that he is altogether another and anew
man. From this image it may in some measure be conceived what
the glorification of the Lord was. He was not regenerated as man is,
but was made Divine, and this from the veriest Divine Love, for he
was made Divine Love Itself." (A. C. n. 3212.) It will not, we
suppose, be argued, that this last sentence only relates to the Lord's
spirit, and not to his body ; since it is universally admitted, that
while regeneration in man only extends to his spirit, the correspond
ing process of glorification in the Lord finally included his body also.
* P. 97.

the lord's humanity. 201
Thus what is said of the making new of man as to his spirit, to
illustrate the subject of the Lord's glorification, equally affirms, in
regard to him, the making new and Divine of his body itself. If
it should be contended, that the "altogether another form" of the
spirit when regenerated only relates to its shape, not to its substance,
take the following passage to determine the point : " The human
mind is an organized/orm, consisting oi spiritual substances within,
and oi natural substances without, and lastly of material substances
[meaning as to these last, while in the body] . The mind, the delights
of whose love are good, consists interiorly of spiritual substances such
as exist in heaven; but the mind, the delights of whose love are
evil, consists interiorly of spiritual substances such as exist in
hell.'" (T. C. R. n. 3S.) It is perfectly evident, then, that when the
mind or spirit is made new by regeneration, the substances such as
exist in hell, and the natural substances corresponding to them, are
cast out, and substances such as exist in heaven, with natural sub
stances corresponding to them, taken on in their place.
The Lord, by most grievous temptation-combats, reduced all things
in himself into divine order, so completely, that nothing whatever
remained of the Humanity derived from the mother ; so that he was
not made new, as another man, but altogether Divine. For the
man who is made new by regeneration still retains in himself an in
clination towards evil, yea, evil itself:— but the Lord altogether
ejected all the evil which was hereditary with him from the mother,
and made himself Divine even as to the vessels, that is, as to the
truths." (A. C. n. 3818.) And these, we have before seen, are
substances, and, as we shall presently see, with respect to the Lord,
substance itself. Besides, how can a total putting off of substances
as well as of qualities, be more strongly expressed, than by saying,
" nothing whatever remained of the Humanity from the mother?"
Were the substances of that Humanity nothing whatever ?*
* We wiU take occasion from its being also said in this extract, that " the Lord
altogether ejected all the evil which was hereditary with him from the mother,"
to notice the argument of the paper on the Identity, that the Lord put off nothing
but evU and infirmity as qualities, and that in pure material substance there is
no evU.* But if not positive or active evil, infirmity, at any rate, is essential to
the very nature of matter, be it as pure as it could be by creation- : and infirmity
is an opposite to Divine Perfection, and totaUy incapable of co-existing with it,
This whl be admitted : therefore, argues the paper on the Identity, the infirmity,
as a mere quaUty, was put off, but the matter retained. But infirmity is an
essential quality of matter, and no more separable from it than heat is separable
from fire, or cold from ice. To separate infirmity from matter then, would be to
annihUate it : wherefore, if infirmity, as a quality, was really put off from the Lord 's
body, the material particles which were the ultimate basis of that infirmity, and in
which it substantially inhered, were necessarily put off too.
We sometimes hear people talk of pure matter, and pure nature, as if they held
the crude notions of Jacob Behmen on that subject ; or as if the ordinary notions
* " By glorification I understand the putting off the infirmity of the Humanity
from the mother (which humanity I have called ' the subject'), AND the putting- on
perfection from the Father." (P. 99). " The Father's image alone existed in the
pure material substance of the body, as its subject, when he said, 'It is finished.' "
(Ibid. Note).

202 THE GLORIFICATION OF
" The Divine is Life Itself, and thus has Life in itself ; whereas
the merely human is an organ of life, and thus has not Life in itself.
The Lord's Humanity, when made Divine, was no longer an organ
were true, — that had Adam not faUen he would have Uved on earth for ever, and
we, his descendants, should have been dwelling with him in a terrestrial paradise
at this day. Whereas the New Church teaches, that man was never intended to
live on earth for ever, by reason that his state, whUe in the material body, is,
from the very essential nature of matter itself, necessarUy imperfect and impure.
Matter is not only essentially finite, as everything not Divine is, but it infinite in
the most extreme degree, being limited to a portion of space, and the quantity of
matter that forms a human body to a very smaU portion of space indeed. Its
very nature, as matter, consists in these very properties : to talk or think then
of Divine matter, which is identical with Infinite matter, is the same as to talk or
think of the Extreme-finite Infinite — the most extravagant contradiction-in-terms.
So, a Divine-material body is the same as an Infinite-material Body ; and this is
the same as an Infinite Extreme -finite Body : again a most palpable contradiction-
in-terms. As then it is certain, and allowed, that the Lord put off from his
Humanity aU the essential properties of matter, without which matter is not
matter, or to take away which from matter is to annihilate it, it is certain that he
put off from his Humanity the substance of matter itself.
Nor is it true that, with respect to the Lord himself, matter was not evU.
Whatever resists the purposes of his Divine Love is indubitably evU. But what
could more resist the purposes of Divine Love than the adherence of matter to
the Lord's Humanity ; which, if suffered to remain, would for ever have chained
it down to the limitations of space, would actuaUy have kept it in this world for
ever, would have precluded the possibility of his presence, as to the ultimates of
his Humanity, in the innumerable other worlds of the universe, and would have
prevented for ever the communication of the Holy Sphit, — of that special divine
influence which illuminates the mind of mem as Uving in the world, and which
could not be given till the whole of the Lord's Humanity was glorified or made
Divine in itself ? What greater opposite to the Lord's Divine Love, — thus, what
greater evU, can be imagined than this ? Doubtless then, this is included in the
evUs which E. S. says the Lord expeUed from his Humanity; and this could
only be expeUed by the putting off of the material particles themselves.
Another inseparable property of matter is, that it is in itself dead, and can
never be made more than a mediate receptacle of life ; since that which lives in
man is in no case the material body. "The body is material, and what is
material which is proper to the body is added, and almost as it were adjoined
[not conjoined] to the sphit, that the spirit of man may Uve and perform uses in
the natural world, aU things of which world are material, and in themselves void
qf life : and since what is material does not live, but only what is spiritual, it may
be manifest that whatsoever lives with man, is his spirit, and that the body only
serves it, altogether as what is instrumental is subservient to a moving Uving
force. It is said indeed of an instrument, that it acts, moves, or strikes ; but to
believe that this is of the instrument, and not of him who acts, moves, or strikes
by it, is a fallacy."* " What is capable of being conjoined to the Divine Being
or Principle, cannot be dissipated; but what is not capable of being conjoined to
the Divine Being or Principle, this is dissipated." f Man, as to his sphit, is
capable of this conjunction, and therefore cannot be dissipated for ever : hut his
material body is not capable of it, wherefore it is put off by death and afterwards
dissipated. Now it cannot with any shew of reason be pretended, that the Lord's
body when handled by the executioners (some of the vhest of mankind, who
certainly were not put in a spiritual state on the occasion) — when scourged,
crucified, speared, and entombed, — was not, as to the essential properties of
matter, as absolutely material, as the hands that handled him, and the instru
ments that pierced him. It was then, in itself, as much " void of life," — as much
a mere "instrument," — even before it actuaUy expired, as are the bodies of
ordinary men : it must then have been " dissipated," as they are, only much more
quickly, because not left to the ordinary process of decomposition, but exposed
to the contact of the Divine Substance put on from within. As a stage of this
process, the body in common language, and as with ordinary men, " died" —

Ii. II. n. 432. t Ibid. n. 435.

THE lord's humanity. 203
of life, or a recipient of life, but was Life Itself, such as that of
Jehovah himself. Hence it may be evident, that when the Lord was
made Jehovah even as to his Humanity, that which was not life in
itself, that is, which was merely human, was cast off."* We suppose
it must be confessed, that an organ and a recipient must be a sub
stance. Nor will it be denied, that the material body, so long as it
lived, was, mediately, an organ of life in ultimates. It was not then,
most certainly, Life itself ; nor will any pretend that it was. But
if not Life itself while it lived, was it Life Itself when dead ? Will
any assert such a contradiction-in-terms as this ? But " whatever
was not Life in Itself— was [not, made Life in Itself, but]
cast off."
" Since the influent love and the recipient forms agree, it follows
that the angel or man is such as his love is ; and this, not only in
his organic first principles, which are in the brain, but also in
the whole body. — Hence it may be manifest, that man is made
altogether new when he is regenerated ; for then all things apper
taining to him are arranged to receive heavenly loves. But, with man,
the previous forms are not destroyed, but are removed; whereas,
with the Lord, the previous forms, which were from the maternal
ground, were utterly destroyed and extirpated, and Divine ones re
ceived in their place. For the DivineLove does not agree with any
but a Divine Form : all others it absolutely casts out. Hence it is
that the Lord, when glorified, was no longer the Son of Mary."+
Can it be pretended that the forms here spoken of are mere empty
shapes, not substances inform ? Are not " the organic first prin
ciples in the brain," and " the whole body," substances ? Thus is
it not "manifest," that when it is said that " man is made alto
gether new when he is regenerated," it means, as to substance
also ? Can it be imagined, that " the previous forms," which, with
men, " are not destroyed but removed," are mere shapes without
ceased to be the mediate receptacle of life which it had been before : and if not
capable of being made an immediate receptacle of life while it yet mediately lived,
how could the same materials, when altogether dead, be made Life Itself f
But the considerations which present themselves on aU sides, evincing that
there was a change of substance in the ultimate body as weU as of state or quality,
are so numerous that we know not where to stop. Our chief object here is, to
shew, that to be dead, as weU as to be infirm, is an inaUenable property of
matter. The state of being dead, where life is requhed, if not a moral evU, is a
physical evU of the greatest possible magnitude. There cannot be a perfect oppo
site of Life ItseU, because Death Itself, or death as an active principle, has no
existence ; but the nearest to it is the state of being dead, and " in itseU void of
life." Can it then be doubted, that this is included among the " evUs" inherited
from the mother, which it is said the Lord put off? And as death, separate
from substances that are dead, is nothing at aU, can it be questioned that the
dead matters of the body from the mother were put off also ?
But if the dead nature of matter is only a physical and not a moral evU, it
gives rise to the latter when a desire is suggested to remain in connexion with
it, after the state has arrived when it should be put off. That the infusion of
this deshe formed part of the Lord's last temptations, is manifest from his prayer
in the garden. The prayer was not attended to : the moral evil was extirpated :
and, doubtless, the dead matter which was its ground was cast off too.
* A. C. n. 2658. t Ibid. n. 6872.

204 THE GLORIFICATION OF
substance ? When they are removed from the substance of the
man, how do they continue to adhere to him as empty shapes ?
But if " the previous forms" which with man are only removed,
must, to continue in existence any how, be substances inform, then
is it not indubitable, that " the previous forms" which, with the
Lord, " were utterly destroyed and extirpated," and " the Divine
ones received in their place," were substances also ? To attempt to
deny this, because the word substances is not used, were to raise a
frivolous objection indeed.
Should it be argued, from the concluding words of the above
extract, that whatsoever the change was, it was effected before the
crucifixion, because the Lord had previously refused to acknowledge
Mary as his mother ; the proper answer will readily be seen from
what has before been shown respecting the two states in which he
was alternately, and the successive steps of his glorification. When
he disowned Mary as his mother, he spoke from a principle in his
Humanity (generally considered), which was already glorified, or
in which he had already put on the Divine Humanity. When
he exclaimed on the cross, " My God, my God, why hast thou for
saken me ?" he spoke from a principle in his Humanity (generally
considered) yet unglorified, or in which he had not yet put off the
Humanity from the mother. He spoke, in fact, from the thought
of the sensations of the body ; and the external material frame,
being the lowest ultimate of the Human Principle, was necessarily
the very last thing belonging to the Humanity from the mother
which was put off, and in lieu of which the Humanity in ultimates
from the Father was put on ; or in respect to which he ceased to be
the Son of Mary.
But if, as the paper on the Identity contends, there was no put
ting off and putting on of substances in the Lord's glorification,
then the Divine Love and Wisdom are not themselves substances,
but, as alleged respecting the evils and infirmities of the Humanity
from the mother, mere qualities. Substance is a mere neutral
something in the universe, and Divinity is a mere quality, which
may be imparted to any portion of it at pleasure. Now the distinc
tion between God and man, according to E. S., essentially is, that
in God, Love and Wisdom, and thus Life, are Substance Itself ; that
they are not creatable ; but that forms recipient of them are creat-
able ; and that man is such a, form. Plain enough then it is, that
there is no imparting the Divine Love, Wisdom, and Life, as Divine,
separate from the Divine Substance which they themselves are.
Created substances cannot possibly, by any means whatever, be made
anything more than forms receptive of love, wisdom, and life : to
bring then the Divine Love, Wisdom, and Life themselves into the
sphere so occupied, can be nothing less than to expel or disperse the
finite recipient, and to bring the Divine Substance itself into its
place. This point, also, we will prove.
" That the Divine Love and the Divine Wisdom are Substance

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 205
and Form. The common idea of men concerning love and wisdom
is as of something volatile and floating in subtle air or ether, — and
scarcely any one thinks that they are really and actually substance
and form. — Nevertheless the truth is, that they are real and actual
substance and form, which constitute the subject itself."* This is
largely illustrated in the two next paragraphs: and then follows this
conclusion : " From these considerations it may be seen, that the
Divine Love and the Divine Wisdom in themselves are substance
and form ; for they are Esse and Existere themselves, and unless they
were such Esse and Existere as are substance and form, they would
be a mere imaginary entity, which in itself is not any thing."f It
is next shewn, " Tliat the Divine Love and Wisdom are Substance
and Form in themselves, consequently the Self- subsisting and Only-
subsisting Being or Principle (Ipsum et Unicum) :" j and the self-
subsisting (Ipsum) is defined to be " that which alone Is," and the
Sole-subsisting (Unicum) " that from which every other thing is."§
It is afterwards shown, " That all things in the universe were created
from the Divine Love and Divine Wisdom of God-Man :" whence
" the created universe is an image representative of God-Man. — Not
that the created universe is God-Man, but that it is from him ; for
nothing whatever in the created universe is substance and form in
themselves, nor life in itself, nor love and wisdom in themselves ; yea,
neither is man man in himself ; but all is from God, who is Man,
Wisdom and Love, and Form and Substance, in themselves." |]
It is abundantly plain from these extracts, that Love and Wisdom
in God- Man are Substance and Form in themselves ; and though it
is also shown, that love and wisdom in created man are inseparable
from substance and form, yet, in him. there is nothing whatever of
substance and form in themselves. As the case in regard to man is
more precisely stated elsewhere, the substances and forms of his
mind are not actually love and wisdom, for if love and wisdom pro
perly existed in him as substance and form they would be Divine :
but they are substances and forms receptive of love and wisdom, as
an activity impressed on them by the Divine Love and Wisdom,
which are Substance and Form in themselves. " The light which
proceeds from the sun of the natural world is not creatable, but
forms that receive it are created ; for the eyes are its recipient forms,
and the influx of light from the sun causes them to see. The case
is the same with life, which is the light proceeding from the sun of
the spiritual world ; it is not creatable, but continually flows into
the understanding, which it vivifies in proportion to its illumination
Consequently, since light, life, and wisdom are a one, wisdom is not
creatable ; nor faith, nor love, nor charity, nor good ; but forms that
receive them are created ; and human and angelic minds are such
forms."5[ But the whole subject of man as a recipient substance
and form, and how he is a receptacle of those principles which only
* Div. L. & W. n. 40. + lb. n. 43. J N. 44.
§ N. 45. || N. 52. If T. C. R. n. 40.

206 THE GLORIFICATION OF
exist as substance and form in God, is beautifully unfolded in the
following extracts : " That man is not life, but a receptacle of life
from God, appears from these evident testimonies : that all created
things are in themselves finite, and that man, as being a finite
being, could not be created except of finite substances. Every man
actually consists of nothing but such substances as are in the earth,
and from the earth in the atmospheres. Those things which are in
the atmospheres from the earth, man imbibes through his lungs, and
through the pores of his whole body ; and the grosser substances by
food composed of earthy materials. As to man's spirit, this also is
created of finite substances ; for what is his spirit but the receptacle
of the life of his mind ? The finite things of which it is composed
are spiritual substances, which exist in the spiritual world, and are
also collated into our earth, and stored up therein.  Who does
not see, if he is able to think from reason elevated above the sensual
apprehensions of the body, that life is not creatable ? For what is
life, but the inmost activity of Love and Wisdom, which are in God,
and which are God ? which life may also be called the essential
living force. He that sees this, may also see, that that life cannot
be transcribed into man, except together with Love and Wisdom ?
Who can deny, that all the good of love, and all the truth of wisdom
are solely from God, and that so far as man receives them from
God, so far he lives from God ?  From what has now been said,
it may be perceived and concluded, that the following things are not
creatable : 1. What is Infinite : 2. Love and Wisdom : 3. Life :
4. Light and heat : 5. Activity considered in itself. But organs
receptive of them are creatable, and are created. [This fully illus
trated.] — The sun of this world consists of created substances, the
activity of which produces fire.  The whole man is nothing but
an organized form, adapted to the reception of heat and light both
from the natural world and from the spiritual ; for the heat and
Ught of the two worlds mutually correspond."*
Now must it not be clear to every one, who is acquainted with
such testimonies as these in the writings of E. S. (which none can
peruse extensively without finding many such), and who is capable
of drawing a conclusion from the most plain-speaking premises, that
as Love and Wisdom in God are Substance and Form in them
selves, they could not be put on, in the Humanity, but in their own
Substance and Form; and that "the previous forms" must have
been extirpated before them ? Is this not rendered, if possible, more
certain still when it is known (what every one might know for him
self, had Swedenborg never stated anything so obvious), that man,
as to his material body, consists of such finite substances as are in
the earth and its atmospheres, and as to his spirit of finite spiritual
substances, into which neither the Divine Love, Wisdom, nor Life
can be transcribed as they are in their own Divine Substance ? Can
* T. C. R. it. 470-472.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 207
it be questioned, that the Lord's body, as crucified, was, equally with
the bodies of ordinary man, composed of finite substances from the
earth and its atmospheres, though, it may be, the purest that those
sources could furnish? Can it be pretended that that body was
already partially divine, without asserting continuity between the
Divine Substance and the extreme-finite substance called matter ?
And is not this contrary to the express statements of E. S., who
says, " That which is created in God from God is not continuous
from himself; for God is Esse in itself, and in things created there
is not anything of Esse in itself ; and if in created things there were
anything of Esse in itself, that would be continuous from God, and
what is continuous from God is God?"* Thus if it be supposed
that the crucified body was partly of created matter, and partly of
Uncreate Substance, the material part was " continuous from God,
and what is continuous from God, is God :" thus the whole was
already Divine : but how does this agree with the plain statement,
that " what is Divine could not be tempted, much less suffer the
cross ? " But if il is certain that the body crucified was still of
material, thus qf created substance, then is it indubitable that all
such substance was finally put off, and Divine Substance put on.
In short, so far is it from being true, that " E. S., in treating of
the Lord's glorification, never talks of substances being put off," that
he talks of it everywhere ; and not so to understand him, is to turn
all that he has said respecting the nature of God and the constitu
tion of man, — respecting man's renewal by regeneration and the
renewal of the Lord's Humanity by glorification, — into a mass of
inextricable confusion.
(6.) We hasten through the remainder of this page of the paper
On the Identity, which we examine particularly, as a fair specimen
of the errors which the theory advocated in that paper involves.
" The idea of state, as dependant on forms which modify life, is a
spiritual idea ; but the idea of substance, meaning bulk, is a natural
and sensual idea, and does not become the subject."-}- But does the
idea of substance always include the meaning of bulk ? Is God
not a substance ? Is he to be thought of, in such case, as of any
certain bulk ? Is he only a state ? But though the idea of bulk
is a natural and sensual idea, and unworthy to be conceived in rela
tion to God, was not the crucified body of a certain bulk ? How
was the bulk got rid of and yet the identical matters retained ? How
could it be, unless the material particles, of which bulk is an in
separable property, were put off or dissipated, and the bulk with
them ?
" When E. S. says, that the ' residue'' from the mother was put
off in the sepulchre, and thus by death, if I think of the residue of
state being put off there, my mind is clear ; but if I were to think,
with you, that the whole material body which was crucified, and
* Div. L. % W. n. 55. + P. 97.

208 THE GLORIFICATION OF
which, according to you, was wholly from the mother, even as to its
very substance (notwithstanding thirty years' process of absorption
and assimilation), — was at once put off, and another body instan
taneously produced by divine power in its place, the idea of a
residue would be perfectly incongruous ; for how can the whole
body from the mother be called the residue oi that body ? " In
Tr. Chr. Rel. n. 130, where E. S. repeats, with several abridgments,
what he had before said in Doct. Ld. n. 16, he does indeed say,
that the Lord's " burial signified the rejection of the residue from
the mother ;" but in Doct. Ld. it is, " of the residue qf the Hu
manity [taken or derived] from the mother ;" and, as we largely
shewed in our article in the Number for November, the Humanity
derived from the mother comprehended a vast deal more than the
mere extreme shell of clay, unless half of the Arcana Ccelestia be
sheer invention. But nowhere is it called, as in forgetfulness
asserted in the close of the above quotation from the paper on the
Identity, " the residue of the body." But can " the residue of the
Humanity from the mother," said to be put off " by death," by
"burial," or "in the sepulchre," be fairly construed into "residue
of state?" Is "Humanity" identical in meaning with "state?"
We have already exposed the flimsiness of such a gloss. But sup
posing it possible that " residue of Humanity" might mean " residue
of state," will "straight-forward candour" say, that "all the Hu
manity" only means " residue of state ? " Yet in other places this
phrase is used respecting what was put off "by death," and "in
the sepulchre :" and as it is certain that the whole of the humanity
from the mother was not put off there, its interiors having been put
off before, candour, we should suppose, will understand the phrase
now to mean, all that remained of the humanity from the mother,
— not merely "the residue of the state" of it (whatever such
curious phraseology might mean), but all that remained qf it at
all, being all that was carried, by material hands, from the cross
to the tomb. What can be plainer than the following ? " Man
must die as to the body, in order that he may rise again ; and also as
to his proprium : — for unless both the former and the latter die, he
cannot have the hfe of heaven. As men rise again after death,
therefore the Lord was pleased to suffer death and to rise again the
third day ; but for this reason, that he might put off all the Hu
manity which he derived from the mother, and put on the Divine
Humanity. For all the Humanity which the Lord took upon him
from the mother, he rejected from himself by temptations and
finally by death : and, by the putting on of a Humanity from the
Divinity Itself which was in him, he glorified himself, that is, made
his humanity Divine. Hence it is, that in heaven, by his death
and burial, are not understood death and burial, but the purification
of his Humanity and glorification."* There are many instructive
* Ap. Ex. n. 899,

the lord's humanity. 209
points in this extract. 1. There is a parallelism between man's death
and resurrection and the Lord's. Man dies as to the material body,
in order that he may rise again not in a material body : so did the
Lord. Man, by its death as the means, puts off the material body :
The Lord, by its death as the means, "put off all [that yet remained]
of the Humanity which he derived from the mother," which was only
the material body. 2. " JZZthe Humanity which the Lord took
upon him from the mother, he rejected from himself by temptations
and finally by death :" the interiors of the Humanity from the
mother had been rejected before : what was finally rejected by death,
as the means, was the material body ; for nothing else was crucified,
and so put to death. 3. The " Humanity from the mother" was
" finally rejected by death :'' a " Humanity from the Divinity Itself ''
was " put on" in its place, whereby " he glorified himself, that is,
made his Humanity Divine." Here is mention of three Humanities,
a Humanity put off, a Humanity put on, and a Humanity made
Divine. The Humanity " put off" is stated to be that from the
mother : the Humanity " put on" is stated to be that from the
Divinity Itself : what then is the Humanity " made Divine," but
Humanity considered generally, or as an abstract principle or nature,
without reference to the substances of which, at any given period, it
actually consisted ? — as explained in our Review of Mr. Hindmarsh's
Essay.* 4. Lastly, mention is made both of " purification" and of
" glorification ;" which is worth noticing, because, as we have been
informed, reliance is placed on a few passages in the early part of the
Arc. Ccel. (when the Author was not so exact in his use of terms
as afterwards) which speak of the "purification" of the Lord's
Humanity, as if they supported the notion, that the Humanity from
the mother was not put off as to substance, but only purified as
•to quality. Here, however, the "purification" manifestly is, the
rejection of all the Humanity from the mother, just before asserted ; as
the " glorification " is the putting on the Humanity from the Father.
Thus what was purified is the same as what was glorified — the third
Humanity mentioned, — the Humanity generally and abstractedly
considered. In relation to the glorification itself, the Author rejects
the term "to purify" as too inexpressive, when he says, " To be
circumcised, denotes to be purified, and, when predicated of the Lord,
to be glorified, consequently, to put off what is human, and to put on
what is Divine. "f
The passage just considered from the Ap. Ex., in conjunction with
the preceding from Doct. Ld. n. 16, fully expresses the sense of the
proposition before cited from the MS. work On the Athanasian
Creed, and thus strongly corroborates its genuineness and authority .
" That the Lord in the sepulchre, thus by death, rejected all the
Humanity from the mother, from which he underwent temptations
* P. 50, &c. t A. C. n. 2112.

210 the glorification of
and the passion of the cross,* and dissipated it, by reason that
it could not be conjoined with the Divinity Itself; and so assumed
the Humanity from the Father: thus that the Lord, with the
Humanity, rose again, perfectly and clearly glorified." That from
which the Lord underwent " the passion of the cross," was clearly
nothing but the material body: this then is "the residue of the
Humanity from the mother " spoken of in Doct. Ld. : what is here
said, that it was "rejected," and "dissipated," "in the sepulchre,"
differs in nothing, except being a little more particular, from what is
said there, that its " rejection" was signified by its " burial:" and
when it is here said, that its rejection and dissipation " by death "
was " in the sepulchre," it shews that when it is said in the passage
from the Ap. Ex. and elsewhere, that the rejection of all the
Humanity from the mother was finally effected " by death," we are not
to understand, at the very moment of death, — still less before death,
on his uttering the words " It is finished," as intimated in the paper
On the Identity,-)- — but that it was effected through death as a
means, of which the final effects followed afterwards in due course, of
themselves, — nothing being now left to make active opposition.
When, in addition to what has now been advanced, it is recollected,
that the whole of the material body was never put in the sepulchre at
all, the fluid and vital portions of it having been expelled before, and
only the grosser solid parts left ; it will, we apprehend, be fully seen
by most, that Swedenborg's statement, that " the residue of the
Humanity from the mother," was rejected by burial or in the tomb,
applies most accurately to the material substances, and that to under
stand it of ''the residue of state" were far-fetched indeed. The
word employed by him — residuum — is the very term in use with the
chemists of his time, in whose science he was thoroughly skilled, to
denote the gross parts of any body which remain after the finer have "
been abstracted from the mass : it seems therefore to have been
chosen by him, as most appropriately expressive of that to which he
applied it — the grosser matters of the crucified body which alone
were left, after the finer elements — everything which could render it
a mediate organ of life — had been dispersed.
With respect to the body which was crucified being, " according to
us, wholly from the mother, even as to its very substance ;" we never
said any such thing. It had doubtless been renewed many times
over, and had probably attained an order in its forms, and purity in
* We believe that we have not before remarked, that these words, " and the
passion of the cross," are not in the extract as given by Mr. Hindmarsh. They
are, however, in Mr. Sibly's manuscript, as we have seen with our own eyes.
+ P. 98, note. If his saying " It is finished," now, meant that the whole
glorification was actually completed, then was it equally completed before his
last passion commenced, when he also said, "I have finished the work which
thou gavest me to do." (John xvii. 5.) What is meant in both cases must be a
potential finishing — its having advanced so far, that the perfect and actual com
pletion was sure to follow.

THE LORDS HUMANITY. 211
its substances, as shewn in our November article, as much in corre
spondence as material nature could admit, with its Divine Soul. But
though the identical material particles were not at this time actually
taken from the mother, they were of the same general nature as those
that were. They were still material particles. All " ordinary waste
had been supplied in the ordinary way." Thus the body was still of
the material nature inherited from the mother: and this "evil" or
" infirmity," we have amply seen, could not possibly be put off as an
abstract quality, but only together with all the substances in which it
inhered. As to the "instantaneous" production of a Divine Body
in its place, we do not pretend to say how far it was instantaneous.
As the " rejection" or " dissipation" of the " residue" put in the
sepulchre certainly took place there, we have authority for saying,
that the whole process was wrought between the burial and the
resurrection ; and that is all that we affirm. The notion of the
difficulty of such a speedy work seems to arise from our being apt to
think of the body as the most real part of man — as something more
substantial and irremovable than anything else belonging to him ;
whereas it is constantly treated by E. S. as next to nothing at all, —
as " only an integument or shell, which is dissolved in order that
man may truly live," — as " only obedience," — as " material slough
or refuse (exuvics)," — and the like. But were the body as really
substantial as commonly imagined, how could this create a difficulty
where Divinity Itself was within ? " The separation and putting off
of the maternal humanity is not comprehended by those who have
merely corporeal ideas of the Lord's Humanity, and think of it
as the humanity of another man ; whence scandals arise with such
persons. They are not aware, that such as the life is, such is the
man ; and that the Lord had in him, by conception, the Divine Esse
of' Life, or Jehovah, and that a like Esse of Life existed in his
Humanity by union."* For this Esse of Life to " separate and put
off" the ultimates of the maternal humanity, — the material par
ticles, — when the state was duly prepared, could be a work of no
difficulty at all : and it cannot be pretended, that the putting forth
in ultimates of the Divine Humanity, which is independent of time
altogether, could require a long period of time for its accomplishment.
With one short sentence more we end our quotation from the paper
On the Identity : " Besides, why was the Humanity ' made perfect
by [through in the bible] suffering,' only to be dissipated at last ?"*f*
By " made perfect" the Apostle means the same as the New-Church
Apostle does by " made Divine :" and this it certainly was not, till
the material particles being dissipated, it rose again. Could it be
Divine when taken down by human help from the cross, carried by
human hands to the sepulchre, anointed with material unguents, and
wrapped in linen cloths ? Could it be Divine while it was dead ?
Is it an attribute of Divinity, that "" never slumbers nor sleeps," to
* A. C. n. 2649. t P- 98-

212 THE GLORIFICATION OF
lie dead three days ? As to any perfection that the body had attained
before, this was only a finite perfection — a perfection of material
nature : such perfection might make it more perfectly " a receptacle
of the Divine," but never Divine Itself. Its being more perfectly a
receptacle of the Divine, might prepare the way for the Divine Itself
to descend into it : but when it did so, its finite perfection must have
been superseded by Infinite Perfection, and the material particles
expelled by the Divine Substantial.
We have examined so fully this second hypothesis upon which
identity as to substance of the crucified and Risen Body may be
attempted to be supported, — of the superadding of Divinity to the
substances of the crucified body, and its being so mixed therewith as
to make it no longer " merely material," but " Divine material," —
because this seems to be the system really meant to be recommended
by the paper On the Identity. We have seen that, under whatever
aspect it may be viewed, it has impossibility indelibly stamped upon
its forehead. Any combination of the Divine Substance Itself with
created substance, so as to impart the attributes of the former to the
latter, 'is, we have seen, most obviously impossible ; and the endeavour
to avoid the difficulty by representing Divinity, in regard to this sub
ject, as not a substance, but a mere quality, energy, or state, only
evades impossibility in one form to encounter it in others. Nothing,
it appears, can be advanced in its behalf, but what is either incum
bered with self-contradiction, or with contradiction to the plainest
testimonies of the New-Church Writings.
3. The last of the three ways in which identity, in relation to this
subject, can be supposed, is, That ihe body crucified and raised was
the same, only by the transmutation of the material particles into the
Divine Substance ; that is, by the actual transmutation of a few
pounds of dust into Infinity.
The consideration of this hypothesis need not occupy us so long,
as, though certainly not more impossible than the preceding, we have
heard of none who have ventured to avow, or even plainly to inti
mate, that they hold it.* Yet, possibly, some who are so attached to
the notion of identity as to substance that they cannot bear to relin-
* Since the publication of these articles in the Bepository, this hypothesis
has been put forth, by one of no less note than the learned and excellent
Dr. Tafel, and more recently, by a writer in the American New Jerusalem
Magazine, (Oct., 1855.) The Doctor states his view of the subject in a letter,
addressed to the Secretary of the London Printing (now the Swedenborg)
Society, and printed in the Society's Beport for 1839. He says : —
" One of the primary obstacles to the reception of the doctrines is the almost
impossibility, for the majority of mankind, to imagine that the Lord's Human,
and especially his body, could become divine, and how [it was effected]. They
do not consider that it is admitted, according to the views of a sound philosophy,
that materiality [le materiel] is nothing in itself ; and, that analysis necessarhy
leads to this knowledge, that it cannot be thought of as substatice ,- it is only the
form, or as Swedenborg calls it, an ' excresentia,' of the non-material, or only-
substantial, viz., the spiritual ; and lastly, the divine ; and as we see that one
form may be changed into another, and, indeed, into such a one as to be no longer

the lord's humanity. 213
quish it, when shewn that it is untenable on the former suppositions,
may incline to take refuge in this. And, certainly, the grand, lead
ing principle of the paper On the Identity suggests this idea more
directly than any other.
_ (1.) We might naturally expect to find the grand, leading prin
ciple of the paper On the Identity clearly announced in a conspicuous
station in the body of the paper itself. There, most probably, it
would have been, had it been such as could recommend the system
of that paper to the acceptance of readers of common perception,
intelligence, and genuinely simple minds : but, apparently because
its obvious tendency is to open the eyes of such persons to the errone-
ousness of the system in general, it is openly stated only in a note !
For that principle is, that a creature was made the Creator ! Does
not every reader of common perception and devout sentiment recoil
visible, why then cannot the material* body of the Lord ? It is an axiom of the
ancient sages, ' That a substance from which anything had originated might be
changed into it again.' Now, every material thing had its origin in the spiritual
world, and primarily [enfin] in God, and, consequently, it may be re- changed
into what is spiritual, and return to God, forming an ' accessorium' of Him ;
and this is exactly what Swedenborg says of the glorified Humanity ;* it has
become divine, and constitutes an ' accessorium' to the divine ' ab aeterno :' —
it is then glorified again (D. of Lord, 13, 21), and the influx from this 'Divinum
Humanum' is different from the previous influx from the Divine into Heaven.
' Post adventum ipsius in mundum in fortiori jubare et in majori splendore,
quam ante adventum ipsius, apparet ut sol' (D. L. & W., 221). It is true that
we cannot conceive [imaginer] how the Lord has now a body, ' which is neither
great nor small,' but we cannot conceive of the Infinite in general : we can only
think of it ; it would be a contradiction [in terms] to say that we could [imaginer]
comprehend the infinite. It is the same with the »-c-glorification of the Lord's
material* body (of which he left nothing in the sepulchre) into a spiritual body ;
which, moreover, is different from the spiritual body of the angels."
It is neither our province nor intention to offer any remarks upon this state
ment ; but we may caU attention to the fact of the learned Doctor's appealing,
in support of his view, to an axiomatic declaration of the ancient sages : " That
a substance from which anything had originated might be changed into it again,"
without noticing the axiom of a modern sage, of much higher authority, that the
change of matter into God is a thing impossible.
Had the view contained in the above extract been known by Mr. Noble to
have any supporters in his day, or could he have anticipated its advocacy by
such a writer as Dr. Tafel, he would no doubt have examined it more fuUy than he
has done in these pages. It may not, therefore, be uninteresting here to add to
what he has written, some remarks which we once heard him make upon it.
Sitting with him in his library one evening, not very long before his departure,
the conversation turned upon the subject of the Lord's glorification, and the
view given in the above extract was mentioned. He then remarked that, sup
posing the conversion of the matter of the Lord's body into divinity to have
been possible, and to have actually taken place, it would have left unaccomplished
the grand object-.of the Incarnation. The Lord's object in assuming and glori
fying humanity, was not to take upon himself a material ultimate and convert
it into God, which would be simply to undo with a portion of matter what
creation had done, and to carry the Divine Natural back into the state of
potential existence in which it had been before the Incarnation ; but it was to
bring the Divine down into ultimates, so that the Lord might be immediately
present, with his redeeming and saving power, in the natural degree, and have
immediate influx into the natural mind. — W. B.
* Natural-D. L. "W., 221. ; D. of L., 29—35.

214 THE GLORIFICATION OF
from such an idea ? In Ap. Ex. n. 824, is an account of the pro
cess by which belief is obtained even for such propositions, as " every
one from the light of nature alone may see to be false." It is done
by "reasonings from the natural man," "confirmations from the
Word," the alleged authority of " some leader who was believed by
his followers to be enlightened or inspired," by "preventing the
understanding from entering with any light," and by "keeping the
mind fixed on the confirmations and not on the first proposition,"
which is " taken for granted," and " not first explored whether it be
true or false." Must not all this be done, to induce belief of the
proposition, That the creature was made the Creator ? The words
in which this proposition is delivered are these : " You retain E. S.'s
phrase, ' made divine,' that is, made infinite, made uncreate : now
what could be ' made divine, infinite, and uncreate,' but that which
was previously not divine, [was] finite, and created ? If it be said
that ' the obvious sense of the Lord's words cannot be taken,
because to suppose a created material body to be made uncreate is an
absurdity,' let it be remembered, that no logician can deny that
E. S.'s phrase, fmade divine,' does really and necessarily mean, the
making that uncreate which was before in the condition of a
creature. The Creator and the created embraces all existence :
that which was made divine was made the former, and must pre
viously have been the latter, or what was so made had no previous
existence, which it would be absurd to declare. Does not E. S.'s
phrase, 'made divine' also prove that he adhered to the Lord's
words V* That these statements are not to be taken in any loose
and merely popular, but in the strictest sense, as meaning that the
very substance of the created was made the substance of the Creator,
is plain from the whole article. Here, then, are the " confirmation,
from the Word," the " reasonings from the natural man" (under
the name of the " logician,") and the asserted authority of the " en
lightened or inspired leader;" while throughout the paper it is
endeavoured to "prevent the understanding from entering with any
light," by the maxim, " You must believe in simplicity ;" and
throughout the paper also, it is endeavoured to "fix the mind on
the confirmations and not on the first proposition," only stated
direct in this note, the proposition being such as " every one from
the light of nature alone may see to be false." Keep the mind
fixed on the proposition itself, " That the created was made the
Creator," and "first explore whether it be true or false," and it
will be seen in clear light, that if the Word does seem to say so, it
must be where it is expressed according to appearances and the
fallacies of the senses ; that no enlightened leader can possibly
mean to assert it ; and that the reasonings of the logician to prove
it can be but flimsy cobwebs.
Yet we doubt not that the whole is advanced by the writer in great
integrity of purpose ; so that it is only to be taken as a warning
* P. 104, note J.

the lord's humanity. 215
against undue zeal for an opinion, as evincing to what extremes it
may carry even good and wise men.
We shall not waste words to disprove such a proposition, as that
the very substance of the created was made the Creator. It is
advanced, too, as actually preferable to E. S.'s definition of the
phrase, " made divine ;" for the note concludes thus : " You will
say, ' made divine' means a process of dissipation of the ultimate
body, and the substitution of a divine one : this I would admit if I
could find it in the Word."* Now whether the idea of dissipation
be questionable or not, Swedenborg's own definition, a thousand
times repeated, is, that "made divine" means the putting off
Humanity or the body from the mother, and the of the putting
on of a Humanity from the Father ; so that the idea of substi
tution is unquestionably his (and, as has been shewn, of dis
sipation also) . But if any wish to see the above proposition opposed
more fully, he will find abundance of what has been said on the
second hypothesis perfectly applicable. Our reason for adverting to
it in this place is, because it is certainly calculated to suggest the idea,
that the real doctrine intended is that of transmutation, after all.
(2.) But if such an idea as that transmutation is implied should
arise, we are not sure that what is said in the paper On the Identity
expressly on that subject is calculated to dispel the apprehension.
At p. 249 we find the following : "A word or two to prevent mis
understanding. I do not say that the Humanity was ' transmuted
into the Divine Essence,' for that would be like saying the exterior
was transmuted into the interior, the body into the soul. I mean
such a change as the following : which takes place in man by regene
ration, and which cannot properly be called ' transmutation' at all
(for this word implies a change of one substance into another — a
sort of change which the doctrine of the same body excludes). By
regeneration the natural mind is spiritualized, or made spiritual, by
deriving a spiritual quality from the spiritual mind ; but this does
not imply, that the natural or external man is transmuted into the
spiritual or internal man ; for the two, although made one by union,
are still perfectly distinct from each other ; even as the Father and
Son are one, and yet distinct. — In man's case we do not carry the
idea lower than his spiritual body, as the subject of the change ;
but let the idea, in the Lord's case, be extended to include his natural
body, and the parallel is complete."
Now if it is only in this manner that the idea of transmutation
can be repelled from the system of the paper On the Identity, it will
be likely to cleave to it still. The question is not, Was, or was not,
the " Humanity transmuted into the Divine Essence," or Essential
Divinity, — that is, the Son into Father ? — no such idea ever entered
into any one's thoughts ! — but the question is, Was, or was not, the
infirm humanity, as to its very substance — the particles of matter of
which it was composed, — transmuted into the Divine Humanity —
* (Ap. Ex. 1108.)

216 THE GLORIFICATION OF
the Divine Substantial in the natural degree ? To say, in reply to
this, " The Humanity was not transmuted into the Essential Divi
nity, or the Son into the Father," is an evasion, not an answer. The
only part of the statement which affords anything like an answer,
is the parenthesis which says, that the word transmutation " im
plies a change of one substance into another — a sort of change which
the doctrine of the same body excludes." But we wish it had been
stated, whether, according to that doctrine, there was at any time,
in the whole process of glorification, a change either of one sub
stance into another, or of one substance for another. If it denies
both, then, Either the Lord's body was Divine from the moment
of birth, or was never Divine at all. The instance of man's rege
neration, as stated in the quotation, quite fails to illustrate the
subject, since it contains the same fallacies, and we have seen above,
that the natural mind does not merely derive a new quality from the
spiritual mind by regeneration, but that man is made "altogether
new," " the previous forms," composed of " substances, such as are
in hell," being removed, and new forms, composed of "substances
such as are in heaven," succeeding in their place.
But we have seen above, that Swedenborg's doctrine is, that any
transmutation of the infirm humanity into the Divine Humanity
was a thing impossible. The following passages, he says, in the
Athanasian Creed, applied to the maternal humanity, are true :
" That Jesus Christ was God and Man, God of the substance of
the Father, and Man of the substance of the mother, born in the
world, perfect God and perfect Man of a rational soul and human
flesh subsisting ; equal to the Father as touching the Godhead, but
inferior to the Father as touching the Manhood." Also, " That
this Manhood was not converted [or transmuted, which word is used
in n. 35] into the Godhead, nor commixed therewith ;" — how so ?
— " it being put off, and a Divine Humanity assumed in its place." *
Now the term " Godhead," into which "this Manhood," — that from
the mother — was not converted or transmuted, here certainly in
cludes the Divinity of the Humanity as well as of the Essential
Divinity ; otherwise the reason assigned for there being no trans
mutation would be no reason, — that " this Manhood" was " put off,
and a Divine Humanity assumed in its place ;" for neither was the
Divine Humanity transmuted into the Essential Divinity. If
the meaning were, that the infirm Humanity was not transmuted
into the Essential Divinity because it was put off, it would follow,
that the Divine Humanity, which was put on, was transmuted into
the Essential Divinity. But the argument is perfectly coherent and
consequential when understood to be, that the infirm Humanity was
not transmuted into the Divine Humanity, because the former was
put off, and the latter put on in its place. This passage likewise
evinces, that when it is said before (n. 35), that "transmutation of
the human nature into the Divine Essence is impossible," the term
* Doct. Ld. n. 59.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 217
" Divine Essence" is not used to denote merely the Essential
Divinity, but Divinity in general ; as, indeed, is there also evident
from the context. The reason that the Author has not treated
more fully of the impossibility of a transmutation of the substance
of the Humanity from the mother into the substance of the Divine
Humanity, is, because he was only led to notice it at all by adverting
to the Athanasian Creed. He thought he had abundantly guarded
against every supposition of its possibility, by so perpetually testi
fying, that "all the Humanity from the mother," even to its last
" residuum," was put off, and a Divine Humanity put on in its
place ; which being admitted, any transmutation of the one into the
other is manifestly impossible.
We now see, that, upon every conceivable hypothesis, such notions
as suppose that there really were wounds, or marks of wounds, in
the Lord's proper Divine body, and thus that it was the same as
to substance, or consisted of the same material particles, as the
body crucified, are in themselves impossible to be true. The
Word does not teach such identity, apd all supposed confirmations
thence are nothing but appearances and fallacies. The " enlightened
leader," Emanuel Swedenborg, largely teaches the direct contrary ;
so that, if he deserves any character for consistency, it is impossible
he can mean to affirm in a few places what he denies in a thousand.
No reasoning, however apparently " logical," can make it credible :
for the grand, leading idea of the system which asserts such identity
1S, THAT THE VERY SUBSTANCE OF THE CREATED WAS MADE THE
Creator ; " which every one, from the light of nature alone, may
see to be false," self-contradictory, and upon any hypothesis,
IMPOSSIBLE TO BE TRUE.
VI. We now come to the last branch of this Inquiry, in which
we are to advert to the passages, or the principal of them, in which
Swedenborg quotes the verse, either in whole or in part, or with
portions of the context, " Behold my hands and my feet, that it is
I myself : handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones,
as ye see me have ;" for it is in connexion with these words that all
his statements occur respecting the Lord's rising with his whole
body, &c.
1. In the paper On the Identity, one of these passages, —that in
Tr. Chr. Rel. n. 109 — was quoted and commented on, as clear
authority for the assertion, that E. S. acknowledged the marks of
wounds in the Risen Body, and its absolute identity with the body
crucified, inferring the latter from the former. As we, in our Note
appended to the paper On the Identity, adverted to this, and spoke
of being required to make the conclusion " from only two or three
documents out of hundreds," we were favoured with a list of " no
less than seventeen passages in which the words [Behold, &c]
are quoted with comment." We, without any assistance from
indexes, could have furnished a list of half as many more. But
when they are all examined, there are only three out of the whole

218 THE GLORIFICATION OF
five-or-six-and-twenty, that can be thought to favour most the view
taken in the paper On the Identity : for the others, if capable of
being understood agreeably to that view, present no ideas but such
as"*are5,in obvious harmony with ours. This we shewed in our
Review of the " Essay."* None offer any plausible difficulty, but
those which, like T. C. R. n. 109, speak of the Lord's rising " with
the body," or " with the whole body, which he had in the world ;"
and of these there are only three. But all the passages (not exclud
ing these three) are highly valuable testimonies to the truth of our
statements. One of these statements is, that so far is it from being
correct, that E. S. appealed to the words as proving the resurrection
of the same body as to substance, because it retained "the marks of
crucifixion," " that it is impossible to gather from him, that the
idea that such appearance was exhibited ever entered his mind."
This position we will now substantiate.
If the notion that the words " Behold," &c. prove sameness of
bodily substance by affirming the retention of the marks, was as
much present to the mind of E. S. as to the mind of the author of
the paper On the Identity, or even was ever present to his mind at
all, is it supposable that he should have five-or-six-and-twenty
times adverted to the passage with observations on the subject of it,
without ever uttering a single syllable about the supposed marks ?
Yet such is the fact. Indeed, any recognition of the existence of
marks in the Lord's proper Person after the resurrection, would have
been incompatible with the object for which he chiefly cites the words.
That object is, not merely to prove that the Lord rose with his whole
body, but that his very body, or all his Humanity, had been made
Divine .- and how he could use the words in proof of this, with the
idea that they proved identity of substance because they asserted
marks, and yet not drop a syllable to avert the natural objection —
" If divine, how could there be holes in it, ' the work of nails
and a spear,' " — were unaccountable indeed. Thus, for instance, no
passage can be more decisive for the resurrection with the whole body,
than the following (though, singularly enough, it is not referred
to in the list sent us) :f " That in him dwelleth all the fulness of
the Godhead," according to Paul, is evident also — from this circum
stance ; that, at the resurrection, he took with him from the sepulchre
his whole human body, both as to the flesh and bones, contrary to
the manner of all other men ; which he also testified openly to his
disciples, saying, " Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself :
handle me and see : for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me
have" (Luke xxiv. 39). From this circumstance every man may
be convinced, if he is willing to be convinced, that the Humanity
* Pp. 54, 55.
t That list is as follows : " A. C. 1729, 5078, 9315, 10,044, 10,125, 10,252,
10,825. Ap. Ex. 41, 513, 619, 1087, 1112. L. J. 21. N. J. D. 286. H. H. 316.
Doc. Ld. 35. T. C. R. 109." To this we would add, A. C. 10,738, Ap. Ex.
53,66,581,1125. Div. L. at end of Ap. Ex. IV. VII. 1. Cont. L. J. 34. T.C.R.
170. To these may be added a passage in the MS. on Ath. Creed.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 219
of the Lord is Divine, and, consequently, that in him God is Man
and Man is God."* What ! convinced of so sublime a truth by
beholding in his person the crying marks of human, yea, of material
infirmity ! Most certainly, to say nothing of special illumination,
a clear thinker, like Swedenborg, never connected two such mutually
destructive ideas in his mind.
Most of the other passages of E. S. that cite the words, equally
infer from them the Divinity of the Risen Body, and this as to the
ultimates called flesh and bones : but how the words expressly prove,
as understood by Swedenborg, that he rose with his whole body, and
that this was all Divine, he has only stated twice ; when his explana
tion is far enough from being like that of the paper On the Identity ;
which, if, perchance, it could draw from them a proof that he rose
with his whole body, would prove at the same time that it could not
be Divine. In both instances, the context is cited : " Jesus being
manifested to his disciples, said, Behold my hands and my feet, that
it is I myself: handle me, and see : for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones as ye see me have. And he shewed them his hands and his
feet. And he said unto them, Have ye here any meat ? And they
gave him a piece of a broiled fish and of a honeycomb. And he took
them, and did eat before them." (Luke xxiv. 38-43). That the
Lord glorified his Humanity even to its ultimate, which is called the
natural and sensual principle, he manifested by shewing his hands and
feet, and by saying to his disciples that they might handle him, and
that a spirit hath not flesh and bones as he had ; also, by his eating
of the broiled fish and of the honeycomb. By the hands and feet are
signified the ultimates of man, and likewise by flesh and bones. By
the broiled fish is signified the natural principle as to truth from
good, and by honey is signified the natural principle as to good from
which is truth. On account of the correspondence of these things to
the natural man, and their consequent signification, they were eaten
by the Lord in the presence of the disciples. — He who does not know
that there is a spiritual sense in every part of the Word, and that
the literal sense, which is natural, consists of correspondences with
things spiritual, cannot possibly know the arcana contained in the
circumstances here recorded respecting the Lord, and why he ate of
broiled fish and honeycomb in the presence of his disciples ."-f- Thus
we find that the shewing of the hands and feet proves that he had the
ultimates of Humanity, and had glorified them, not because the
hands and feet retained the marks of crucifixion, which could not
prove that he had glorified them, but because the hands and feet
signify the ultimates ; and that his eating proved the same, not by
the mere fact that he ate, for this he did with Abraham before his
incarnation, but by the signification of what he ate. li the wounds
were there, they must have had a spiritual signification also : why
is not this mentioned ? If it was the shewing of the hands and feet
* T. C. R. n. 170. t Ap. Ex. n. 513.

&

220 THE GLORIFICATION OF
wounded, not the exhibiting of them whole, which proved his resur
rection with his whole body glorified, why is the latter assigned as
the proof, and the former passed by without mention ? Is it not
plain that the idea of the wounds was not in the thoughts of the
enlightened Author at all ?
The other passage is still more forcible. The same verses are
quoted as in the last ; and the Author says, " The Lord disclosed to
the disciples that he had glorified or made Divine his whole Humanity,
even as to the natural and sensual principle thereof : this is signified,
by the hands and feet, and by the flesh and bones, which they saw
and felt ; by the hands and feet the ultimate principle of man which
is called the natural, by the flesh the good thereof, and by the bones
the truth thereof. — The Lord also confirmed the same by eating of a
broiled fish and a honeycomb ; the broiled fish signifying the truth
of good of the natural man, and the honeycomb the good of truth of
the same ; wherefore by eating of these things, the Lord shewed and
confirmed that his whole Humanity, even to its ultimates, was glori
fied or made Divine."* All the remarks made upon the preceding
extract equally apply to this. No thought of the wounds, we see,
enters. Nothing whatever is said to indicate that the body was the
same as before as to substance. The grand design of the transaction
is declared to be, to disclose that the Lord had glorified or made
divine his whole Humanity, even to the natural and sensual principle.
If it is asked, Did the disciples then understand the meaning of the
Lord's words and actions as thus explained ? we answer, Not specifi
cally ; but, as we have remarked before, no doubt the power of the
Lord's significant words and representative actions was such, after
his resurrection, as to make on his disciples whatever impression he
intended ; as in the case of their eyes being opened to know him on
his breaking bread.
Now though none of the twenty-three-or-four other places in which
the Lord's words " Behold," &c, are cited or referred to by E. S., so
expressly explain them and the accompanying actions as these two,
yet none contain anything that in the least militates against the expla
nations in these. In particular, not a syllable is breathed in any of
them about mark of wounds ; and as nothing is said on that subject
anywhere else, is not the statement fully substantiated, " that it is
impossible to gather from Swedenborg, that the idea that such
appearance was exhibited ever entered his mind." May we not say
further, that he never thought of adducing this text in proof of
identity of the body as to substance ? And is it not unquestionable,
as he cites it chiefly to prove that all the Lord's Humanity was
glorified or made Divine, that we are to understand the phrase
"glorified or made Divine," according to his constant definitions of
it, — as meaning, the putting off of the Humanity from the mother
and the putting on of the Humanity from the Father ? And if so,
did not this double process, in regard to the extreme ultimate of all,
* Ap. Ex. n. 619.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 221
— the mere shell, — consist in the putting off of the dead material
particles, and the putting on of Divine Substantiality in the same
degree ?
It was our intention to have examined all the principal passages
in which E. S. cites the words " Behold," &c, in order to show that
they really contain nothing which militates against this conclusion,
That the glorification in ultimates was effected by the same process
of putting off and putting on as is defined by the Author to con
stitute glorification in general ; and that this consisted, as to the
mere body, in the putting off of all materiality, thus of the material
particles themselves, "by, (or through) death" as the means, " the
residue of the Humanity from the mother," consisting of the
remainder of the material nature and particles, being put off by
"burial," thus "in the sepulchre ;" — accompanied by the putting
on of the Divine-Substantial in their place ; which was completed
at the resurrection. But we are constrained to abstain from this
examination. Nor can it be really necessary, after impossibility
has been proved against every hypothesis by which the retention of
the material particles is supposed. Swedenborg, we are certain,
could never intend to advance ideas, involving impossibility, and,
as has also been shown, contradiction-in-terms. We will therefore
confine our remaining observations to a few statements, calculated to
take away the ground of the imputed difficulties, urged with so much
repetition in the Second Letter, and which had, substantially, been
advanced before, in the first, which we have called "the paper
On the Identity."
2. We will first notice the question of Identity in some sense.
In the paper On the Identity are these words :* " The church will
do well to take your own example as a warning to beware of deviating
from the Lord's own words, even in the least degree ; for what is
that example ? In 1829 you admitted that the Lord's words, while
they were pressed upon your attention by me (I refer you to your
own note to page 413), proved the sameness of the crucified and
risen body 'in some sense ;' but in 1834 you repeatedly deny it in
any and every sense." This inconsiderate charge only seems, amid
other circumstances, to show that our Review of Mr. Hindmarsh's
" Essay" had been read, more with a disposition to find something
to criminate, than fairly to appreciate our sentiments. In that
Review, in the year 1834, we make the same admission as we had
done in 1829. In the very first place where we speak of the differ
ence between the crucified and risen body, almost at the beginning
of the first article of the Review, we use the words, "the body that
rose could not be the same in substance with that which was cruci
fied — 0f course not material, as that was ;"t marking "in substance"
by Italics, to indicate the kind of identity objected to. In the
* Pp. 101, 102. t ?• 40.

222 THE GLORIFICATION OF
second article of the Review, speaking of the opinion, that " the
body which rose is the same body as was crucified," we say, "In a
certain sense, we admit that it was so ; but not in the sense which
this theory assumes.''* Is not "a certain sense" the same as
" some sense ?" Certainly, had we imagined that this could be
disputed, we would have said " in some sense," it being equally
expressive of our sentiments. And we commonly limited our objec
tion to absolute identity by confining it to identity " as to substances
and matters," or " as to substance," or "in substance and everything
else ;"f at least, we did this often enough to show, that we had no
thought of denying identity "in any and every sense." Our note
in 1829 (to a paper by Mr. Mason) referred to in the above charge,
speaks as follows : " It is unquestionable that E. S. constantly
appeals to the facts recorded in the evangelists as literally true, and
that he never gives any explanation of them which impugns their
credibility as related. He repeatedly speaks of the Lord's body
' which he had in the world,' as being the body with which he rose :
thus it is impossible to doubt that he regarded the body which was
crucified and that which rose again to be in some sense the same.
Beyond this, we find in him little but negative statements. He
could not mean to affirm that the same numerical particles remained,
since this would be to make the Lord's resurrection-body material,
which he expressly denies to have been the case (Doct. Ld. n. 35) :
nor could he mean to affirm that there was a transmutation of
material substance into divine ; for the transmutation of the human
nature from the mother into the Divine Essence is stated to have
been impossible. (Ib.) The whole process of the glorification is
declared by him to have been accomplished by a putting off, and a
putting on. (Ib. and through his writings, passim.)""% Now in
what does this vary from our recent statements ? Identity in some
sense, or in a certain sense, is admitted now, as then ; and identity
as to substance was denied then, as positively as now, and upon the
same grounds. We are conscious of no difference in our sentiments
whatever, and have said nothing that implies it. The following
words also, inserted by us (but not without the writer's consent), in
the body of the paper, exactly express our present sentiments :
" That identity, in living subjects, is perfectly compatible with even
an entire change of substance, is well known to the philosopher.
Thus every old man is conscious of there being a real identity
between himself then and himself when a child ; though his mind is
immensely altered, and none of the former particles of his body are
remaining. Could this change, then, be effected suddenly, it would
no more destroy identity than when effected gradually. How the
Lord's body, from being material was made Divine-Substantial, it
seems impossible to define ; but that it was still, in some sense, the
* P. 52. t Pp. 67, 69, 77.
X Int. Rep. Sec. Series, vol. iii. p. 413.

THE LORD'S HUMANITY. 223
same body, the facts recorded demonstratively evince."* Could we
possibly express our sentiments more fully, in an addition to a paper
by Mr. Mason ? The same body, in some sense, is admitted ; but
"an entire change of substance," leaving "none of the former
particles remaining," is asserted ; and this, in the case of the
Lord, " effected suddenly." And we still think that identity, in
such sense, can no more be denied, with respect to the Lord's crucified
and risen body, than with respect to man's body at different periods
of his life ; while, at the same time, identity as to substance can no
more be asserted in the one case than in the other.
On this view then of the sense in which the body that rose was
the same as the body crucified, we ground our interpretation of the
three passages in which E. S. says, that the Lord rose with " the
body," or with " the whole body, which he had in the world." We
repeat, that he never says "the same body," because this would
have asserted identity as to substance ; but he says, " his whole
body," because this is necessary to the knowledge of the most
important truth, that he is truly a Divine Man in ultimates, having
everything in him that man in the world has, but all uncreate,
Infinite, and Divine. So, we apprehend, when he adds in those
three places,t " which he had," or " with which he was clothed, in
the world," he only means more strongly to confirm the same essential
truth. He means precisely the same as when he says, a hundred times,
that he "glorified the Humanity which he assumed in the world,"
and which he as often explains by saying, that he " put off all the
Humanity derived from the mother, and put on a Divine Humanity
from the Father." So, when it is said that he " rose with the body
which he had in the world," it is equally to be understood, according
to the ideas (and expressions too) of the author, that having re
jected, by death and burial, " the residue of the humanity from the
mother," — the remaining material particles, of which the most vital
portion had been expelled while on the cross and before, — he had
put on what previously was wanting of the Humanity from the
Father, and thus made his Body Divine-Substantial.
Nor is there so great a difference between the crucified and risen
body in this sort of " some sense," and the sort really resulting from
the view taken in the paper On the Identity, as at first appears : —
provided, that is, the impossibilities asserted in the latter be actually
believed. For that paper admits, that the Risen Body and the cruci
fied body were greatly, yea, infinitely different in their properties and
qualities. The crucified body possessed all the attributes of " mere
materiality," — was extreme-finite, created, local : the Risen Body
possessed all the attributes of -Divinity, — was Infinite, Uncreate,
Omnipresent. Now, in the supposed compound, which was of most
importance — the trifling measure and weight of material particles
supposed to be furnished by the crucified body ; or, the superadded
* Int. Rep. Sec. Series, vol. iii. p. 413.
+ They are, A. C. n. 5078, 10,252, and T. C. R. u. 109.

224 THE GLORIFICATION OF
Divinity, — the Infinity, Self-Existence, and Omnipresence? What
were the former, but " as the small dust of the balance " weighed
against the latter ? What can it possibly signify, whether "the small
dust of the balance" be weighed in the scale, or taken into the
account, when the object of consideration is a Glorious Body whose
attributes are the latter ? What difference then is there, capable of
being estimated, between the kind of sameness ascribed to the Lord's
body, according to one view of the subject, and according to the other ?
But that we are far from denying sameness "in any and every
sense," will further appear from these considerations. In his Second
Letter, Mr. Mason, in speaking of the Lord's body, seems to confine
his thoughts to the mere flesh and bones, keeping out of view alto
gether the principles of humanity, which had been successively
glorified during his life in the world. Now those principles/dwelling
in the external as their basis, may be said to have been laid in the
sepulchre. They gave identity to the body, and in respect to them,
the same body that was placed in the sepulchre certainly rose again
from it. Mr. M. however chooses to consider that our view supposes
two bodies altogether different and distinct ; and he speaks of the
dissipation of the one as if it were entire, and the rising of a
" complete distinct divine body." Yet he seems to have had a per
ception of the truth, and of the way in which the seeming difficulty
may be removed ; but only to dismiss it with exclaiming, " Mere
speculation, quite unsupported by any legitimate authority ! "
There are many other considerations wdiich shew, how the body
that rose may be said to have come out of the sepulchre (though this
is never said in the Word, and ought not, therefore, upon Mr. M.'s
principle of accepting nothing but what is stated in the letter of the
Word, to be so insisted on), notwithstanding its ultimate substances
were not the same with those which were laid there : but we must
refrain. We intended specifically to have answered all the objections
not virtually identical, as most of them are, contained, upon this
subject, both in the first paper and in the Second Letter : but
we must be content with the general answer, That they all proceed
upon erroneous suppositions in regard to our views. We intended to
have unravelled the fallacies of the mock arguments presented in both
the Letters as parallel to ours : but we must only say, in general,
That they are not parallel at all, and we much " marvel" how any
one could think them so. Arguing by parallels requires both clear
apprehension and honest purpose ; for nothing is more easy than to
make any thing appear ridiculous by a parody, in which something
is omitted, or changed, that is essential to the real parallelism ; and
though we question not Mr. M.'s honesty of purpose, we have seen,
in his mode of conceiving of, and representing, our views, little of his
ordinary clear apprehension. According to our views there was
as much connexion between the body crucified and the body that
rose as between any principle, or the whole, of the infirm humanity,
and the corresponding principle, or the whole, of the Divine

THE lord's humanity. 225
Humanity : and it is obviously true, not only that the Divine
Humanity could not have been put on had not the infirm humanity
been put off, but also, that the Divine Humanity could never have
been put on at all had not the infirm humanity been put on pre
viously : which general truth comprehends the specific truth, that the
Divine Humanity in ultimates could never have been substantially
put on, had not the infirm humanity in ultimates previous occupied
its place. To argue that, upon our view, there was no connexion
between the one and the other, and that the Divine Body might
have been produced had the infirm body never existed, is exactly
parallel to some arguments exposed by E. S. : " They who are
unacquainted with this law of the Divine Omnipotence, that it pro
ceeds and operates, in conformity with order, may be led to enter
tain many fanciful suggestions that are opposite and contradictory to
sound reason. For example : they may ask, Why did not God in
stantly assume the Humanity, without the trouble of such a process ?
Why did he not create or compose for himself a body out of the
elements from the four quarters of the world, and thus make himself
visible, as God-man, not only to the Jewish nation, but to the whole
world ? Or if he would go through the process of birth, why did
he not infuse his whole Divinity into the embryo, or the infant
Humanity ? Or why, after his birth, did he not instantly rise up to
the stature of an adult, and begin to speak immediately from Divine
Wisdom ? "* Are not these questions precisely of the same kind as
those which almost fill Mr. M.'s Second Letter? But there is no
point in them, as proposed to us,- because we are not of the number of
those " who fancy the Divine Omnipotence to be unconnected with
order." We are satisfied that it would have been as impossible for
the Lord, as a God of order, to have put on the Divine Humanity
in ultimates in the sepulchre, had not the residue of the infirm
humanity been previously laid there, as it would for a man to have
a body, consisting of certain particles, now, had he not a body con
sisting of certain other particles seven years ago. We are likewise
satisfied, that the Lord's risen and crucified body is as much the same,
in the same sense, as a man's body now and seven years ago. And
as, further, it would be impossible for the man to be in a whole
hody now had he at any time lost a limb, so would it have been im
possible for the Lord to have risen with his whole body Divine, had
any part of his material body been left in the sepulchre. Hence
the propriety of E. S.'s statement, that nothing " of his body'" (as
is said in some places and meant always) was left in the sepulchre :
and it is said that he " rose thence," or " took his Divine Body
thence," with just as much propriety, as a man is said to rise from
the grave, or to take his spiritual body thence, who is entombed im
mediately on death.
Much that we have been compelled to say, in this article, has
* T. C.R. n. 90.

226 THE GLORIFICATION OF THE LORD'S HUMANITY.
been written with pain. It cannot be denied that both the Letters
on the Identity contain rash statements and observations, and it
has grieved us to have the task of pointing some of them out : but
we only impute them to an excited zeal for what is conscientiously
believed to be most true and important, and has been embraced as
such from the best of motives. This vindication and elucidation of
the views which have been presented to our own minds on the grand
subject is still left very imperfect ; but we hope it may contribute to
the clearing of some important truths. Many most interesting and
momentous ones have certainly come under review. Commending
the whole therefore to the blessing of the Lord, in whose fear we
can truly say it has been penned ; and apologizing to our readers
for having engaged them so long on one subject (for which its great
importance, when it became our duty to enter upon it, must plead
our excuse), we now take our leave of this discussion.*
* We have mentioned before, that we were under promise to aUow Mr.
Mason's first two Letters to appear, and that we had received two others since,
the first of which, likewise, we said, we should probably publish. As far as
concerns ourselves, we would most wUlingly print them aU ; but as, if we did,
we should be obliged stUl farther to extend our own remarks, and we well
know that a too extended and protracted discussion of an abstruse subject can
not be agreeable to the generaUty of readers, we are under the necessity of
declining to let it go farther. The design of the third Letter is, to prove that the
passage from the MS. On the Athanasian Creed, cited above, pp. 209, 210, which
says, " That the Lord in the sepulchre, thus by (or through) death, separated all
the Humanity from the mother, and dissipated it," does not at aU relate to the
materials of the crucified body, but only to its state ; as, we have seen above, was
attempted in the original paper On the Identity, in regard to the simUar state
ment of the printed works, that the " residue of the Humanity from the mother
was rejected by burial." The mere mention of the object proposed is sufficient
to give an idea of the character of the arguments employed to effect it. The
writer, however, exhibits both courage and candour by manfuUy grappling with
the statement itseU, instead of disputing its genuineness and authority. The
Fourth Letter was sent as a Postscript to the Second, but was mamfestly in
tended as an answer to our Note appended to the first, and adds little to the
others beside some inquiries as to the meaning of some passages in our Review
of the " Essay," which are sufficiently explained in the articles since printed.
However, were it agreeable to our readers, we would wiUingly print all ; satis
fied that the more the subject is investigated, in a proper sphit, by writers well
acquainted with the works of E. S., and who fully admit their authority (for the
crude speculations of any others on such a subject deserve not the smallest
notice), the better his genuine instructions respecting it wiU be understood, and
the less wiU any real support be imagined to exist for the notion, that the
identity of the crucified and Risen Body was an identity as to substance.

IUCHAR11 BARRETT, PRINTER, MARK LANE, LONTiON,