after he had supped with his Apostles, immediately before he went out to
be delivered into the hands of his enemies. In Egypt, for every house of
the children of Israel, a lamb was slain upon that night, when the
Almighty punished the cruelty and obstinacy of the Egyptians by killing
their first-born, but charged the destroying angel to pass over the
houses upon which the blood of the lamb was sprinkled. This was the
original sacrifice of the passover. In commemoration of it, the Jews
observed the annual festival of the passover, when all the males of
Judea assembled before the Lord in Jerusalem. A lamb was slain for every
house, the representative of that whose blood had been sprinkled in the
night of the escape from Egypt. After the blood was poured under the
altar by the priests, the lambs were carried home to be eaten by the
people in their tents or houses at a domestic feast, where every master
of a family took the cup of thanksgiving, and gave thanks with his
family to the God of Israel. Jesus having fulfilled the law of Moses, to
which in all things he submitted, by eating the paschal supper with his
disciples, proceeded after supper to institute a rite, which, to any
person that reads the words of the institution without having formed a
previous opinion upon the subject, will probably appear to have been
intended by him as a memorial of that event which was to happen not many
hours after. “He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it
unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in
remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup
is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you,” Luke xxii, 19,
20. He took the bread which was then on the table, and the wine, of
which some had been used in sending round the cup of thanksgiving; and
by saying, “This is my body, this is my blood, do this in remembrance of
me,” he declared to his Apostles that this was the representation of his
death by which he wished them to commemorate that event. The Apostle
Paul, not having been present at the institution, received it by
immediate revelation from the Lord Jesus; and the manner in which he
delivers it to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. xi, 23–26, implies that it was
not a rite confined to the Apostles who were present when it was
instituted, but that it was meant to be observed by all Christians till
the end of the world. “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this
cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” Whether we consider
these words as part of the revelation made to St. Paul, or as his own
commentary upon the nature of the ordinance which was revealed to him,
they mark, with equal significancy and propriety, the extent and the
perpetuity of the obligation to observe that rite which was first
instituted in presence of the Apostles.
There is a striking correspondence between this view of the Lord’s
Supper, as a rite by which it was intended that all Christians should
commemorate the death of Christ, and the circumstances attending the
institution of the feast of the passover. Like the Jews, we have the
original sacrifice: “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,” and by
his substitution our souls are delivered from death. Like the Jews, we
have a feast in which that sacrifice, and the deliverance purchased by
it, are remembered. Hence the Lord’s Supper was early called the
eucharist, from its being said by St. Luke, “Jesus, when he took the
bread, gave thanks;” and his disciples in all ages, when they receive
the bread, keep a feast of thanksgiving. To Christians, as to Jews,
there is “a night to be much observed unto the Lord,” in all
generations. To Christians, as to Jews, the manner of observing the
night is appointed. To both it is accompanied with thanksgiving.
The Lord’s Supper exhibits, by a significant action, the
characteristical doctrine of the Christian faith, that the death of its
author, which seemed to be the completion of the rage of his enemies,
was a voluntary sacrifice, so efficacious as to supersede the necessity
of every other; and that his blood was shed for the remission of sins.
By partaking of this rite, his disciples publish an event most
interesting to all the kindreds of the earth; they declare that, far
from being ashamed of the suffering of their Master, they glory in his
cross; and, while they thus perform the office implied in that
expression of the Apostle, “Ye do show forth the Lord’s death,” they at
the same time cherish the sentiments by which their religion ministers
to their own consolation and improvement. They cannot remember the death
of Christ, the circumstances which rendered that event necessary, the
disinterested love and the exalted virtues of their deliverer, without
feeling their obligations to him. Unless the vilest hypocrisy accompany
an action, which, by its very nature, professes to flow from warm
affection, the love of Christ will constrain them to fulfil the purposes
of his death, by “living unto him who died for them;” and we have reason
to hope, that, in the places where he causes his name to be remembered,
he will come and bless his people. As the object of faith is thus
explicitly set before them in every commemoration, so the renewed
exercise of that faith, which the ordinance is designed to excite, must
bring renewed life, and a deeper experience of the “great salvation.”
See SACRAMENT.
SURETY, in common speech, is one who gives security for another; and
hence it has become prevalent among theological writers to confound it
with the terms substitute and representative, when applied to Christ. In
fact, the word “surety” occurs only once in our translation of the
Scriptures, namely, Heb. vii, 22: “By so much was Jesus made the surety
of a better covenant.” It is certainly true that the Son of God, in all
that he has done or is still doing as Mediator, may be justly viewed as
the surety of the new and everlasting covenant, and as affording the
utmost security to believers that, as the Father hath given all things
into his hands, they will be conducted with effect, and all the
exceeding great and precious promises of that covenant assuredly be
accomplished. But this does not appear to be the precise idea which the
Apostle has in view in the above passage. This has been sufficiently
evinced by many critics and commentators, particularly by Pierce,
Macknight, and M’Lean, in their notes on the place. The substance of
their remarks is, that the original term employed by the Apostle, and
which occurs no where else in Scripture, is ἔγγυος, which is derived
from ἐγγὺς, _near_, and signifies _one who draws near_, or who brings
others near; which sense of the word will not very well accord with that
of a substitute or representative. The Greek commentators very properly
explain the word by μεσίτης, _a mediator_. Now, as in this passage a
comparison is stated between Jesus, as a high priest, and the Levitical
high priests; and as the latter were considered by the Apostle to be the
mediators of the Sinai covenant, because through their mediation the
Israelites worshipped God with sacrifices; it is evident that the
Apostle in this passage terms Jesus the High Priest or Mediator of the
better covenant, because, through his mediation, or in virtue of the
sacrifice which he offered of himself to God, believers receive all the
blessings of the new covenant. And as in verse 16 the Apostle had said
that “by the introduction of a better hope we draw near to God,” he, in
verse 22, very properly calls Jesus ἔγγυος, “he by whom we draw nigh,”
thereby denoting the effect of his mediation. From the whole, therefore,
it is plain that the word “surety” in this place is equivalent with that
of mediator or high priest.
SWALLOWS, סיס, a bird too well known to need description. Our
translators of the Bible have given this name to two different Hebrew
words. The first, דרור, in Psalm lxxxiv, 3, and Prov. xxvi, 2, is
probably the bird which Forskal mentions among the migratory birds of
Alexandria, by the name of _dururi_; and the second, עגור, Isa. xxxviii,
14, and Jer. viii, 7, is the crane; but the word סיס, in the two last
places rendered in our version “crane,” is really the swallow. So the
Septuagint, Vulgate, and two ancient manuscripts, Theodotion, and Jerom,
render it, and Bochart and Lowth follow them. Bochart assigns the note
of this bird for the reason of its name, and ingeniously remarks that
the Italians about Venice call a swallow _zizilla_, and its twittering
_zizillare_. The swallow being a plaintive bird, and a bird of passage,
perfectly agrees with the meaning of Isaiah and Jeremiah. The annual
migration of the swallow has been familiarly known in every age, and
perhaps in every region of the earth. In Psalm lxxxiv, 3, it is said,
“The sparrow hath found a house, and the swallow a nest for herself,
where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O Lord of hosts.” By the
altars of Jehovah we are to understand the temple. The words probably
refer to the custom of several nations of antiquity,--that birds which
built their nests on the temples, or within the limits of them, were not
suffered to be driven away, much less killed; but found a secure and
uninterrupted dwelling. Hence, when Aristodicus disturbed the birds’
nests of the temple of Kumæ, and took the young from them, a voice,
according to a tradition preserved by Herodotus, is said to have spoken
these words from the interior of the temple: “Most villainous of men,
how darest thou to drive away such as seek refuge in my temple?” The
Athenians were so enraged at Atarbes, who had killed a sparrow which
built on the temple of Æsculapius, that they killed him. Among the
Arabs, who are more closely related to the Hebrews, birds which build
their nests on the temple of Mecca have been inviolable from the
earliest times. In the very ancient poem of a Dschorhamidish prince,
published by a Schulten, in which he laments that his tribe had been
deprived of the protection of the sanctuary of Mecca, it is said,
“We lament the house, whose dove
Was never suffer’d to be hurt:
She remain’d there secure; in it, also,
The sparrow built its nest.”
In another ancient Arabian poet, Nabega, the Dhobianit swears “by the
sanctuary which affords shelter to the birds which seek it there.”
Niebuhr says, “I will observe, that among the Mohammedans, not only is
the _kaba_ a refuge for the pigeons, but also on the mosques over the
graves of Ali and Hassein, on the Dsjamea, or chief mosque, at Helle,
and in other cities, they are equally undisturbed.” And Thevenot
remarks: “Within a mosque at Oudjicum lies interred the son of a king,
called Schah-Zadeh-Imam Dgiafer, whom they reckon a saint. The dome is
rough cast over; before the mosque there is a court, well planted with
many high plane trees, on which we saw a great many storks, that haunt
thereabout all the year round.” See SPARROW.
SWAN, תנשמת, Lev. xi, 18; Deut. xiv, 16. The Hebrew word is very
ambiguous, for in the first of these places, it is ranked among
water-fowls; and by the Vulgate, which our version follows, rendered
“swan,” and in the thirtieth verse, the same word is rendered “mole,”
and ranked among reptiles. Some translate it in the former place, “the
bat,” which they justify by the affinity which there is between the bat
and the mole. The LXX. in the former verse render it ϖορφυρίωνα, the
_porphyrion_, or “purple bird,” probably the “flamingo;” and in the
latter, “ibis.” Parkhurst shows that the name is given from the
creature’s breathing in a strong and audible manner; and Michaëlis
learnedly conjectures, that in verse eighteen, and Deut. xiv, 16, it may
mean the “goose,” which every one knows is remarkable for its manner of
“breathing out” or “hissing,” when approached.
SWEDENBORGIANS denote that particular denomination of Christians who
admit the testimony of Baron Swedenborg, and receive the doctrines
taught in the theological writings of that author. Emanuel Swedenborg
was the son of a bishop of West Gothnia, in the kingdom of Sweden, whose
name was Swedberg, a man of considerable learning and celebrity in his
time. The son was born at Stockholm, January 29, 1688. He enjoyed early
the advantages of a liberal education, and being naturally endowed with
uncommon talents for the acquirement of learning, his progress in the
sciences was rapid and extensive; and he soon distinguished himself by
several publications in the Latin language, which gave proof of equal
genius and erudition. It may reasonably be supposed that under the care
of his pious and reverend father our author’s religious instruction was
not neglected. This, indeed, appears plain from the general tenor of his
life and writings, which are marked with strong and lively characters of
a mind deeply impressed with a sense of the divine Being, and of all the
relative duties thence resulting. He was ennobled in the year 1719, by
Queen Ulrica Eleonora, and named Swedenborg, from which time he took his
seat with the nobles of the equestrian order, in the triennial assembly
of the states. The philosophical works, published in Latin, by Baron
Swedenborg, are numerous; but his theological works are said to be still
more so.
1. The first and principal distinguishing doctrine contained in the
writings of Baron Swedenborg, and maintained by his followers, relates
to the person and character of Jesus Christ, and to the redemption
wrought by him. On this subject it is insisted that Jesus Christ is
Jehovah, manifested in the flesh; and that he came into the world to
glorify his human nature, by making it one with the divine. It is
therefore insisted farther that the humanity of Jesus Christ is itself
divine, by virtue of its indissoluble union with the indwelling Father,
agreeably to the testimony of St. Paul, that, “in Jesus Christ dwelleth
all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” Col. ii, 9; and that thus, as to
his humanity, he is the Mediator between God and man, since there is now
no other medium of God’s access to man, or of man’s access to God, but
this divine humanity, which was assumed for this purpose. Thus it is
taught, that in the person of Jesus Christ dwells the whole Trinity of
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Father constituting the soul of the
above humanity, while the humanity itself is the Son, and the divine
virtue or operation proceeding from it is the Holy Spirit; forming
altogether one God, just as the soul, the body, and operation of man,
form one man. On the subject of the redemption wrought by this incarnate
God, it is lastly taught that it consisted not in the vicarious
sacrifice of Christ, but in the real subjugation of the powers of
darkness and their removal from man, by continual combats and victories
over them, during his abode in the world; and in the consequent descent
to man of divine power and life, which was brought near to him in the
thus glorified humanity of this victorious God. They who receive this
testimony concerning Jesus Christ therefore acknowledge no other God but
him; and believe that in approaching his divine humanity, they approach,
at the same time, and have communication with, all the fulness of the
Godhead, seeing and worshipping the invisible in the visible, agreeably
to the tenor of those words of Jesus Christ: “He that believeth on me
believeth not on me, but on him that sent me; and he that seeth me,
seeth him that sent me,” John xii, 44, 45.
2. A second doctrine taught by the same author relates to the sacred
Scripture, or word of God, which is maintained to be divinely inspired
throughout, and, consequently, to be the repository of the whole will
and wisdom of the most high God. It is, however, insisted, that this
will and wisdom are not in all places discoverable from the letter or
history of the sacred pages, but lie deeply concealed under the letter.
For it is taught by Baron Swedenborg, that the sense of the letter of
the holy word is the basis, the continent, and the firmament, of its
spiritual and celestial senses, being written according to the doctrine
of correspondencies between things spiritual and things natural, and
thus designed by the Most High as the vehicle of communication of the
eternal spiritual truths of his kingdom to the minds of men. It is
farther endeavoured to be shown that Jesus Christ spake continually
according to this same doctrine, veiling divine and spiritual truths
under natural images, especially in his parables, and thus communicating
to man the most important mysteries relative to himself and his kingdom,
under the most beautiful and edifying figures taken from the natural
things of this world. Thus, according to Baron Swedenborg, even the
historical parts both of the Old and New Testament contain vast stores
of important and spiritual wisdom under the outward letter; and this
consideration, as he farther asserts, justifies the pages of divine
revelation, even in those parts which to a common observer appear
trifling, nugatory, and contradictory. It is lastly maintained, on this
subject, that the sacred Scripture, or word of God, is the only medium
of communication and conjunction between God and man, and is likewise
the only source of all genuine truth and knowledge respecting God, his
kingdom, and operation, and the only sure guide for man’s understanding,
in whatever relates to his spiritual or eternal concerns.
3. The next branch of the system is practical, and relates to the life,
or to that rule of conduct on the part of man which is truly acceptable
to the Deity, and at the same time conducive to man’s eternal happiness
and salvation, by conjoining him with his God. This rule is taught to be
simply this: to shun all known evils as sins against God, and at the
same time to love, to cherish, and to practise whatsoever is wise,
virtuous, and holy, as being most agreeable to the will of God, and to
the spirit of his precepts. On this subject it is strongly and
repeatedly insisted that evil must of necessity remain with man, and
prove his eternal destruction, unless it be removed by sincere
repentance, leading him to note what is disorderly in his own mind and
life; and, when he has discovered it, to fight resolutely against its
influence, in dependence on the aid and grace of Jesus Christ. It is
insisted farther, that this opposition to evil ought to be grounded on
the consideration that all evil is against God, since, if evil be
combated from any inferior motive, it is not radically removed, but only
concealed, and on that account is even more dangerous and destructive
than before. It is added, that when man has done the work of repentance,
by shunning his hereditary evils as sins against God, he ought to set
himself to the practice of what is wise and good by a faithful,
diligent, and conscientious discharge of all the duties of his station;
by which means his mind is preserved from a return of the power of
disorder, and kept in the order of heaven, and the fulfilment of the
great law of charity.
4. A fourth doctrine inculcated in the same writings, is the coöperation
on the part of man with the divine grace or agency of Jesus Christ. On
this subject it is insisted that man ought not indolently to hang down
his hands, under the idle expectation that God will do every thing for
him in the way of purification and regeneration, without any exertion of
his own; but that he is bound by the above law of coöperation to exert
himself, as if the whole progress of his purification and regeneration
depended entirely on his own exertions; yet, in exerting himself, he is
continually to recollect, and humbly to acknowledge, that all his power
to do so is from above, agreeably to the declaration of Jesus Christ,
“Without me ye can do nothing,” John xv, 5.
5. A fifth and last distinguishing doctrine taught in the theological
writings of our author, relates to man’s connection with the other
world, and its various inhabitants. On this subject, it is insisted, not
only from his view of the sacred Scriptures, but also from the
experience of the author himself, that every man is in continual
association with angels and spirits, and that without such association
he could not possibly think or exert any living faculty. It is insisted
farther, that man, according to his life in the world, takes up his
eternal abode, either with angels of light, or with the spirits of
darkness; with the former, if he is wise to live according to the
precepts of God’s holy word; or with the latter, if, through folly and
transgression, he rejects the counsel and guidance of the Most High.
Some other peculiar doctrines of minor importance might be enlarged on
in this place if it was deemed necessary; such as the doctrine
concerning the human soul, as being in a human form; concerning the
marriage of the good and the true, as existing in the holy word, and in
all things in nature. But it may be observed generally, that the
fundamental error of the system is a denial of the divinity of Christ,
while it appears to be acknowledged, and of the doctrine of the
atonement. Many true things are said also of the figurative and typical
character of the word of God; but the interpretation of it in this view
runs into the wildest extravagance for want of principles; while the
whole is clothed with mysticism on the one hand and gross and carnal
conceptions of spiritual things on the other. There is, indeed, much in
which this sect agrees with other Christians, and much, therefore, that
is true in their strange system; but it is unconnected with other great
and vital truths of the Gospel; and is joined also with great errors. It
is a dreamy delusion, which defies all rational defence: it rests upon
the assumed experience of a man of genius, it is true, but one who was
not always in his wits.
In London, and some of the other cities and great towns in England,
places of public worship have been opened, for the express purpose of
preaching the preceding doctrines. In all such places particular forms
of prayer have been adopted, in agreement with the ideas of the
worshippers, as grounded in the religious sentiments above stated,
especially respecting the supreme object of adoration, who is
acknowledged to be the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in his divine
humanity. But in no place have any peculiar rites and ceremonies been
introduced, the worshippers being content with retaining the celebration
of the two sacraments of baptism and the holy supper, since no other
rites are insisted on by the author whose testimony they receive. It is
believed, by a large majority of them, that it was never his intention
that any particular sect should be formed upon his doctrines, but that
all who receive them, whether in the establishment, or in any other
communion of Christians, should be at perfect liberty either to continue
in their former communion, or to quit it, as their conscience dictates.
England appears to be the country where the system has been most
generally received. Baron Swedenborg had many eccentricities; but
perhaps the most remarkable circumstance respecting him, was his
asserting, that, during the uninterrupted period of twenty-seven years,
he enjoyed open intercourse with the world of departed spirits, and
during that time was instructed in the internal sense of the sacred
Scriptures, hitherto undiscovered! This is a correspondence with the
invisible world, to which few or no writers, before or since his time,
ever pretended, if we except the Arabian prophet.